susie
07-15 11:19 AM
APPENDIX: REFORM SOLUTIONS
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
A compassionate visa is immediately required for reasons of humanity and dignity. Currently, because of the technicalities of US immigration laws many families torn apart are also subject to more degrading treatment at times of severe illness. Any provision should allow for the following:
* US residents, including those who are landlocked, to leave the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons;
* Non-US residents to enter the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons on a nonimmigrant basis;
* Evidence of immigrant intent should not prevent a person receiving a compassionate visa (such as an existing immigrant petition), unless an applicant makes it absolutely clear their intention is to immigrate and not to enter the USA on a temporary basis;
* To prevent abuse of such a visa, documentary evidence should be required as appropriate to ensure the application is made in good faith; and
* Compassionate visa processing should be dealt with the USCIS for US residents and in the consular office for non-US residents on an expedited basis if the imminent death of a close relative or funeral arrangements for a deceased relative is at issue.
INA, section 203(h) (as inserted by the Child States Protection Act, section 3) (8 U.S.C.1153(h))
Current Provision in INA, section 203(h)
�RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-
(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using--
(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien's parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by
(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.
(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is--
(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien's parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).
(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(4) and (d), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.''
Explanation
The references to �(a)(2)(A)� refers to principal beneficiaries and �(d)� refers to derivative beneficiaries. Subsection (1) provides a calculation to be considered a child under the family-based preference categories in light of USCIS processing delays. Subsection (2) describes the types of petition covered, ensuring beneficiaries, whether principal or derivative, are treated as a child under 21. Subsection (3) is another useful provision so that if the calculation of a beneficiary renders them over 21, they can retain the priority date of the original petition.
Problems
The language of this provision has rendered the provision open to ambiguity. Specifically, subsection (3) states the �alien�s petition shall be automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.� The problem is in relation to a derivative beneficiary (which is covered by this subsection) and is twofold. First, by its nature of being a derivative, a derivative beneficiary does not have an original application to speak of. Only the parent has a petition, which has caused the ambiguity. A Board of Immigration (BIA) decision did provide a common sense interpretation (Garcia, Maria T, File A79-001-587, June 16, 2006), but this is not binding on the USCIS and we know first hand that the USCIS has not consistently interpreted the provision in accordance with the BIA decision. Second, although the above mentioned BIA decision clarifies the provision also applies to F4 derivative beneficiaries, these petitions do not automatically convert. An F4 derivative beneficiary who ages still must wait for their Parent to file a new I-130 form, which is inconsistent with the language of the provision.
Another problem is if the new proposed points system is implemented, any person who ages out will no longer have a direct basis for immigration. Instead they would have to qualify under a points system, which is not guaranteed. This new system would make the above provisions redundant.
Solutions
The Need for a Compassionate Visa
A compassionate visa is immediately required for reasons of humanity and dignity. Currently, because of the technicalities of US immigration laws many families torn apart are also subject to more degrading treatment at times of severe illness. Any provision should allow for the following:
* US residents, including those who are landlocked, to leave the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons;
* Non-US residents to enter the USA for any necessary period for compassionate reasons on a nonimmigrant basis;
* Evidence of immigrant intent should not prevent a person receiving a compassionate visa (such as an existing immigrant petition), unless an applicant makes it absolutely clear their intention is to immigrate and not to enter the USA on a temporary basis;
* To prevent abuse of such a visa, documentary evidence should be required as appropriate to ensure the application is made in good faith; and
* Compassionate visa processing should be dealt with the USCIS for US residents and in the consular office for non-US residents on an expedited basis if the imminent death of a close relative or funeral arrangements for a deceased relative is at issue.
INA, section 203(h) (as inserted by the Child States Protection Act, section 3) (8 U.S.C.1153(h))
Current Provision in INA, section 203(h)
�RULES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN ALIENS ARE CHILDREN-
(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using--
(A) the age of the alien on the date on which an immigrant visa number becomes available for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date on which an immigrant visa number became available for the alien's parent), but only if the alien has sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year of such availability; reduced by
(B) the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition described in paragraph (2) was pending.
(2) PETITIONS DESCRIBED- The petition described in this paragraph is--
(A) with respect to a relationship described in subsection (a)(2)(A), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of an alien child under subsection (a)(2)(A); or
(B) with respect to an alien child who is a derivative beneficiary under subsection (d), a petition filed under section 204 for classification of the alien's parent under subsection (a), (b), or (c).
(3) RETENTION OF PRIORITY DATE- If the age of an alien is determined under paragraph (1) to be 21 years of age or older for the purposes of subsections (a)(4) and (d), the alien's petition shall automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.''
