Ramba
07-09 07:44 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
I feel that they did not violate any clause. Till June 30 which is end of third quarter, they are authorized to approve (3*27%*140K) 113,400. However they approved only 66,400 till May 31. That yields about 47,000 for June alone(10%+any number not used in previous months). The reamining visas are eligible for Jul 1, which is 13,000. Put together June and July1, it comes 60,000. Therefore they did not violate any law. This makes only 126,000. The remaining number was splitted for Consular processing.
my 2 cents...
wallpaper Calabasas,California real
prad123
05-05 11:32 PM
My friend was on situation. He consulted lawyer. If already change of status is applied from October 1 you will be in H1. But if you go out of country and come back before October 1st with L1 visa, you are COS will not be valid. Youcan continue in L1. But only problem is you can not switch to H1 later without stamping.
MahaBharatGC
09-21 02:14 PM
Count me in.
This wait is killing us.
YES YES YES.
Yesterday was my last day of Canadian Blue Card expiry. I left it as I was able to file for I-485 during July 07 magic. I am in for whatever the fight it takes.
This EAD renewal funda is killing us...
Just does not make sense for lack of timelines on EAD Renewals, no proper insights. Why would they need to take 3 months time for renewals?:confused:
This wait is killing us.
YES YES YES.
Yesterday was my last day of Canadian Blue Card expiry. I left it as I was able to file for I-485 during July 07 magic. I am in for whatever the fight it takes.
This EAD renewal funda is killing us...
Just does not make sense for lack of timelines on EAD Renewals, no proper insights. Why would they need to take 3 months time for renewals?:confused:
2011 Calabasas,California real
abhishek101
12-27 12:14 PM
Just to clarify on all the confusion:
If you are legally here i.e. on H1B yu can have any account and any mortgage. I can pretty much vouch for it because I am one of the persons in the bank incharge of enforcing the credit laws. The only requirement while giving a mortgage is what kind of credit scores and history you have. BOA is quite conservative in giving out loans while someother smaller institutions are not so conservative and hence the rejection from one and acceptance by the other.
For giving mortgage to illegals I do not know any reputable institution doing so. Yes there is always the grapevine.
I recently travelled to Delhi from SF using British Air in Dec. I chaged from Terminal 1 to terminal 4 while going and reverse while coming. Nobody asked for any visa, as far as I know it is not required. It was not required before then the requirement came in and now it is no longer there.
But I do have a valid visa on my passport.
About Hongkong it takes approximately 5 minutes to get a 15 day visa and the process is very smooth.
Singapore does not require any visa.
No visa for Germany, Middleeast and most of the East Asian stops.
If you are legally here i.e. on H1B yu can have any account and any mortgage. I can pretty much vouch for it because I am one of the persons in the bank incharge of enforcing the credit laws. The only requirement while giving a mortgage is what kind of credit scores and history you have. BOA is quite conservative in giving out loans while someother smaller institutions are not so conservative and hence the rejection from one and acceptance by the other.
For giving mortgage to illegals I do not know any reputable institution doing so. Yes there is always the grapevine.
I recently travelled to Delhi from SF using British Air in Dec. I chaged from Terminal 1 to terminal 4 while going and reverse while coming. Nobody asked for any visa, as far as I know it is not required. It was not required before then the requirement came in and now it is no longer there.
But I do have a valid visa on my passport.
About Hongkong it takes approximately 5 minutes to get a 15 day visa and the process is very smooth.
Singapore does not require any visa.
No visa for Germany, Middleeast and most of the East Asian stops.
more...
voldemar
06-23 09:43 AM
I also want to file EAD and AP but the company attorney is saying it is safer to file the EAD and AP once the I-140 is approved.
For AP it doesn't matter approved I-140 or not. For EAD it's safer not to use it till I-140 approval. I would apply for it and hold just in case. Also your spouse can use EAD without I-140 approval, she/he can switch back to H4 if 140 is denied. I's critical for main applicant to maintain H1/L1 status.
if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?Yes, you can continue to file and use AD and AP while dates retrogressed.
