alexa
05-16 08:14 PM
Hi,
I'm in trouble situation, maybe somebody can give advice.
I can file I-485(Eb3 March 2005). But my wife & daugther basically out of status. Their H4 visas were not extended.
Before june bulletin I was thinking to go back home with my daughter (she is under 18) and try to get visa in consulate. It was attorney advice. Also he suggest to file for an asylym for my wife.
Now I'm going to file I-485 for whole family regardless what attorney will tell me.
Is it good idea to go directly to uscis office and ask them (can I file)?
And what will happen if their apps gets denied?
Any ideas?
I'm in trouble situation, maybe somebody can give advice.
I can file I-485(Eb3 March 2005). But my wife & daugther basically out of status. Their H4 visas were not extended.
Before june bulletin I was thinking to go back home with my daughter (she is under 18) and try to get visa in consulate. It was attorney advice. Also he suggest to file for an asylym for my wife.
Now I'm going to file I-485 for whole family regardless what attorney will tell me.
Is it good idea to go directly to uscis office and ask them (can I file)?
And what will happen if their apps gets denied?
Any ideas?
wallpaper 2011 ethenny frankel wedding
bayarea07
09-15 10:54 AM
bump
santb1975
01-09 09:21 PM
Anyone have a count?
2011 The wedding feast included
addsf345
11-17 02:15 PM
Good suggestion, I didn't ask about EAD, I will check next time. But I guess evantually EAD would be revoked after I485 is denied. I think H1 is a backup plan if MTR denied and till appeal is decided..
I am sending letter CIS ombudsman shortly.
well, EAD is denied when MTR is denied, makes sense. But if you see the information posted by 'desi485' in this other thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=302334&postcount=17), it may remain valid till validity. This is indeed confusing though. Please ask your lawyer and share with us everyone here.
I am sending letter CIS ombudsman shortly.
well, EAD is denied when MTR is denied, makes sense. But if you see the information posted by 'desi485' in this other thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=302334&postcount=17), it may remain valid till validity. This is indeed confusing though. Please ask your lawyer and share with us everyone here.
more...
angelfire76
11-03 08:23 PM
Good Job SUnnySurya, Congrats on this achievement, it helps people with more merits.
Consulting companies with fake skills/resumes will be busted now to get GC..
Not only consulting companies but genuine companies in the software arena will also face trouble. If I interpret it correctly, most new hires at places like Google, MSFT, Amazon etc. even if having MS from top-notch universities in the US can apply only under EB-3 as their job description will fall in Job Zone 4.
On the other hand somebody having a non-IT or CS degree from a mom&pop University can find a job, state its "research" and upgrade to Job Zone 5 and apply under EB-2.
I wonder how this will fly with the affected companies?
Consulting companies with fake skills/resumes will be busted now to get GC..
Not only consulting companies but genuine companies in the software arena will also face trouble. If I interpret it correctly, most new hires at places like Google, MSFT, Amazon etc. even if having MS from top-notch universities in the US can apply only under EB-3 as their job description will fall in Job Zone 4.
On the other hand somebody having a non-IT or CS degree from a mom&pop University can find a job, state its "research" and upgrade to Job Zone 5 and apply under EB-2.
I wonder how this will fly with the affected companies?
abhijitp
01-13 05:16 PM
wGpSCdeEkB4
more...
purgan
07-13 03:53 PM
Loo Doggs is a xenophobe and nativist to the core...
He doesn't like Illegal immigrants "because they broke the law"
He says he likes Legal immigration, but then he curses every avenue for legal immigration under curent law.
1. He calls the diversity visa lottery the "great american giveaway" and has called for its abolition.
2. He calls family immigration "chain migration"
3. Finally, he calls employment-based immigrants as "stealing american jobs"
C'mon dude, its time to give up the pretense that you like immigrants!!
He doesn't like Illegal immigrants "because they broke the law"
He says he likes Legal immigration, but then he curses every avenue for legal immigration under curent law.
1. He calls the diversity visa lottery the "great american giveaway" and has called for its abolition.
2. He calls family immigration "chain migration"
3. Finally, he calls employment-based immigrants as "stealing american jobs"
C'mon dude, its time to give up the pretense that you like immigrants!!