Explanation
The references to �(a)(2)(A)� refers to principal beneficiaries and �(d)� refers to derivative beneficiaries. Subsection (1) provides a calculation to be considered a child under the family-based preference categories in light of USCIS processing delays. Subsection (2) describes the types of petition covered, ensuring beneficiaries, whether principal or derivative, are treated as a child under 21. Subsection (3) is another useful provision so that if the calculation of a beneficiary renders them over 21, they can retain the priority date of the original petition.
Problems
The language of this provision has rendered the provision open to ambiguity. Specifically, subsection (3) states the �alien�s petition shall be automatically be converted to the appropriate category and the alien shall retain the original priority date issued upon receipt of the original petition.� The problem is in relation to a derivative beneficiary (which is covered by this subsection) and is twofold. First, by its nature of being a derivative, a derivative beneficiary does not have an original application to speak of. Only the parent has a petition, which has caused the ambiguity. A Board of Immigration (BIA) decision did provide a common sense interpretation (Garcia, Maria T, File A79-001-587, June 16, 2006), but this is not binding on the USCIS and we know first hand that the USCIS has not consistently interpreted the provision in accordance with the BIA decision. Second, although the above mentioned BIA decision clarifies the provision also applies to F4 derivative beneficiaries, these petitions do not automatically convert. An F4 derivative beneficiary who ages still must wait for their Parent to file a new I-130 form, which is inconsistent with the language of the provision.
Another problem is if the new proposed points system is implemented, any person who ages out will no longer have a direct basis for immigration. Instead they would have to qualify under a points system, which is not guaranteed. This new system would make the above provisions redundant.
Solutions
Leo07
04-30 02:16 PM
Cornyn Open to Working on Immigration Reform - Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/45730-1.html)
We need to get more, but obviously a good beginning.( correction in title. it's Sen Cornyn )
We need to get more, but obviously a good beginning.( correction in title. it's Sen Cornyn )
snhn
06-10 11:08 AM
I was hoping against all odds that this was not going to be true when they announced it last month. The iron is that I have been current for the last 2 months now. But when one thing reaches the goal, the other slows down. The damn TSC is was processing June applications while mine is early August. I am hoping that they allocated my file so that when they reach August date, visa would be available for me.
I have EAD and AP and alos have h1 until 2010. in 2010, I would have completed 11 years on H1b visa. My company maybe doing layoffs in the next few months, and I was hoping to get my GC by then. I dont wish to to use EAD because I have a DWI and its safe to stay on H1 for that.
how are the oppourtunities out there for Quality Aussrance/ Analysts.
I have EAD and AP and alos have h1 until 2010. in 2010, I would have completed 11 years on H1b visa. My company maybe doing layoffs in the next few months, and I was hoping to get my GC by then. I dont wish to to use EAD because I have a DWI and its safe to stay on H1 for that.
how are the oppourtunities out there for Quality Aussrance/ Analysts.
uslegals
09-10 04:07 PM
Hello friends - Just contributed $100..(Google Order # 265811536249307)
Appreciate all the help & effort IV is doing for us..!! Thanks a ton.!! Will be there in all our might on Sept. 18th...!!! GOD BLESS IV...!!!
Appreciate all the help & effort IV is doing for us..!! Thanks a ton.!! Will be there in all our might on Sept. 18th...!!! GOD BLESS IV...!!!
more...
guy03062
09-11 04:57 PM
By the way, let me clarify that I have nothing against 2006 PD who got approved last month...but my frustration is against USCIS system who does not follow FIFO. Sorry if I have hurt someone's feelings.
This is really frustrating...moving EB2-I cut-off dates to Aug 2006, approving large number of 2006 PD cases and leaving 2003 - 2005 cases aside.
This is really frustrating...moving EB2-I cut-off dates to Aug 2006, approving large number of 2006 PD cases and leaving 2003 - 2005 cases aside.
Keeme
03-06 05:57 PM
To keep the HOPE high;) One more point to consider , remember a month back there was a information going around on the # of Cards ordered by USCIS? Man, all these crazy things going around with
a) LUDs
b) Name Check 180 days rule
c) # of Cards ordered etc etc., etc., is making ppl. more anxious.....
Agree. I still blame name check 180 rule - a major decision by USCIS/FBI helped this backlogg to go from bad to worst.
Name check 180 rule -it allowed thousands of people from EB1 / EB2 Row to get their 485 cleared and consumed major chunk of 2008/09 EB visas. Had it been not there, many old timers, would have used visas as their Name check would have been cleared before them.
a) LUDs
b) Name Check 180 days rule
c) # of Cards ordered etc etc., etc., is making ppl. more anxious.....
Agree. I still blame name check 180 rule - a major decision by USCIS/FBI helped this backlogg to go from bad to worst.