For AP it doesn't matter approved I-140 or not. For EAD it's safer not to use it till I-140 approval. I would apply for it and hold just in case. Also your spouse can use EAD without I-140 approval, she/he can switch back to H4 if 140 is denied. I's critical for main applicant to maintain H1/L1 status.
if We do not file the EAD and AP along with the I-485 and once the priority dates are retrogessed. Can we file EAD and AP even though the priority dates are not current and our I-485 is pending?Yes, you can continue to file and use AD and AP while dates retrogressed.
manderson
12-11 02:42 PM
reply from a previous thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current)
The core team has alrady addressed this issue before : try doing a search. The summary goes something like this - First, EAD cards cannot be given out arbitrarily. Apparently, the law mandates very specific circumstances for which an work authorization (EAD) can be given out : for example, a student on OPT. We wouldn't meet this criteria before a visa number is available for adjustment of status to permanent resident - not unless the law is changed by congress. Secondly, EAD, as it stands now, is meant to be a strictly interim permit. The USCIS ombudsman's report has already objected strongly to the phenomenon of people who are ultimately found ineligible for permanent residence enjoying the benefits of an EAD for extended periods due to processing delays. In such circumstances, it is not realistic to expect that USCIS, on its own accord, will start doling out EADs like seasons' greetings cards.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current)
The core team has alrady addressed this issue before : try doing a search. The summary goes something like this - First, EAD cards cannot be given out arbitrarily. Apparently, the law mandates very specific circumstances for which an work authorization (EAD) can be given out : for example, a student on OPT. We wouldn't meet this criteria before a visa number is available for adjustment of status to permanent resident - not unless the law is changed by congress. Secondly, EAD, as it stands now, is meant to be a strictly interim permit. The USCIS ombudsman's report has already objected strongly to the phenomenon of people who are ultimately found ineligible for permanent residence enjoying the benefits of an EAD for extended periods due to processing delays. In such circumstances, it is not realistic to expect that USCIS, on its own accord, will start doling out EADs like seasons' greetings cards.
more...
tapukakababa
07-18 12:21 PM
hi tapukakababa, the number is for the national customer service center but you mentioned you called the nebraska service center. so did u ask them to transfer to that service center or ???. i would like to talk to those guys and see what they did wityh my application. i guess we already had a painful ride and if it does not yield the right fruit then it really hurts us bad.
As "inthehole" mentioned, first a lady answered and asked me questions about the reason of calling..
then she asked some questions and asked which service center I applied to.. I said NSC and then she transferred me automatically.. so you can go ahead and call that number..
As "inthehole" mentioned, first a lady answered and asked me questions about the reason of calling..
then she asked some questions and asked which service center I applied to.. I said NSC and then she transferred me automatically.. so you can go ahead and call that number..
2010 Calabasas,California real
gc_on_demand
03-30 03:29 PM
Did you read undocumented guys are trying to push their cause and by putting legals aside, which the goverment seems to be hearing. What makes you feel we must wait.. Just because you cannot contribute anything except for yourself. .People waiting for close to 10 years are usually in a position to create value and they are tied to this backlogs. We know EB2 is going at some pace.. How much time do you think is needed for EB2 to be in bin, into the same state as EB3 is in, right now.
Sri1309
illegals are pushing for what ? Didn't you read CIR will be later this year not in April or May ? Any piecemeal immi bill will not make through committe , as CHC wants CIR 2009. We can do add amendment for recapture in CIR 2009 or just 2-3 months before when actul movement for CIR starts. You can send faxes or letters to Lawmakers but no bill will be on table so they will just put ur faxes on side .. wouldn't it better to start aggressive campaign when something is cooking.
Sri1309
illegals are pushing for what ? Didn't you read CIR will be later this year not in April or May ? Any piecemeal immi bill will not make through committe , as CHC wants CIR 2009. We can do add amendment for recapture in CIR 2009 or just 2-3 months before when actul movement for CIR starts. You can send faxes or letters to Lawmakers but no bill will be on table so they will just put ur faxes on side .. wouldn't it better to start aggressive campaign when something is cooking.
more...
satishku_2000
04-10 05:51 PM
IEEE believes that ppl educated in the US should not be sent back and should actually stay here. I agree with that stance. After all, they want what is best for ppl born here and those who have been educated here. It is IEEE-USA :)
As far as I know most of the "US educated foreigners"come here just to pursue thier higher education and have no intention of working here. Do they show their immigrant intent while applying for VISA and still get their student VISAs
As far as I know most of the "US educated foreigners"come here just to pursue thier higher education and have no intention of working here. Do they show their immigrant intent while applying for VISA and still get their student VISAs
hair 625 Reithe Ave, Calabasas, CA
Legal
07-13 10:35 AM
#67 Today, 09:28 AM
alterego
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 460
Keep in mind two things. Many, quite possibly most of the July VB fiasco filed 485s have not been processed yet, Eb2 or EB3 India. There have been more recently (in the past couple of months) but still not most.
