vjkypally
03-17 08:04 PM
Not eligible at the current time? If your circumstances change and you become eligible after you file your 2007 federal tax return, you can always file an amended return using Form 1040X. If you're not eligible this year but you become eligible next year, you can claim the economic stimulus payment next year on your 2008 tax return.
Guys as it states both you and your spouse need to have an SSN not ITIN.
So if one has ssn other has ITIN you are not qualified.
Guys as it states both you and your spouse need to have an SSN not ITIN.
So if one has ssn other has ITIN you are not qualified.
virtual55
09-13 04:35 PM
http://www.andhraheadlines.com/World/BrowseArticle.aspx?ArtID=2303
indio0617
03-09 10:38 AM
Talking about real -id act....
starscream
05-02 09:36 AM
Received a direct deposit from IRS today of $1200. I am on H1B and my wife on H4 and both of us have SSNs. We had filed jointly.
Also another friend of mine received his refud for a family of 4 - he is on H1B, wife on H4, both have SSNs, one daughter US citizen (has SSN) and another daughter Indian citizen (no SSN). He got 600 + 600 + 300= $ 1500.
It all adds up...
Also another friend of mine received his refud for a family of 4 - he is on H1B, wife on H4, both have SSNs, one daughter US citizen (has SSN) and another daughter Indian citizen (no SSN). He got 600 + 600 + 300= $ 1500.
It all adds up...
more...
Green.Tech
06-02 02:00 PM
Contributed $100 for June
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Thanks, coopheal!
Receipt ID: 47W850****
Thanks, coopheal!
SkilledWorker4GC
07-16 09:45 AM
What happened with sending out an email to all registered members?
We got to reach 3k by today.
Good Morning people.
A new beginning today. We missed our target of 2000 yesterday. Today we have a new target.
$3000.00 by mindnight EST.
Will we make it or will we miss again?
Common IV'rs, this a chance at redemption. Let us show the anti-immigrants that we are UNITED.
We got to reach 3k by today.
Good Morning people.
A new beginning today. We missed our target of 2000 yesterday. Today we have a new target.
$3000.00 by mindnight EST.
Will we make it or will we miss again?
Common IV'rs, this a chance at redemption. Let us show the anti-immigrants that we are UNITED.
more...
lazycis
11-20 01:11 PM
Some benefits can be revoked automatically (I-140, I-485), some can be revoked only after determination is made by USCIS and a beneficiary is notified and has an opportunity to respond. EAD is one of the latter.
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather — if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday — automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
485Mbe4001
01-04 01:13 PM
We have meetings every thursday at 7pm, you can join in if you want, i am from irvine too. i can send you the details let me know, if you and roktamurty are interested.
Hi Jimmi,
Count me in as well. I live in Irvine.... Great effort.... Lets get this rolling...
Regards,
Smarteey
Hi Jimmi,
Count me in as well. I live in Irvine.... Great effort.... Lets get this rolling...
Regards,
Smarteey
more...
arnab221
12-12 05:49 PM
What are the chances for the PD moving to Mid 2007 by end of 2010 ? :(
ita
08-26 10:01 AM
I'm glad you didn't ask for beauty salon:)
come to think of it trying to find out about kid's school is in fact very good ..kids are future..
This forum is for immigration purpose ..yes ..but if someone wants to educate themselves on other related/non related topics that should be fine a long as they are not forcing anyone to answer their question or coming in the way of the purspose of the forum..
any day better than some of the non-informative,unhealthy topics that have been discussed here..
But again each to their own as I guess everybody has their style of thinking what's healthy and what's not.
Thank you.
come to think of it trying to find out about kid's school is in fact very good ..kids are future..
This forum is for immigration purpose ..yes ..but if someone wants to educate themselves on other related/non related topics that should be fine a long as they are not forcing anyone to answer their question or coming in the way of the purspose of the forum..
any day better than some of the non-informative,unhealthy topics that have been discussed here..