Name check 180 rule -it allowed thousands of people from EB1 / EB2 Row to get their 485 cleared and consumed major chunk of 2008/09 EB visas. Had it been not there, many old timers, would have used visas as their Name check would have been cleared before them.
more...
willwin
07-11 11:13 AM
Yeah I am EB3 India June 2003 too. Not sure when our turn will come, IF at all the way things are crawling here. Sometimes I really feel there is no justice to some of the IV members on here. I wonder which is worse, the corruption in India or the bureaucracy in the USA. Atleast in India, if I would have bribed the official, I would have had the documents by now.
eb3_nepa!
People here think EB3 deserves to be waiting (in the given scenario and only EB2 move forward). After all we are not EB2!
2003? another 2-3 years easily. I am only 2005. So may be another 5 years for me. Well, what the heck
eb3_nepa!
People here think EB3 deserves to be waiting (in the given scenario and only EB2 move forward). After all we are not EB2!
2003? another 2-3 years easily. I am only 2005. So may be another 5 years for me. Well, what the heck
Green.Tech
06-11 08:36 PM
a small contribution for now I will set up recurring soon. Can't thank you guys enough for being such a great support network. Not to be preachy, are we the same people who stood an united front against the Brits?
Paypal Receipt ID: 3JA591826E386220Y
Thanks jayZinDC...Hope your contribution inspires a few others!
Paypal Receipt ID: 3JA591826E386220Y
Thanks jayZinDC...Hope your contribution inspires a few others!
more...
go_guy123
06-11 12:14 PM
All,
When this July bulletin was released, I had given the following points in that thread.
I am seriously considering this. Indian economy is going to go leaps and bounds and I dont want to miss out on that. And wait here in the whims and fancies and their ridiculous illogical visa bulletins by these people. They shouldnt harass and take Indians for a ride. We are paying our taxes and all the fees and what not. Still they prefer illegals over us.
Enough is enough. I have self respect.
Looking at this visa movement for the past year and the current economy, I am just giving up hope to get GC in this country folks.
I am seriously thinking about going back to India. The reasons I was proding over are:
1. Well.. first and foremost, no hope of visa movement in near future.
2. Employer uncertainty. The company is not doing too well.
3. Tough job market and US economy will drag like this for another 2-3 years.
4. If they lay me off, I will have to find another job first. I havent even applied for 485 yet, so no EAD and priority date is Feb 2008
5. Restart GC again which is another excruciating process - moneywise, timewise.
6. Wait again in the line for visa movement
7. No career advancement because cannot jump companies and I am already early 30's. (I am non-IT). Career is stagnant, company doing very small projects.
8. Cannot even think of having kids because job and life here is hanging by a thread.
9. Cannot buy a house in this market. Its not that I dont have money, was thinking, if I lose the job, I wont get much time to sell it off and I will have to incur losses.
10. India is doing well and going to to do well in the future.
Is anyone else thinking on these lines?
Hi waitforevergc
You say that you are in non IT
If you don't mind which area are you in ? Oil/Mining/Finance sector ?.
You can try the Canada option like me. Lately Alberta/Canada closed
the door for IT people, therefore I am wondering if you have other options in Canada.
When this July bulletin was released, I had given the following points in that thread.
I am seriously considering this. Indian economy is going to go leaps and bounds and I dont want to miss out on that. And wait here in the whims and fancies and their ridiculous illogical visa bulletins by these people. They shouldnt harass and take Indians for a ride. We are paying our taxes and all the fees and what not. Still they prefer illegals over us.
Enough is enough. I have self respect.
Looking at this visa movement for the past year and the current economy, I am just giving up hope to get GC in this country folks.
I am seriously thinking about going back to India. The reasons I was proding over are:
1. Well.. first and foremost, no hope of visa movement in near future.
2. Employer uncertainty. The company is not doing too well.
3. Tough job market and US economy will drag like this for another 2-3 years.
4. If they lay me off, I will have to find another job first. I havent even applied for 485 yet, so no EAD and priority date is Feb 2008
5. Restart GC again which is another excruciating process - moneywise, timewise.
6. Wait again in the line for visa movement
7. No career advancement because cannot jump companies and I am already early 30's. (I am non-IT). Career is stagnant, company doing very small projects.
8. Cannot even think of having kids because job and life here is hanging by a thread.
9. Cannot buy a house in this market. Its not that I dont have money, was thinking, if I lose the job, I wont get much time to sell it off and I will have to incur losses.
10. India is doing well and going to to do well in the future.
Is anyone else thinking on these lines?
Hi waitforevergc
You say that you are in non IT
If you don't mind which area are you in ? Oil/Mining/Finance sector ?.
You can try the Canada option like me. Lately Alberta/Canada closed
the door for IT people, therefore I am wondering if you have other options in Canada.
