chanduv23
02-15 06:57 AM
I moved to a desi consulting company after I got layed off in 6th year of h1b. Things have worked out well after that and I got extensions as well as good salary everything is good, 140 approved, paperwork excellent etc.... But recently I asked my lawyer for a copy of my L/C and i 140 petition and she refused to give, then my employer requested them to give it to me. They gave it but they started picking me for no reason, they got into a verbal rift with me and finally I had to talk to my employer and we deicded not to use their services anymore just for my case, because my employer was bullshitting to me that "Chandrakanth" is the only person having problem with the lawyer so "Chandrakanth will have a different Lawyer".
In general, there will be similar problems to any consultant, in my case, just the fact that my employer does treat me a bit fair and is willing to help.
So when you deal with consulting companies, be careful, not all employers will tend to support consultants.
I am now looking for an excellent lawyer who will straighten out things in terms of documentation and avoid mis representation of facts on my petitions (485 - long way to go). Till date, my current lawyer considered me a pain only because I was going over every petition of mine checking for discrepencies and they were not comfortable about it.
In general - based on what is going on in background during retrogression, consulting companies are under extreme sccrutiny for mis representing facts, so follow up ur petitions carefully.
In general, there will be similar problems to any consultant, in my case, just the fact that my employer does treat me a bit fair and is willing to help.
So when you deal with consulting companies, be careful, not all employers will tend to support consultants.
I am now looking for an excellent lawyer who will straighten out things in terms of documentation and avoid mis representation of facts on my petitions (485 - long way to go). Till date, my current lawyer considered me a pain only because I was going over every petition of mine checking for discrepencies and they were not comfortable about it.
In general - based on what is going on in background during retrogression, consulting companies are under extreme sccrutiny for mis representing facts, so follow up ur petitions carefully.
wallpaper RE5 Gold - Jill Valentine
GreenCard4US
07-16 09:12 PM
Someone mentioned that IV has the same web fax facility. Can someone tell us how to use this facility. I registered with the numbersusa site and used their own fax to send out our message. I used the first name, last name and address form fields to put in our message like, "Bunch of Lies", "H1 pay all taxes", Numbersusa is spreading false information". Lets beat them at their own game by sending faxes ourselves and also using their fax service to spread our message. If its a good idea, please register on their site and send out faxes with our message.
drirshad
06-20 06:23 PM
Is there any official Period of Stay form or its just a summary statement from us about entry exit from start till now.
2011 reading fc wallpaper, Jill
vansree
07-13 06:29 PM
I talked to her related my case complexity - Border revoking my visa - She just wants money. She cannot provide any clear details, any expectations.
Just to be part of the cloud and claim something she did, actually apart from the web site, she wont even talk to you once take up the case. Some of her colleagues or assistants talk.
She just want to get money ... Being Indian, I can say she is typical person for money. Highly C** mind...
if it is trouble some, she wont even reply!
Just to be part of the cloud and claim something she did, actually apart from the web site, she wont even talk to you once take up the case. Some of her colleagues or assistants talk.
She just want to get money ... Being Indian, I can say she is typical person for money. Highly C** mind...
if it is trouble some, she wont even reply!
more...
BlueSunD
02-16 05:56 PM
count me in too! :) Just started today, but i'll see if I post some wip screens.
dhesha
03-16 03:06 PM
The biggest problem is interfiling from EB3 to EB2. USCIS must not allow anyone to change categories and retain old priority dates. This is nothing short of cheating ! What about the people who have been standing in line. You can't just change the rules when they suit you and get into the middle of the line. Pathetic !
Similarly - LC SUB guys are getting into the middle of the line even though they came to US years after many of us who are already in pipe-line. This is even more pathetic.
Similarly - LC SUB guys are getting into the middle of the line even though they came to US years after many of us who are already in pipe-line. This is even more pathetic.
more...
aadimanav
09-10 10:17 PM
Updates from Greg Siskind's
[Update] My report below is not correct. The initial report I received on the markup was not correct and the markup process was not competed today. I believe work is going to continue tomorrow or Friday and hopefully this will be done by the weekend. Apologies.]
[Update] My report below is not correct. The initial report I received on the markup was not correct and the markup process was not competed today. I believe work is going to continue tomorrow or Friday and hopefully this will be done by the weekend. Apologies.]
2010 Resident Evil 5 Jill Valentine BSAA Version 1/6th Scale Fully Poseable
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
more...
dish
07-02 09:59 AM
Is Green Card numbers allocated beginning of every quarter. USCIS Fiscal year runs from october 1st to sept 30th.So for July being the start 4th quarter of the FY 07 shouldn't USCIS be allocating visa numbers in JULY. They cannot use up all the visa numbers for the FY 07 before july, Am I right ?
