chandsri81
04-27 06:53 AM
Thank you! I have sent them my I-140 and 485 and also past and present EADs to show that this is something that needs to be renewed every 2 years.
Keeping my fingers crossed now..
Keeping my fingers crossed now..
wallpaper No dejes que tu amor te
seahawks
09-13 01:23 AM
send to Chris Matthews of Hardball and Keith Olbermann of Countdown.
diptam
07-06 01:07 PM
Badluck,
Expensive or cheap - Please name him and the contact details.
May be we want to set up a small appointment with him - who knows, Thousands of possibilities.
Why aren't you giving the name & contact details ????
Thanks dude
Thats what he is saying.. he is an expensive lawyer...
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
Expensive or cheap - Please name him and the contact details.
May be we want to set up a small appointment with him - who knows, Thousands of possibilities.
Why aren't you giving the name & contact details ????
Thanks dude
Thats what he is saying.. he is an expensive lawyer...
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
2011 amor nicole friend. imagenes
rainy
09-09 03:44 PM
Contributed USD 200. Google Order #356296463228380.
more...
ilwaiting
04-25 11:33 AM
Guys,
As long as the legal immigration is part of a illegal immigration reform bill. Its hard to push these "brilliant ideas" before congress or USCIS. Its very unfortunate that Congress doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.
All are talking about "Comprehensive immigration reform"
but just think, what is really happening in terms of "comprehensiveness" for Legal immigrants? recapture old visa numbers to clear backlogs thats it? Would the multi teir very complex legal immigration process getting any better? Why should a person wait for a PD to become current for 4+ years when DOL(labor Dept certified that there is a requirement for the job?).
Why are we calling it "comprehensive" then? give some thought about it.
Thanks
As long as the legal immigration is part of a illegal immigration reform bill. Its hard to push these "brilliant ideas" before congress or USCIS. Its very unfortunate that Congress doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.
All are talking about "Comprehensive immigration reform"
but just think, what is really happening in terms of "comprehensiveness" for Legal immigrants? recapture old visa numbers to clear backlogs thats it? Would the multi teir very complex legal immigration process getting any better? Why should a person wait for a PD to become current for 4+ years when DOL(labor Dept certified that there is a requirement for the job?).
Why are we calling it "comprehensive" then? give some thought about it.
Thanks
skillet
06-18 01:06 PM
No.. They are not auditing..
more...
bharol
08-16 10:24 PM
Looking at the recent approvals looks like USCIS does the following:
1. Pick up x number of files using a random algorithm.
2. Arrange these files in a random order using the same random algorithm
followed in step 1.
3. Randomly pick any file arranged in step 2.
4. Toss a coin.
5. On odd dates if it is heads,approve the file. On even dates if it is tails
approve it.
6. If file is not approved in step 5 put it on the shelf to be picked up
in step 1 in next cycle.
1. Pick up x number of files using a random algorithm.
2. Arrange these files in a random order using the same random algorithm
followed in step 1.
3. Randomly pick any file arranged in step 2.
4. Toss a coin.
5. On odd dates if it is heads,approve the file. On even dates if it is tails
approve it.
6. If file is not approved in step 5 put it on the shelf to be picked up
in step 1 in next cycle.
2010 amor nicole friend. Sin amor vivimos .. sin ti,NO
sparklinks
08-10 12:58 PM
no receipts for me too :( r Williams 7:55am 07/02
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
R Williams 7:55am 07/02, NO receipt either...:confused:
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
R Williams 7:55am 07/02, NO receipt either...:confused:
more...
john2255
07-21 07:42 AM
What you should do.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
hair yogurt. amor nicole friend
hmehta
07-22 05:12 PM
Yes, me too - joined yahoo groups.
joined the yahoo group.
Others may put a message about their joining here.
joined the yahoo group.
Others may put a message about their joining here.
more...
semiGator
01-11 08:48 AM
I had a similar problem last year. Could not get the needed loan and finally gave up arguing with the 2 loan officers from 2 banks. Sorry can't give a cheerful picture:(
hot amor nicole friend. amor
skillet
06-22 01:51 PM
I know they have been saying this from Mid May. Lets see. I guess HOPE is the only answer!!
more...
house amor roma. amor nicole friend
rockstart
06-25 02:32 PM
I have no problems working for millionaires and billionaires but because of government apathy most of the big corporations are scared of hiring people on H1B ( to be specific on their own h1b) When I went to school in Kentucky which is not very industrialized state we had Toyota, Lexmark as top companies in our area but both did not want to sponsor H1B. The only way you can work with them is by joining some small time consulting firm and working as contractor. Else these guys just outsource their development to TCS/ Wipro folks. So the billionaire business man gets hsi work done from offshore place and qualified people start to move to IT jobs and code in java or dotnet.