When a few IV members predicted the rapid movment of EB2 -I, they were dismissed as naive, and fantasizing. Yet, here we are with the EB-2-I PD current for June 2006. Lately, I'm having more faith in the philosophical statement -"The truth is unknowable". :) and having less and less faith on the speculations/ predictions of most IV members.
Are you sure about your above statement? My interpretation is since the processing date for 485s at the Nebraska service center is July 27th 2007, all the 485S received before that date have been processed, and are waiting only for visa number assignment.
I would like to fantasize next fee weeks my assumption is correct:). My PD is EB2-I feb 2006, RD July 2nd 2007.
alterego
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 460
Keep in mind two things. Many, quite possibly most of the July VB fiasco filed 485s have not been processed yet, Eb2 or EB3 India. There have been more recently (in the past couple of months) but still not most.
When a few IV members predicted the rapid movment of EB2 -I, they were dismissed as naive, and fantasizing. Yet, here we are with the EB-2-I PD current for June 2006. Lately, I'm having more faith in the philosophical statement -"The truth is unknowable". :) and having less and less faith on the speculations/ predictions of most IV members.
Are you sure about your above statement? My interpretation is since the processing date for 485s at the Nebraska service center is July 27th 2007, all the 485S received before that date have been processed, and are waiting only for visa number assignment.
I would like to fantasize next fee weeks my assumption is correct:). My PD is EB2-I feb 2006, RD July 2nd 2007.
more...
sam2006
04-05 12:03 PM
I have done it also
response were good from the staff members
5$ per person who calls and posts his message here
i know all the consultants and IT are busy
please do it for a greater purpose in life
5$ per person from today-2morrow
response were good from the staff members
5$ per person who calls and posts his message here
i know all the consultants and IT are busy
please do it for a greater purpose in life
5$ per person from today-2morrow
hot Calabasas,California real
kopra
10-20 03:47 PM
for the records....Obama also voted for the CIR which had EB reforms and he came to senate only recently in 2004
Obama may be great...but we dont know...At least McCain has helped sponsor or vote in favor of EB bills in the past...So History on EB supports him more than Obama....
Obama may be great...but we dont know...At least McCain has helped sponsor or vote in favor of EB bills in the past...So History on EB supports him more than Obama....
more...
house House Picture in Calabasas, CA
johnwright03
07-01 09:38 AM
06/30/2007: Potential EB Visa Number Exhaution in July and Probable Actions of State Department or USCIS
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
* By now, people understand that the sources of potential action by the State Department or USCIS are predicated on the two important facts. One was the information from a government source that there were only about 40,000 numbers left for the entire EB visa numbers for the FY 2007 which ends on September 30, 2007. The second important fact was that reportedly the USCIS alone had far more than 40,000 I-485 applications in the backlog queue that were reportedly ready for approval. Considering the fact that the immigrant visa numbers are consumed by the approval of I-485 applications by the USCIS and the approval of immigant visa applications in the consular processing by visa posts througout the world, 40,000 visa numbers could be fairly quickly exhausted in early July 2007. This prediction was exacerbated by the information that the USCIS was apparently picking up the pace of I-485 adjudications lately.
* Obviously the State Department has been in communication with the USCIS and was well aware of the situation. Sources reported that the State Department might revise the July Visa Bulletin either Monday or Tuesday to reflect the situation. However, it is unclear at this point whether this will occur on Monday or Tuesday or, for that matter, some time soon, particulary considering the ongoing uproar in the nation. Assuming that the EB immigrant visa number will be exhausted before the end of July, from the government perspectives, they may have two options to handle this matter. One is the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin based on the newly developed facts and predictions. The other option is that the State Department does not take any action of revising the Visa Bulletin but just notify the USCIS when the visa numbers for certain categories are exhausted. The initial sources of rumor was the former possibility. However, as updated by the AILA afterwards, it might or might not happen.