.jpg "EP by Bullet for My Valentine")
gcwatchdog
11-05 05:04 PM
So far lot of discussions on how to start LLC/Inc
but how to start a company without changing current status
Here is my status:
My wife and I are on H1 and we got our EAD's now the question are:-
My wife remains on her H1 for safe....until we get GC.
Is it possible me to stay on H1 and start a LLC using my EAD to do a parttime business ?
Please provide Pros and cons if any.....
Thanks
but how to start a company without changing current status
Here is my status:
My wife and I are on H1 and we got our EAD's now the question are:-
My wife remains on her H1 for safe....until we get GC.
Is it possible me to stay on H1 and start a LLC using my EAD to do a parttime business ?
Please provide Pros and cons if any.....
Thanks
more...
missourian
09-09 11:33 PM
I feeling really bad because I couldn't participate in rally, I just made a modest contribution of $100 through paypal
Web Accept Payment Sent (ID # 0830757928815571G)
Web Accept Payment Sent (ID # 0830757928815571G)
newbie2020
08-12 01:01 PM
The impact to companies like Infy etc is ~5-10MM
If someone look at their last year Balance sheet, They spent appx 16MM on visas, now assuming H1 cost came to ~10MM (these companies do lot of business elsewhere )
that would translate to ~ 2500 filings (including extn, new etc)
this additional $2000 would result in additional $5MM cost if they decide to continue filing 2500
This would not be too huge to make a dent on these companies. yes they may increase their billing to client by $2-5
So who is ultimately paying it is the American companies who use offshoring companies.
If someone look at their last year Balance sheet, They spent appx 16MM on visas, now assuming H1 cost came to ~10MM (these companies do lot of business elsewhere )
that would translate to ~ 2500 filings (including extn, new etc)
this additional $2000 would result in additional $5MM cost if they decide to continue filing 2500
This would not be too huge to make a dent on these companies. yes they may increase their billing to client by $2-5
So who is ultimately paying it is the American companies who use offshoring companies.
more...
.jpg "Single by Bullet for My")
paisa
07-06 03:25 PM
can someone tell me who is core? I hear core mentioned all the time here
Mouns
04-30 02:59 PM
I didnt get this... did he mean GC applications that eventually get denied are getting a free ride because of EAD/AP?
Yes because while the GC is pending the EAD/AP is given as a right not based on the merits. So you get a free ride, even if down the road you are not eligible for a GC...
Yes because while the GC is pending the EAD/AP is given as a right not based on the merits. So you get a free ride, even if down the road you are not eligible for a GC...
more...
ashutrip
06-27 05:56 PM
Congrats skillet! Really great news!
Any march approval?
Any march approval?
mzc123
06-27 08:10 PM
can someone please provide the link to the tracker? I'm unable to locate the link.
more...
matreen
10-17 01:58 AM
Guys,
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
ebizash
07-14 04:01 PM
Sig done too
god_bless_you
03-08 10:18 AM
check here for live web cast
http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/judiciary03082006-0930.ram
link is not working!!
http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/judiciary03082006-0930.ram
link is not working!!
ita
09-09 11:34 AM
Ah, so you are looking to purchase in Hyd. Here is the latest, if you already don't know.
There is a talk about HMDA which is an agency to overlook a project extending the Hyderabad to Bhongir in the East and to Medak in the west.
There will be strict implementation of plans for constructing new houses.
Realtors have already started marketing this and extracting high prices.
If you do have time to research, you can purchase land for cheap (around 3-4 thousand rupees per sql yard) in the outskirts.
Good luck.
No I don't know about HMDA though I'm going to google it .
I got your advice about buying land but don't think I got what you were saying totally.
Are you saying prices will go down/go up/there will be no houses (flats.lands,houses) available to buy? Appreciate it if you can reexplain.
Thank you.
There is a talk about HMDA which is an agency to overlook a project extending the Hyderabad to Bhongir in the East and to Medak in the west.
There will be strict implementation of plans for constructing new houses.
Realtors have already started marketing this and extracting high prices.
If you do have time to research, you can purchase land for cheap (around 3-4 thousand rupees per sql yard) in the outskirts.
Good luck.
No I don't know about HMDA though I'm going to google it .
I got your advice about buying land but don't think I got what you were saying totally.
Are you saying prices will go down/go up/there will be no houses (flats.lands,houses) available to buy? Appreciate it if you can reexplain.
Thank you.
godbless
04-27 02:37 PM
I have my sister in law from India on H4. She got married after her husband got his 797B approved and so she does not have her own 797C. The DMV wants her own 797C approval notice to give her a temporary drivers license. How does she get that? Can she file some petition with USCIS to get it?
No comments:
Post a Comment