2010 ethenny frankel wedding
gc4me
05-25 08:41 AM
Can someone please answer this.
Nonimmigrant Visa Number: is this the contraol number of H1B stamping?
From first stamping or last one?
My last one I got from state department by mail. The 'psot' is mentioned as 'DEPARTMENT'. So if the control# from the last visa, then
'Consulate Where Visa Was Issued' will be what? Department?
Reply pls.
Nonimmigrant Visa Number: is this the contraol number of H1B stamping?
From first stamping or last one?
My last one I got from state department by mail. The 'psot' is mentioned as 'DEPARTMENT'. So if the control# from the last visa, then
'Consulate Where Visa Was Issued' will be what? Department?
Reply pls.
more...
SunnySurya
08-07 11:47 AM
No, I have the conviction, but don't have money...
If you need 50 people to support you then your own convictions are weak.
You do not need 50 people to file class action. There is no minimum number. You can do it yourself too.
If you need 50 people to support you then your own convictions are weak.
You do not need 50 people to file class action. There is no minimum number. You can do it yourself too.
hair ethenny frankel wedding cake.
Saralayar
04-08 10:00 PM
Let all the members who are here in USA for more than 9 years without a green card unite and make this as an ACTION ITEM for IV Core to consider this. Others who like this idea are most welcome to support this.
We all need to unite to get this going...
Everyone,
See the May 2009 Visa bulletin and decide yourself. Is it worth just wasting our time on the green card processing?. Let us concentrate on getting the Citizenship soon. Support this idea in mass and make this as a first priority on IV agenda.. It is time to think...
We all need to unite to get this going...
Everyone,
See the May 2009 Visa bulletin and decide yourself. Is it worth just wasting our time on the green card processing?. Let us concentrate on getting the Citizenship soon. Support this idea in mass and make this as a first priority on IV agenda.. It is time to think...
more...
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
hot makeup ethenny frankel wedding
stuck_here
02-05 11:28 AM
I've been stuck in India now for 55 days !:mad:
more...
house Bethenny+frankel+wedding+ring+
sidbee
09-24 01:22 PM
THe reason USCIS is showing low numbers for the reason that , no one will then raise the question for recpature. Looking at the numbers they will say, O, the numbers are so low, whats the need for recapture and we will be left hanging cold and dry.
This is a plot of a well planned strategy.
I don't think you should be drawing conclusions , or thinking of conspiracy theories.
This is a plot of a well planned strategy.
I don't think you should be drawing conclusions , or thinking of conspiracy theories.
tattoo star Bethenny Frankel is
arunkotte
06-28 11:58 PM
Which address are you guys using? Coz FedEx won`t ship to PO box. I am confused??
more...
pictures Bethenny Frankel March 31
prabasiodia
09-29 03:57 PM
They went from 2nd to 3rd level and from parents to children too. :D
The new link is: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
looks like uscis figured out that we r accessing the backlog data that they did not yet publish...... they pulled down the pdf document
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Parents)/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
this link is not working now.
The new link is: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/3rd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Children)/Green%20Card%20-%203rd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I485%20Reports.pdf
looks like uscis figured out that we r accessing the backlog data that they did not yet publish...... they pulled down the pdf document
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20(Left%20Nav%20Parents)/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
this link is not working now.
dresses Bethenny Getting Married
vtankala
01-05 12:27 PM
Yep great idea, i completely agree with other points except point#4. we should utilize facebook.com, myspace.com, change.gov to bring more awareness.
good luck for all
good luck for all
more...
makeup ethenny frankel wedding cake
pappu
06-21 08:15 AM
If you have other answers from lawyers, you can post them. Make sure to post the lawyer's name. Do not post your opinion. Post legal advice given to you by your lawyer, with the lawyer's name. This will help members get accurate advice and not opinions.