And then you lose your libido :). Agreed�. With the delay you lose the golden period in your career and end up at a lower level. Most of the self made millionaires rockstarted young when they had the drive and desire. I still say America gains more than what they lose by delaying GC process. If they hand out GCs faster then who will work for those millionaires and billionaires?.
And then you lose your libido :). Agreed�. With the delay you lose the golden period in your career and end up at a lower level. Most of the self made millionaires rockstarted young when they had the drive and desire. I still say America gains more than what they lose by delaying GC process. If they hand out GCs faster then who will work for those millionaires and billionaires?.
tattoo amor nicole friend.
GCKaMaara
02-23 12:53 PM
people,
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Wonderful! How much I believe IO from USCIS is a different story :)
i just returned from an infopass meeting... the guy i talked to said that they recently have a directive from the DHS/USCIS that they want to separate the legal stuff from the illegal stuff and hence they are planning to adjudicate a record number of EB apps in the next quarter or two... does anyone else concur? is this true or were my ears just ringing in that meeting?
--shark
Wonderful! How much I believe IO from USCIS is a different story :)
more...
pictures Like, this is Nicole#39;s friend
chanduv23
11-24 04:55 PM
If extension has already been granted, it remains valid until it's expired, revoked by USCIS, revoked by employer or employer goes out of business. However, H1B status is technically lost (similary to the situation when h1b holder leaves the petitioner but petitioner never revokes h1). Even if USCIS does not revoke the extension, it will be investigated during new I-485 processing/H1 transfer or extension.
If that is the case, then h1b is not an option at all.
If that is the case, then h1b is not an option at all.
dresses wallpaper amor nicole friend.
senk1s
05-02 09:08 AM
thats all the more reason to recapture visa numbers ... forever.
If they hit 90-95% of the target for the current year - the following year the exact number will be known - and that can be allotted
If they hit 90-95% of the target for the current year - the following year the exact number will be known - and that can be allotted
more...
makeup amor nicole friend
chantu
07-11 11:44 AM
I have one question?
I have case id for ETA form. I could see my details by downloading MDB file from flcdatacenter. How can I know whether I am EB2 or EB3? I do not want to ask my employer.
Can somebody please answer?
I have case id for ETA form. I could see my details by downloading MDB file from flcdatacenter. How can I know whether I am EB2 or EB3? I do not want to ask my employer.
Can somebody please answer?
girlfriend amor nicole friend. If men were equally at risk from this condition - if
EAD
09-12 01:37 PM
I am a new member and sent $50 by personal check to IV.
EAD
PD: May 04 (BEC cleared Nov 06)
I-140: Jan 07 (Pending NSC)
I-485: Aug 07 ( No reciepts)
EAD
PD: May 04 (BEC cleared Nov 06)
I-140: Jan 07 (Pending NSC)
I-485: Aug 07 ( No reciepts)
hairstyles amor nicole friend
SAP
08-23 02:31 PM
i have 14 yrs full time exp,
i have MBA
i have made significant contributions for my comp and saved millions over a period of time; and i can get reference letters from top mgmt
my question can i file my own 140 under exceptional ability category. ? and just to make sure do i need a labor ?
regards
sap
i have MBA
i have made significant contributions for my comp and saved millions over a period of time; and i can get reference letters from top mgmt
my question can i file my own 140 under exceptional ability category. ? and just to make sure do i need a labor ?
regards
sap
diptam
08-02 04:00 PM
Whenever i read your Post i feel Good - The Rep that i spoke to USCIS told me that July 2nd filers has minimum wait till Aug 15th :D
By the way there is a Prediction for OCT Bulletin in Market >>
EB3 India retrogressed to MAY 2001 and so on , so forth - Enjoy...
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Jan%20P...n%208-2-07.pdf
I had an email conversation with my lawyer regarding 180 day portability. She said that the count for 180 days should begin with notice date for safe side.
However the count begins with Receipt Date which is a day or 2 off from the actual application receive date (mail received date).
This is what i got from my lawyer.
By the way there is a Prediction for OCT Bulletin in Market >>
EB3 India retrogressed to MAY 2001 and so on , so forth - Enjoy...
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Jan%20P...n%208-2-07.pdf
I had an email conversation with my lawyer regarding 180 day portability. She said that the count for 180 days should begin with notice date for safe side.
However the count begins with Receipt Date which is a day or 2 off from the actual application receive date (mail received date).
This is what i got from my lawyer.
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment