morchu
04-29 05:53 PM
F1 is a pure non-immigrant visa. Means at the time of F1 application, if the consulate feels that there is an "immigration intent" they will (and have to) reject the F1. Just by stating that her fiancee is an immigrant, I see potential F1 rejection due to "immigration intent".
Thanks snathan and aravindhome for your responses.
I'm going to consult an attorney on this for sure...
After i consulted my friends and after going through some other posts i figured that F1 is the best option i have now.
My fiancee is interested in pursuing her higher education, but just wanted to find out if it would be OK that i sponsor her education and state that her fiance is in US with green card at the time of visa application?.. would this cause any problems for getting her F1 visa?
OR should she not mention anything about me in any stage be it in University Admisssion process or the F1 visa application process?
I know all of the other options (H1, L1, B1 and GC sponsor for spouse) would require much time.
aravindhome-- i'm not sure how fast can she get a canadian PR and then come to this Country?...On what basis is she going to enter this country?
Thanks a lot
Ravi
Thanks snathan and aravindhome for your responses.
I'm going to consult an attorney on this for sure...
After i consulted my friends and after going through some other posts i figured that F1 is the best option i have now.
My fiancee is interested in pursuing her higher education, but just wanted to find out if it would be OK that i sponsor her education and state that her fiance is in US with green card at the time of visa application?.. would this cause any problems for getting her F1 visa?
OR should she not mention anything about me in any stage be it in University Admisssion process or the F1 visa application process?
I know all of the other options (H1, L1, B1 and GC sponsor for spouse) would require much time.
aravindhome-- i'm not sure how fast can she get a canadian PR and then come to this Country?...On what basis is she going to enter this country?
Thanks a lot
Ravi
wallpaper justin bieber egg.
wandmaker
08-06 11:27 AM
Case Details:
EB2-I PD: 1/2/06 485@ TSC - MD: 6/30/07 RD: 7/2/07 ND: 10/2/07 AD: 8/6/08
Directly Filed at TSC, Checks cashed but did not receive physical receipt notice
Sequence of Emails:
08/06: CRIS Email, Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident
08/07: Soft LUD
08/09: Soft LUD
08/11: Welcome Notice Received via USPS, Post marked 08/08
08/13: CRIS Email, Card Mailed.
08/14: Soft LUD
08/14: Received Cards in the mail, envelope post marked 08/12
To Whom may have COLTS:
- Opened SR for receipt notice in Dec 07
- Feb 08, Received a letter from USCIS stating that they will not be able to generate duplicate notice
- Feb 08, Called USCIS & referenced duplicate notice letter. IO has told me the name check got cleared on Nov 07.
- Applied for EAD renewal in 6/08, Received card on 7/08
- I-140 Soft LUD on 7/13/08
- No other LUDs, Direct case status change on 8/6/08
- Made two calls to USCIS one on 12/07 and another on 02/08 and did not make INFOPASS appointment.
EB2-I PD: 1/2/06 485@ TSC - MD: 6/30/07 RD: 7/2/07 ND: 10/2/07 AD: 8/6/08
Directly Filed at TSC, Checks cashed but did not receive physical receipt notice
Sequence of Emails:
08/06: CRIS Email, Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident
08/07: Soft LUD
08/09: Soft LUD
08/11: Welcome Notice Received via USPS, Post marked 08/08
08/13: CRIS Email, Card Mailed.
08/14: Soft LUD
08/14: Received Cards in the mail, envelope post marked 08/12
To Whom may have COLTS:
- Opened SR for receipt notice in Dec 07
- Feb 08, Received a letter from USCIS stating that they will not be able to generate duplicate notice
- Feb 08, Called USCIS & referenced duplicate notice letter. IO has told me the name check got cleared on Nov 07.
- Applied for EAD renewal in 6/08, Received card on 7/08
- I-140 Soft LUD on 7/13/08
- No other LUDs, Direct case status change on 8/6/08
- Made two calls to USCIS one on 12/07 and another on 02/08 and did not make INFOPASS appointment.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
2011 justin bieber egg.
ngopalak
07-05 12:59 PM
i think you are right. 100 M is a LOT of money to forsake for an agency like USCIS.
That I think is the reason they had to stop people from applyng before Julyy27th
If you like to beleive that the USCIS employees care USCIS revenue, you might like this answer.
200K apps (potential applicants in July) times $500 increase.
100,000,000
That I think is the reason they had to stop people from applyng before Julyy27th
If you like to beleive that the USCIS employees care USCIS revenue, you might like this answer.
200K apps (potential applicants in July) times $500 increase.
100,000,000
more...
HopeSprings
02-14 12:25 AM
The voice of legal immigrants.
ivar
03-31 05:16 PM
Hi All,
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
From your post it seems your H1b transfer was denied and not H1b extension, i think you should correct the title.
If you go to company A then you will have to file H1b transfer again with company A. I think you can file an appeal in the meain time continue working for company B for 240 days (I am not sure of this but confirm with IV gurus or attorney).
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
From your post it seems your H1b transfer was denied and not H1b extension, i think you should correct the title.
If you go to company A then you will have to file H1b transfer again with company A. I think you can file an appeal in the meain time continue working for company B for 240 days (I am not sure of this but confirm with IV gurus or attorney).
more...
ruchigup
08-06 12:38 PM
Many Congratulations !!!
2010 justin bieber house.
aristotle
02-08 12:46 PM
You can say to your current employer that you want to try out something new, but if it doesn't work out you want to have the option of coming back.
If they like you enough, they will consider it. How long to leave it active is another question. Lets say you were able to port the PD to your new I140. If the old employer then revokes the I140, are you still ok with the old PD?
If they like you enough, they will consider it. How long to leave it active is another question. Lets say you were able to port the PD to your new I140. If the old employer then revokes the I140, are you still ok with the old PD?
more...
rajuram
06-19 09:42 PM
Before posting, please ask yourself if it is worth taking the risk when all you have to do is to wait for months to get travel documents. It is a personal decision!!!
hair justin bieber outfits. justin
eb3retro
09-14 03:50 PM
NO, that part applies to a person applying for Advance Parole (humanitarian reason) and not Advance Parole (baed on peding I-485).
This confusion is because the form is used for multiple application type - Rentry Permit, Refugee Travel Document, Advance Parole (humanitarian and I-485 pending). I think USCIS should redesign separate form for each application type to remove the confusion.
If your AP is based on a pending I-485 you must be in the US to apply and receive the approval. If you need to travel before the approval, you could go to a local USCIS office to expedite the application.
frostrated, this exactly contradicts your take on this issue. I understand your family has gone to india without ap in hand and have come back with AP (approval after leaving US). My question is how safe it is to do this.
This confusion is because the form is used for multiple application type - Rentry Permit, Refugee Travel Document, Advance Parole (humanitarian and I-485 pending). I think USCIS should redesign separate form for each application type to remove the confusion.
If your AP is based on a pending I-485 you must be in the US to apply and receive the approval. If you need to travel before the approval, you could go to a local USCIS office to expedite the application.
frostrated, this exactly contradicts your take on this issue. I understand your family has gone to india without ap in hand and have come back with AP (approval after leaving US). My question is how safe it is to do this.
more...
ArunAntonio
01-03 03:32 PM
I pledge to contribute $40 a month. And more when ever I can.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
hot justin bieber laughing.
lostinbeta
10-21 12:23 AM
As for me... I go buck-wild
I start off with something, add something to it, add some more touches and voila.
Sometimes I start with a custom shape, sometimes I start with the line tool, sometimes the paintbrush, gradient, whatever.
Just try stuff out and go nuts.
As for Edwin... he just has to think and his computer makes what is in his head.
I start off with something, add something to it, add some more touches and voila.
Sometimes I start with a custom shape, sometimes I start with the line tool, sometimes the paintbrush, gradient, whatever.
Just try stuff out and go nuts.
As for Edwin... he just has to think and his computer makes what is in his head.
more...
house justin bieber cute pictures.
diesel
05-25 08:51 AM
The immigration council said he will pass our concern to the senator.
tattoo justin bieber laughing.
imh1b
12-06 08:24 AM
After seeing so much activism on Dream Act in the news, I think Dream Act deserves to be passed. Recapture does not. We are responsible for it for not doing anything if Dream Act passes. Just Google Dream Act and you will see so much work done on this. Compare it to Recapture bill. Reporters will also write about issues where they see lot of activity. We are simply not doing enough.
more...
pictures justin bieber grammys.
ram_ram
10-01 09:43 AM
The backlogs at DOLS's found a solution..PERM. Similarly premium processing was introduced for I-140's. I think now it's time to move the Departments and courts to find a more efficient Security/Name check process. If not USCIS will continue to loose tons of visa numbers every year. Though USCIS has 26 k cases that has the visa number available,
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
many of them are struck with FBI. Any movements or actions?