* Whether the State Department revises the July visa bulletin or not, the fact will remain that 40,000 numbers could indeed be run out in a fairly short period of time in July. It is too obvious that under the statute, when the visa numbers are exhausted, the USCIS will not be able to approve any I-485 applications, and for that reason, the USCIS may wrongly reject the incoming I-485 applications or return I-485 applications which were received after the date when the visa number is exhausted. This happened for the "other worker" category in June when the priority date was current in June for certain other workers. The issue of legality of such action of the USCIS is rooted in the required distinction of the USCIS statutory mandates between its job of adjudication of 485 applications "already in the pipeline" and its job of "accepting new 485 applications." Arguably, when the visa number runs out, there is no question about that the USCIS should not and cannot adjudicate and approve any 485 applications. But there is no legal basis that the USCIS should not and cannot "accept" new 485 applications when the cases fall within the cut-off date of the monthly visa bulletin. If the State Department attempts to revise the July Visa Bulletin, probably they are doing it to overcome the predicament of the USCIS that will face in rejecting the new 485 applications. The problem is the State Department's own legal problem or authority to revise the published Visa Bulletin. Accordingly, either USCIS or State Department will be liable for either abuse of power or arbitrary act depending on who acts. The AILF is planning to sue the USCIS for rejecting "other worker" new 485 applications in June probably on ultra vires or other statutory authority grounds. Should the same thing happen in July, the AILF intends to extend its lawsuit to cover the July 2007 485 applicants, probably in the form of class action. What happens if the State Department revises the Visa Bulletin and the USCIS rejects the new applications based on the new Visa Bulletin? Strictly speaking, there may be no cause of action against the USCIS in that it followed the State Department's Visa Bulletin for the month of July. In this case, probably the lawsuit will have to be directed to the State Department for violation of law in revising the visa bulletin. We will soon find out.
* Where does this leave to the July 485 applicants? Fact remains that all likelihood, the annual limit may reach fairly early in July and they should file their cases before the visa posts and the USCIS exhaust all the numbers. They have to do this probably for the two reasons. One is that should the government take the second option of rejecting new cases after reaching the limit just as we experienced in the other worker cases, those who filed the I-485 application before that date will not be affected. Those who files the application after the date of exhaution and receive rejection of the 485 applications may be entitled to sue the USCIS either in a class action or individually. Secondly, if the government takes the first option of the State Department revising the July Visa Bulletin, they will have to sue the State Department and for that purpose, they should have filed I-485 applications within July 2007. Otherwise, they may have a standing to sue the State Department.
* For the foregoing reasons, we urge the July 485 filers to file the applications as soon as possible. At the same time, we urge the State Department and the USCIS not to take any actions to avoid the lawsuits. They should keep accepting I-485 applications even after the enhaution of the FY 2007 numbers, even though they will not be able to adjudicate these applications until the visa numbers become current again. Again, the agencies should distinguish the requirement for adjudication of 485 applications and the requirement for acceptance of new applications. These are two separate things.
tattoo 2091 Mckain St, Calabasas, CA
aka
04-24 12:12 PM
Congrats Googler, you have given so much to this community. You totally deserve the good news! Have a couple of cold ones on us...
more...
pictures House Picture in Calabasas, CA
drirshad
03-09 10:11 PM
Ron Gotcher says, following him for years gotta believe him now .........
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7501
Based on this information, it appears that the CIS really is adjudicating cases at a faster pace. If so, then this is unprecedented. My take on this is that the CIS is concentrating on EB3 cases, since that is where the demand seems to be. Notice that Paragraph F mentions the possibility of rapid movement in other categories. Since first preference is always "current" for everyone, that only leaves second preference for India and China.
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or “unavailability” at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
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.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7501
Based on this information, it appears that the CIS really is adjudicating cases at a faster pace. If so, then this is unprecedented. My take on this is that the CIS is concentrating on EB3 cases, since that is where the demand seems to be. Notice that Paragraph F mentions the possibility of rapid movement in other categories. Since first preference is always "current" for everyone, that only leaves second preference for India and China.
E. RETROGRESSON OF THE WORLDWIDE, MEXICO, AND PHILIPPINES EMPLOYMENT THIRD PREFERENCE CUT-OFF DATES FOR APRIL
Despite the established cut-off date having been held for the past five months in an effort to keep demand within the average monthly usage targets, the amount of demand being received from Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Offices for adjustment of status cases remains extremely high. Therefore, it has been necessary to retrogress the April cut-off dates in an attempt to hold demand within the FY-2009 annual limit. Since over 60 percent of the Worldwide and Philippines Employment Third preference CIS demand received this year has been for applicants with priority dates prior to January 1, 2004, the cut-off date has been retrogressed to 01MAR03 to help ensure that the amount of future demand is significantly reduced. As indicated in the last sentence of Item A, paragraph 1, of this bulletin, this cut-off date will be applied immediately. It should also be noted that further retrogression or “unavailability” at any time cannot be ruled out.