Supposing USCIS retrogresses PDs to 2001 or 2002, why not we push more for grabbing the wasted Green Card numbers in the prior years.
Supposing USCIS retrogresses PDs to 2001 or 2002, why not we push more for grabbing the wasted Green Card numbers in the prior years.
hair from Resident Evil 5.
PavanV
06-10 02:00 PM
If this law does pass, it will definitely will be bad for US economy, good for the world.
more...
validIV
03-09 01:09 PM
F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
Looks like EB3 Philippines and ROW is stuck at 03 till October. gg retrogression.
During the past year, many preference categories have experienced steady and sometimes rapid cut-off date movement. Such action is normally followed by an increase in applicant demand. Heavy applicant demand for numbers in some categories could require cut-off date movements to slow, stop, or even retrogress at some point during the remainder of FY in order to hold visa use within the applicable annual numerical limits. Should such action occur, it would most likely be only temporary in nature, pending the start of the new fiscal year in October.
Looks like EB3 Philippines and ROW is stuck at 03 till October. gg retrogression.
hot Jill from Resident Evil 5,
akred
01-21 02:26 AM
Assuming everyone stays the course, under these timelines
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
1. At least 5% of applicants will be sponsored by their American children.
2. Another 5% will have their first million and move to the investor's category.
The timelines would be a maximum of 20 years or so, at which point people would be sponsored by their children.
more...
house Resident Evil 5 Jill Valentine
bkarnik
07-25 06:46 PM
Thanks a lot, please keep us posted about the outcome, even if we have one percent of hope, there is no harm trying that.
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
tattoo jill valentine resident evil 5
GCVivek
05-23 01:46 PM
Here is the issue: If you are thinking of doing MBA to get a management job in a US company and are an Indian, please forget it. You might get a low level management position paying at most 80K. MBA is not for everyone - you have to have it in you to get something out of an MBA. It's not about landing that good job. You hear about the 1 crore offers that IIM students get from top American companies? Well, they are kicked out of the job in 1 year and then join Infosys or Wipro. Not because they are not brilliant but because their conversational skills are terrible and so is their language. Unless you are planning to settle in India OR REALLY THINKING OF PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT in mastering the English language and your outlook, an MBA is not going to serve you in the US.
Like, someone said, an MBA is more than just a degree. You can get a better, much higher paying job (300K+) without an MBA but with excellent logic, hard work, conversational skills and outgoing personality. No GC required :)
Like, someone said, an MBA is more than just a degree. You can get a better, much higher paying job (300K+) without an MBA but with excellent logic, hard work, conversational skills and outgoing personality. No GC required :)
more...
pictures clipart for teachers, Jill
Anu119
01-11 11:36 AM
Hi:
I just joined the chapter.
Would love to be able to volnteer my services to this cause. How can I help? Also it may be a good idea to start a local support group for those of us in line waiting for this immigration hell to be over...may be a get together of some sort....
Wishin' for a better future ahead for all us immigration victims
PD for self: August 03
Labor Cert: pending
PD for husband: Dec 03
Labor Cert & I-140: appoved.
I just joined the chapter.
Would love to be able to volnteer my services to this cause. How can I help? Also it may be a good idea to start a local support group for those of us in line waiting for this immigration hell to be over...may be a get together of some sort....
Wishin' for a better future ahead for all us immigration victims
PD for self: August 03
Labor Cert: pending
PD for husband: Dec 03
Labor Cert & I-140: appoved.
dresses nakul sahdev, Jill
pappu
07-01 06:11 PM
Everyone is busy partying.
No we are not partying. Welcome to IV. Please update your profile with full information. Thanks.
No we are not partying. Welcome to IV. Please update your profile with full information. Thanks.
more...
makeup Jill Valentine Resident Evil 5
bigboy007
07-18 09:26 AM
other than some quoting did you know any of your friends or your attorneys cases getting rejected.
girlfriend Resident Evil 5 Screenshot
IAF
11-11 01:28 PM
I agree!
The three prone system is in place to keep check and balances. I think it will be good idea to take it to judiciary. Judiciary can advice legislative and executive branch to resolve the problem. I think just going to that level will trigger lot of momentum.
The three prone system is in place to keep check and balances. I think it will be good idea to take it to judiciary. Judiciary can advice legislative and executive branch to resolve the problem. I think just going to that level will trigger lot of momentum.
hairstyles Chris Redfield - Resident Evil
gapala
05-28 07:20 PM
Look how irresponsible the officers have become now a days.. they lie.. intemidate and harass the people... feels like 3rd world country... unbelievable!
Here's the story.. http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10440200
PADEN, Oklahoma -- An Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper and a paramedic were caught on tape scuffling Sunday while a patient was being taken to the hospital.
The fight happened on Highway 62, near Paden, after a OHP and first responders argued over a close call on the road.
OHP alleges that one of the paramedics on the video assaulted the trooper, but the assault was not caught on tape.
"We're like trying to tell the guy, 'Dude, my mom is in the back,' and my stepdad was like, 'My wife is in the back. Can we do this at the hospital?'" said Kenyada Davis.
Kenyada Davis' mother was the woman in the back of the ambulance being treated for heat exhaustion.
He was able to shoot the altercation with his cell phone's camera.
Davis said it all started because the ambulance failed to yield to OHP troopers, who were en route to a call along highway 62 in Paden.
Davis said the driver of the ambulance was trying to avoid hitting a car that slowed down and wasn't aware of troopers nearby until it was too late.
"He slowed down, and as the car was getting over, that's when he passed us," Davis said. "I didn't hear him."
But after OHP troopers finished their official business, they pulled the Creek Nation ambulance over. One of the troopers chided Paul for failing to yield.
Once the ambulance was pulled over, Davis pulled out his phone and shot video of the scene.
Video is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KluItc365hU
Here's the story.. http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10440200
PADEN, Oklahoma -- An Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper and a paramedic were caught on tape scuffling Sunday while a patient was being taken to the hospital.
The fight happened on Highway 62, near Paden, after a OHP and first responders argued over a close call on the road.
OHP alleges that one of the paramedics on the video assaulted the trooper, but the assault was not caught on tape.
"We're like trying to tell the guy, 'Dude, my mom is in the back,' and my stepdad was like, 'My wife is in the back. Can we do this at the hospital?'" said Kenyada Davis.
Kenyada Davis' mother was the woman in the back of the ambulance being treated for heat exhaustion.
He was able to shoot the altercation with his cell phone's camera.
Davis said it all started because the ambulance failed to yield to OHP troopers, who were en route to a call along highway 62 in Paden.
Davis said the driver of the ambulance was trying to avoid hitting a car that slowed down and wasn't aware of troopers nearby until it was too late.
"He slowed down, and as the car was getting over, that's when he passed us," Davis said. "I didn't hear him."
But after OHP troopers finished their official business, they pulled the Creek Nation ambulance over. One of the troopers chided Paul for failing to yield.
Once the ambulance was pulled over, Davis pulled out his phone and shot video of the scene.
Video is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KluItc365hU
apb
08-16 01:04 PM
Provided there is a separate check associated with that. If 485 is not filed your EAD/AP application will be rejected. Once your date becomes current CHANGE your lawyer because from my understanding of your situation either your lawyer is ignorant or he/she has pathetic attitude towards your case.
mariner5555
02-14 06:31 AM
Canuck,
There is no divide and rule policy by US as giving H1 does not mean that you have to file for Immigration, It is the choice of the person to get immigrated to US and US has set some policies by quota system. If you don't like it then no one is forcing you to stay back (US will say that if u sue USCIS).
Thought to chip in my 2 cents as you are showing similarities of british raj and US. First of all it was the fault of the kings in India during that time who were not united enough to kick them out.
Cheers
permfiling
EB2 -INDIA
N Cal Chapter maybe there is no divide and rule - but definitely when they thought of country limits - they must have debated and come to conclusion that there should not be domination from one country (as one country people can become powerful - demand more etc) .so in a way it is divide. but in this age - country limits dont make sense. the problem is laws dont change easily.
There is no divide and rule policy by US as giving H1 does not mean that you have to file for Immigration, It is the choice of the person to get immigrated to US and US has set some policies by quota system. If you don't like it then no one is forcing you to stay back (US will say that if u sue USCIS).
Thought to chip in my 2 cents as you are showing similarities of british raj and US. First of all it was the fault of the kings in India during that time who were not united enough to kick them out.
Cheers
permfiling
EB2 -INDIA
N Cal Chapter maybe there is no divide and rule - but definitely when they thought of country limits - they must have debated and come to conclusion that there should not be domination from one country (as one country people can become powerful - demand more etc) .so in a way it is divide. but in this age - country limits dont make sense. the problem is laws dont change easily.