But again each to their own as I guess everybody has their style of thinking what's healthy and what's not.
Thank you.
more...
raysaikat
01-06 04:11 PM
I am not sure why people jump onto drawing conclusions so fast...look at the above post from a so called professor....he encountered a couple of a folks from some universities & concludes that those universities are just crappy....!! Many of my colleagues are from the professors' "oh-so-good" list of IITs/univs and they are no better!! (In fact, some of them suck so bad)!!
raysaikat - Do you really think any student from the above crappy-univs could not tell what is f(0.7) by looking at the graph?? Do you really think those univs (anna/osm...) are so bad? Now another question for you prof....how come are you working in a university that's giving admissions to such a bunch of crappy folks...!!?? Given this fact, can we also safely assume that the university you are teaching-in is a Crappy one, which could only attract the bottom pile from your above list of crappy-universities??
PS: Sorry for digressing from the main topic of the thread.
I do not particularly disagree with either points. AFAIK, there are many colleges under the Anna University (i.e., students from all colleges get the same degree); some of them might teach properly and students may learn something. But the point of illustration was that there got to be some serious problems with those degrees if a significant number of students are getting that degree without actually learning/knowing anything. I never made a statement that *every* Anna/Osmania Univ. student is bad. My statement is that I have witnessed a large number of singularly bad students with degrees from those Universities. Those students may well be at the bottom pile. The point is that even a bottom level student who get an engineering degree must know better than those students: otherwise they should not be given the degrees. There are not-so-good people in IITs (B.Tech) as well; I know a few personally. But even they are way better than the students I have encountered. Let me know if you have met some B.Tech (and not M.Tech) from IIT who cannot write a 'hello world' in C; I am very curious.
I also do not disagree with your second comment. But that clearly illustrates the point that Wadhwa stated; there is a severe shortage of jobs that *require* a Ph.D. It is plain impossible to get a faculty position in a reasonable school in CS/EE, in particular, in computer networking. There are just no jobs. Note that my track record is quite good: Ph.D. from a good school (although not in the top ten) with a good publication list (a reasonable number of papers; all in good journals/conferences like Transaction on Networking; JSAC; INFOCOM, etc.; most of them cited many times) and a post-doc from an Ivy league school. At present, other than Biomedical Engineering and related fields, faculty positions are very scarce. And hopefully you understand that you cannot "change fields" like a computer programmer since in academia you need to have a research record of 4-5 years in the new field before you can change to it. I wanted to be in academia and struck this trade-off of accepting a position in a not-so-good school.
raysaikat - Do you really think any student from the above crappy-univs could not tell what is f(0.7) by looking at the graph?? Do you really think those univs (anna/osm...) are so bad? Now another question for you prof....how come are you working in a university that's giving admissions to such a bunch of crappy folks...!!?? Given this fact, can we also safely assume that the university you are teaching-in is a Crappy one, which could only attract the bottom pile from your above list of crappy-universities??
PS: Sorry for digressing from the main topic of the thread.
I do not particularly disagree with either points. AFAIK, there are many colleges under the Anna University (i.e., students from all colleges get the same degree); some of them might teach properly and students may learn something. But the point of illustration was that there got to be some serious problems with those degrees if a significant number of students are getting that degree without actually learning/knowing anything. I never made a statement that *every* Anna/Osmania Univ. student is bad. My statement is that I have witnessed a large number of singularly bad students with degrees from those Universities. Those students may well be at the bottom pile. The point is that even a bottom level student who get an engineering degree must know better than those students: otherwise they should not be given the degrees. There are not-so-good people in IITs (B.Tech) as well; I know a few personally. But even they are way better than the students I have encountered. Let me know if you have met some B.Tech (and not M.Tech) from IIT who cannot write a 'hello world' in C; I am very curious.
I also do not disagree with your second comment. But that clearly illustrates the point that Wadhwa stated; there is a severe shortage of jobs that *require* a Ph.D. It is plain impossible to get a faculty position in a reasonable school in CS/EE, in particular, in computer networking. There are just no jobs. Note that my track record is quite good: Ph.D. from a good school (although not in the top ten) with a good publication list (a reasonable number of papers; all in good journals/conferences like Transaction on Networking; JSAC; INFOCOM, etc.; most of them cited many times) and a post-doc from an Ivy league school. At present, other than Biomedical Engineering and related fields, faculty positions are very scarce. And hopefully you understand that you cannot "change fields" like a computer programmer since in academia you need to have a research record of 4-5 years in the new field before you can change to it. I wanted to be in academia and struck this trade-off of accepting a position in a not-so-good school.
ItIsNotFunny
10-21 11:06 AM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Guys,
This is one of the most serious issue we are facing in current time. Lay offs are happening left and right and on top of that employers learned that AC21 is giving troubles, they started squeezing more (I myself is partially victim of that).
We need sincere efforts sending emails to ombudsman. This will not take more than 5 minutes as NK2006 put efforts on even giving you the email template.
I sincerely urge everyone to send emails to addresses NK2006 mentioned above and even request your collegues, spouse to do so. We need volume to show our presence.
One more request, please take one more minute and make sure that you post here that you sent emails. This will give us real picture and give others motivation too!
I sent my emails (actually twice ;)).
more...
vxg
09-11 03:47 PM
Next year Jul-Sep 2009, PD should move to mid 2006 again.
My 2 cents.[/QUOTE]
And than they will again approve 2006-2007 cases instead of 2003 what a joke. The cycle continues and folks with 2003-2004 PD continue to wait.
My 2 cents.[/QUOTE]
And than they will again approve 2006-2007 cases instead of 2003 what a joke. The cycle continues and folks with 2003-2004 PD continue to wait.
cbpds
12-11 03:30 PM
Hi Pappu and IV seniors,
I will contribute to IV generously(monetory and otherwise) if you help us with the prefiling of EAD for approved 140's, atleast USCIS will get money from us every year and it helps us too.
We dont mind standing last in the queue for another 10 years as long as we have EAD.
HELP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can we check with CIS if they plan to pursue this option (pre-485 step)?
Is there a plan to start a campaign for this? I would be willing to contribute (monetary and effort) if there's such a plan...
I can see there are a lot of folks who would welcome such a plan.
I will contribute to IV generously(monetory and otherwise) if you help us with the prefiling of EAD for approved 140's, atleast USCIS will get money from us every year and it helps us too.
We dont mind standing last in the queue for another 10 years as long as we have EAD.
HELP !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can we check with CIS if they plan to pursue this option (pre-485 step)?
Is there a plan to start a campaign for this? I would be willing to contribute (monetary and effort) if there's such a plan...
I can see there are a lot of folks who would welcome such a plan.
more...
snhn
06-10 02:16 PM
From July onwards since there will be no EB3 visas to give, will those IOs previously assigned to EB3 cases be freed up, or will they continue working on EB3 cases (stopping just short of approving them)? What happens to RD who are in July, will their cases continue to process or no will look at them
GCStatus
09-14 04:16 AM
Please join our hands at "If i can be a little blunt" thread
more...
sareesh
09-13 01:39 PM
where you promoted for EB2 ?
thanks,
SG.
thanks,
SG.
sareesh
09-13 04:06 PM
9years,
my labor was MS + 2 years. Attorney did not file my I140 under EB2 because I have 23 months full time experience and 2 years GA experience.
thanks,
SG
my labor was MS + 2 years. Attorney did not file my I140 under EB2 because I have 23 months full time experience and 2 years GA experience.
thanks,
SG
black_logs
12-30 11:33 AM
Guys, Please enter the information about the PBEC approvals here
rick_rajvanshi
07-06 05:41 PM
7/06/2007: Temporary Restraining Order of July Visa Bulletin Lawsuit Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as Separate from AILF Class Action
* On July 6, 2007, the attorneys of Azulay, Horn & Seiden lawfirm filed this lawsuit individually in Illinois.
* On July 6, 2007, the attorneys of Azulay, Horn & Seiden lawfirm filed this lawsuit individually in Illinois.
Canadian_Dream
06-02 08:18 PM
You are correct, it only uses I-140 application as a basis of setting the cut-off (Not I-485).
In my opinion:
Date of Introduction: May 15 2007
Effective Date: Oct 01 2008
Scenarios:
Scenario 1: I-140 Filed after Introduction and Approved before effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 2: I-140 Filed after Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases have to refile.
Scenario 3: I-140 Filed before Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 4: I-140 not filed becasue of backlogged labor. They retain the priority date but have to restart in the new system, whatever that means.
Only bad scenario is 2 and 4. The other bad aspect is reduced supply of immigrant visa 90,000.
Hey Canadian Dream:
I know things might change , i wish this law doesnt pass through at all. But in its form this is interpretation of major members and attorneys in current stage. Please correct me if i am wrong.
I might agree with your conclusion of start date, but Now coming to to cases :
Petetion for an employment based visa = I 140 , that were filed prior to the date of intro ( for our sake its Oct 2008 or May 15 2007 ) that were pending or approved , shall be treated as if such provision remained effective.
An approved petition may server as basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
and for all people who are still in Labor stage will preserve their priority date.
Now based on this , if you have filed an I140 before the date of enactment what ever it might one should be fine. Once dates becomes current and I140 approved one can file for 485 in previous system.
I dont see any conclusion based on 485 is approved or not its just adjustment of status once PD become current , i think its all 140 that determines you are approved as an immigrant or not.
===========================
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
In my opinion:
Date of Introduction: May 15 2007
Effective Date: Oct 01 2008
Scenarios:
Scenario 1: I-140 Filed after Introduction and Approved before effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 2: I-140 Filed after Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases have to refile.
Scenario 3: I-140 Filed before Introduction and not approved on the effective date. These cases are eligible for Immigrant Visa, whenever available.
Scenario 4: I-140 not filed becasue of backlogged labor. They retain the priority date but have to restart in the new system, whatever that means.
Only bad scenario is 2 and 4. The other bad aspect is reduced supply of immigrant visa 90,000.
Hey Canadian Dream:
I know things might change , i wish this law doesnt pass through at all. But in its form this is interpretation of major members and attorneys in current stage. Please correct me if i am wrong.
I might agree with your conclusion of start date, but Now coming to to cases :
Petetion for an employment based visa = I 140 , that were filed prior to the date of intro ( for our sake its Oct 2008 or May 15 2007 ) that were pending or approved , shall be treated as if such provision remained effective.
An approved petition may server as basis for issuance of an immigrant visa.
and for all people who are still in Labor stage will preserve their priority date.
Now based on this , if you have filed an I140 before the date of enactment what ever it might one should be fine. Once dates becomes current and I140 approved one can file for 485 in previous system.
I dont see any conclusion based on 485 is approved or not its just adjustment of status once PD become current , i think its all 140 that determines you are approved as an immigrant or not.
===========================
40 (2) PENDING AND APPROVED PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.�Petitions
41 for an employment-based visa filed for classification under
42 section 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Immigration and Nationality
43 Act (as such provisions existed prior to the enactment of this
44 section) that were filed prior to the date of the introduction of
265
1 the [Insert title of Act] and were pending or approved at the
2 time of the effective date of this section, shall be treated as if
3 such provision remained effective and an approved petition may
4 serve as the basis for issuance of an immigrant visa. Aliens with
5 applications for a labor certification pursuant to section
6 212(a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall
7 preserve the immigrant visa priority date accorded by the date
8 of filing of such labor certification application.
No comments:
Post a Comment