girlfriend Bethenny#39;s wedding cake. in
jayZinDC
01-26 12:32 PM
The funniest thing is 3/4 of the countries on the list are part of the erstwhile British empire. How's that for irony. They loot and dominate you on one hand and subject you to inane laws on the other. Here is a classic example of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
But here is another link to a funny article on the reverse
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/sigourd_shack/october_2007/thinking_of_travelling_to_india_for_a_holiday_or_b .htm
Found this on the site:
COUNTRY NATIONALS REQUIRING DIRECT AIRSIDE TRANSIT VISA:
AFGHANISTAN, ALBANIA, ALGERIA, ANGOLA, BANGLADESH, BELARUS, BURMA (MYANMAR), BURUNDI, CAMEROON, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, COLOMBIA, CONGO-BRAZZAVILLE, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (ZAIRE), ECUADOR, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GAMBIA, GHANA, GUINEA, GUINEA-BISSAU, INDIA, IRAN, IRAQ, IVORY COAST, KENYA, LEBANON, LIBERIA, MACEDONIA, MALAWI*, MOLDOVA, MONGOLIA, MONTENEGRO, NEPAL, NIGERIA, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, RWANDA, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SIERRA LEONE, SOMALIA, SRI LANKA, SUDAN, TANZANIA, TURKEY, TRNC, UGANDA, VIETNAM, YUGOSLAVIA, ZAIRE (FORMERLY DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO), ZIMBABWE.
In other words:
Color of Skin: Different shades of Brown.
Language: Predominantly non English.
Facial Features: Non Anglo Saxon (Indian, Arab, Oriental, African)
Economic Condition of the Country: so so to very bad.
If all the above points apply to you, then you must apply for a DAT Visa.
BTW Did they exclude any African country from the list?
But here is another link to a funny article on the reverse
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/sigourd_shack/october_2007/thinking_of_travelling_to_india_for_a_holiday_or_b .htm
Found this on the site:
COUNTRY NATIONALS REQUIRING DIRECT AIRSIDE TRANSIT VISA:
AFGHANISTAN, ALBANIA, ALGERIA, ANGOLA, BANGLADESH, BELARUS, BURMA (MYANMAR), BURUNDI, CAMEROON, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, COLOMBIA, CONGO-BRAZZAVILLE, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (ZAIRE), ECUADOR, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GAMBIA, GHANA, GUINEA, GUINEA-BISSAU, INDIA, IRAN, IRAQ, IVORY COAST, KENYA, LEBANON, LIBERIA, MACEDONIA, MALAWI*, MOLDOVA, MONGOLIA, MONTENEGRO, NEPAL, NIGERIA, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, RWANDA, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SIERRA LEONE, SOMALIA, SRI LANKA, SUDAN, TANZANIA, TURKEY, TRNC, UGANDA, VIETNAM, YUGOSLAVIA, ZAIRE (FORMERLY DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO), ZIMBABWE.
In other words:
Color of Skin: Different shades of Brown.
Language: Predominantly non English.
Facial Features: Non Anglo Saxon (Indian, Arab, Oriental, African)
Economic Condition of the Country: so so to very bad.
If all the above points apply to you, then you must apply for a DAT Visa.
BTW Did they exclude any African country from the list?
hairstyles Bethenny Frankel and Jason
rsharma
06-13 11:31 PM
H1B takes the job which he/she does, but L1s take at least 10+ jobs from US market to offshore.
asanghi
05-16 04:20 PM
Do you know how much time it will take to get that status change? What if your PD is no longer current?
Yes it is a concern that I have to address. However I see 2 ways to work around it.
1. Travel out of country get H4 stamping done based on my current H1B status
or
2. I apply for I-485 and add my wife later to the application when we have received her H4. In this case, once I have applied, I can add my wife to the application even if the dates are not current at that time.
Yes it is a concern that I have to address. However I see 2 ways to work around it.
1. Travel out of country get H4 stamping done based on my current H1B status
or
2. I apply for I-485 and add my wife later to the application when we have received her H4. In this case, once I have applied, I can add my wife to the application even if the dates are not current at that time.
sri1309
09-14 08:03 PM
Can somebody please send me the addresses for sending regular mail. I have 30 posters almost ready,. I am checking. I have those 6-7 addresses (Zoe, Director, John, department, etc) but I need many more.
I want to do this 1st thing MOnday morning. ..
Thanks,
Sri.
I want to do this 1st thing MOnday morning. ..
Thanks,
Sri.