Successfully Challenging USCIS Delays in Federal Court
On September 10, the Los Angeles Times featured an article about how FBI name checks have been slowing down the process of gaining immigration benefits for hundreds of thousands of applicants.
The article revealed that "nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of August 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in federal court regarding this issue. The Times article quotes an ACLU attorney who stated that "there is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd. People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
Applicants for adjustment of status, citizenship, extensions of stay and many other immigration benefits have taken days off work to visit USCIS offices only to be told that the USCIS can do nothing since the name check process is in the hands of the FBI.
Nor do letters and meetings with Senators and Members of Congress yield results. They receive polite letters from the USCIS' Congressional Liaison Unit to the effect that "Sorry, but this is FBI's problem, not ours."
DHS Secretary Chertoff announced that his Department is meeting with the FBI (which is part of the Department of Justice) to work out a more efficient system of processing these name checks, but so far, the number of people waiting for results from the FBI continues to grow and grow.
The problem exists for applicants from a wide variety of countries and affects Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, etc.
Our solution is to sue both the USCIS and the FBI in Federal Court. Most Federal Judges are not reluctant to order the FBI and the USCIS to complete their name checks and application processing by a date certain.
Many applicants have turned to litigation as the one and only method of solving the name check problem. The numbers of such lawsuits have increased from just 680 in 2005 to 2,650 in 2006 to over 4,100 this year. Although there is no guarantee of success, our law firm has yet to lose one of these cases in Federal Court.
The Times article concludes with a quote from me:
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court."
We link to the Times article, "Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole" from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107P.shtml
We also link to AILF's new practice advisory entitled "Mandamus Jurisdiction over Delayed Applications: Responding to the Government's Motion to Dismiss" from
http://shusterman.com/toc-dpt.html#A1
dresses justin bieber hot 2011.
kaisersose
05-29 07:39 PM
I have a early 2004 Priority date (EB3 India) and asked my attorney if it is wise to reapply in Eb2 as it is current in that date, and she says she believes my Eb3 PD to get current by july. Folks, what do you think ?
No one really knows. That means there is a 50% chance she may be right.
However, it is generally accepted that it is wise to apply for 485 without delay as soon as the PD is current without waiting for I-140 approvals as these dates can retrogress again.
Many people with PD current are hesitating to apply for 485 as they want to wait for I140 approval to save 485 fees. This is very wrong and in case the dates retrogress again (there is a good chance), you will actually end up losing several thousands of dollars because you tried to save one thousand dollars.
Look at the big picture and do not get into the money saving mode now. If you lawyer asks you to wait, get a second opinion from a reputed lawyer.
No one really knows. That means there is a 50% chance she may be right.
However, it is generally accepted that it is wise to apply for 485 without delay as soon as the PD is current without waiting for I-140 approvals as these dates can retrogress again.
Many people with PD current are hesitating to apply for 485 as they want to wait for I140 approval to save 485 fees. This is very wrong and in case the dates retrogress again (there is a good chance), you will actually end up losing several thousands of dollars because you tried to save one thousand dollars.
Look at the big picture and do not get into the money saving mode now. If you lawyer asks you to wait, get a second opinion from a reputed lawyer.
more...
makeup justin bieber jumpers. justin
vdlrao
10-18 11:02 AM
It would be more convinience for all of us if you can provide that $50 option through online than physical check. Please consider this.
Thanks.
Thanks.
girlfriend justin bieber fat version.
greenguru
04-01 04:11 PM
EB3 Labor
I-140
I-485
Then
EB2 Labor
I-140
Cheers, gG
I-140
I-485
Then
EB2 Labor
I-140
Cheers, gG
hairstyles justin bieber vest top.
21stIcon
05-04 01:07 PM
I've been monitoring BEC&PERM for the past 30 days and delved deeper on all labor processing thread, but found none on denials of conversion, please point out some reference URLs for PERM conversion denials that would be helpful.
hope2007
05-22 11:20 AM
plss do not rush with ur filing in june....pls file after june 10th so that cut off dates move foward in july VB.
;)
;)
singhsa3
07-12 09:20 AM
Remember green card is a privilege and not a right. But your waiting period idea is well taken.
I would say put 'Retrogressions' and waiting periods also in perspective.
In the world and era of progression
We get the word of 'Retrogression'
I would say put 'Retrogressions' and waiting periods also in perspective.
In the world and era of progression
We get the word of 'Retrogression'
No comments:
Post a Comment