It has also been necessary to retrogress the Employment Third Preference Other Worker cut-off date for all countries in order to hold the issuance level within the annual limit.
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.
dresses House Picture in Calabasas, CA
optimystic
03-17 03:36 PM
What I am saying is spill over from ROW goes to EB2 first. It does not split to EB2 and EB3 evenly. So more people from EB2 gets visa granted and thus people who joined EB2 bandwagon from EB3 and had earlier PD, they get Visa quickly. Now generally this spillover does not go to EB3 from EB2 having high demand from EB2 and thus EB3 get stuck with conventional numbers with 7% country limit and thus EB3 numbers move slowly. But if that spillover happens for both EB3 and 2 equally than EB3 can also move little bit quickly which is not the case. Thus shortening the queue by switching over to EB2 does not give full advantage to remained lot of EB3.
Bottom line, people moving away from EB3 to EB2 queue does provide relief to people remaining in the EB3 queue. Since now there's 'x' less number of people competing for the 7% visa numbers.
Its a different matter that the spillover from ROW is going to benefit EB2 queue more than it does EB3. But that's a different point. And in fact, if EB2 starts moving faster because of this spill over, hopefully more Eb3 people jump ship to Eb2 queue . In that case the ROW spillover is indirectly going to help people who stay back in Eb3 queue.
As for myself, I have Eb3 India PD of May 2001, which is very close to the front of the queue. So none of this queue jumping or spillover will affect my status much :) . On the other hand the USCIS' ability to sanely act in a FIFO order does ! But thats impervious to any external factors :)
Bottom line, people moving away from EB3 to EB2 queue does provide relief to people remaining in the EB3 queue. Since now there's 'x' less number of people competing for the 7% visa numbers.
Its a different matter that the spillover from ROW is going to benefit EB2 queue more than it does EB3. But that's a different point. And in fact, if EB2 starts moving faster because of this spill over, hopefully more Eb3 people jump ship to Eb2 queue . In that case the ROW spillover is indirectly going to help people who stay back in Eb3 queue.
As for myself, I have Eb3 India PD of May 2001, which is very close to the front of the queue. So none of this queue jumping or spillover will affect my status much :) . On the other hand the USCIS' ability to sanely act in a FIFO order does ! But thats impervious to any external factors :)
more...
makeup House Picture in Calabasas, CA
another one
07-09 02:26 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC Files Class Action Law Suit against the US Government for Refusing to Accept Green Card Applications
Chicago (July 9, 2007) � In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to potential deliberate miscommunication � and an attempt to collect higher filing fees � from the U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes visa and citizenship requests.
On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply. However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green cards were available because �the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month.� USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government�s instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to receive a green card.
In response, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC, the largest immigration law firm based in Chicago and fourth largest in the United States, on Friday July 6, filed a class-action law suit on behalf of its clients and all those like them, against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Department of State, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, and Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS for announcing that they would refuse to accept the green card applications on behalf of the skilled workers. The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.
Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint. �These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules,� explained Ira Azulay, CEO of the firm. �They are productive members of our society and deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that following the rules is worthless.�
The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.
�I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America,� said Ptasinska. �Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to do, but USCIS did not keep their word.�
Mr. Azulay is available to discuss with the media the class-action suit and the impact of the government�s recent actions. A copy of the complaint in the matter of Gabriela Ptasinska, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Dept. of State, Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer, Case No. 07 C 3795, can be downloaded from Azulay, Horn & Seiden�s website at www.ahslaw.com. People interested in joining the class can also visit the website to provide their information.
Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC (www.ahslaw.com) is Chicago�s largest immigration law firm and the fourth largest immigration firm in the country. AHS provides comprehensive US immigration legal services for businesses and individuals (including visa petitions, green card services, consular assistance, naturalization proceedings, immigration representation in all U.S. Courts, and appellate work), immigration consulting to businesses, as well as immigration related legal services (e.g. family law, criminal law). Its main office is located at 205 N. Michigan Ave., 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, with other offices in Florida, Wisconsin, and Manila, Philippines. For more information contact them at 312.832.9200 or by email at info@ahslaw.com.
Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC Files Class Action Law Suit against the US Government for Refusing to Accept Green Card Applications
Chicago (July 9, 2007) � In the shadow of the debate about comprehensive immigration reform tens of thousands of skilled employment based immigrants awaiting their opportunity to legally apply for green cards have been unfairly denied the opportunity due to potential deliberate miscommunication � and an attempt to collect higher filing fees � from the U.S. Department of State and the and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes visa and citizenship requests.
On June 12, the State Department announced in its monthly Visa Bulletin that beginning July 2 and for at least the entire month of July, all skilled workers seeking employer-sponsored green cards would be eligible to apply. However, on July 2, the State Department announced that they were breaking with 30 years of tradition and issued an update claiming that no more green cards were available because �the sudden backlog reduction efforts by Citizenship and Immigration Services offices during the past month.� USCIS followed and said that as a result they were going to reject the green card applications of anyone who applied relying on the July Bulletin. This meant that the thousands of immigrants who followed the government�s instructions and obtained the correct paperwork actually had no chance to receive a green card.
In response, Azulay Horn & Seiden, LLC, the largest immigration law firm based in Chicago and fourth largest in the United States, on Friday July 6, filed a class-action law suit on behalf of its clients and all those like them, against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Department of State, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, and Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer of USCIS for announcing that they would refuse to accept the green card applications on behalf of the skilled workers. The suit seeks a ruling that would keep applications filed in accordance with the original July Visa Bulletin from being rejected.
Azulay Horn & Seiden is the first firm to act proactively and file a complaint. �These are legal immigrants who have followed all the rules,� explained Ira Azulay, CEO of the firm. �They are productive members of our society and deserve to be treated fairly by our federal government. The State Department and USCIS acted against their own rules and 30 years of historical practice when they updated the Visa Bulletin and reneged on their historical obligations. They need to be held accountable for their actions and do right by these people. Acting any other way sends the horrible message that following the rules is worthless.�
The representative plaintiff in the case is Chicagoan Gabriela Ptasinska, a native of Poland who is lawfully present in the United States on a non-immigrant visa, working as a land planner with Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Given the Bulletin, Ptasinska and thousands of legal immigrants across the country worked to obtain the necessary documentation for their chance to receive a green card only to have it snatched away on July.
�I am a law-abiding, hardworking member of American society and have worked relentlessly to lawfully become a permanent resident of America,� said Ptasinska. �Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me. I held-up my end of the bargain by doing everything the government told me to do, but USCIS did not keep their word.�
Mr. Azulay is available to discuss with the media the class-action suit and the impact of the government�s recent actions. A copy of the complaint in the matter of Gabriela Ptasinska, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. Dept. of State, Condoleeza Rice, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Emilio Gonzalez, and F. Gerard Heinauer, Case No. 07 C 3795, can be downloaded from Azulay, Horn & Seiden�s website at www.ahslaw.com. People interested in joining the class can also visit the website to provide their information.
Azulay, Horn & Seiden, LLC (www.ahslaw.com) is Chicago�s largest immigration law firm and the fourth largest immigration firm in the country. AHS provides comprehensive US immigration legal services for businesses and individuals (including visa petitions, green card services, consular assistance, naturalization proceedings, immigration representation in all U.S. Courts, and appellate work), immigration consulting to businesses, as well as immigration related legal services (e.g. family law, criminal law). Its main office is located at 205 N. Michigan Ave., 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, with other offices in Florida, Wisconsin, and Manila, Philippines. For more information contact them at 312.832.9200 or by email at info@ahslaw.com.
girlfriend House Picture in Calabasas, CA
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-13 07:46 PM
just spoke to our firms Immigration lawyer, per them, we will see more movement in Aug Bulletin and in Sept Bulletin we will see Retrogression back to May/aug 2005 for EB2
reasoning was Oct # would be released so they r trying to capture as many # as they can
I am april 2006 and it seems it will be a 1 yr wait foir me now.
This is completely bullshit...... I bet on it that the dates will never come back to Augst 2005.
He must have said Aug 2006 not Aug 2005.
Whoever the lawyer is, he has no idea of how cutoff dates are calculated
reasoning was Oct # would be released so they r trying to capture as many # as they can
I am april 2006 and it seems it will be a 1 yr wait foir me now.
This is completely bullshit...... I bet on it that the dates will never come back to Augst 2005.
He must have said Aug 2006 not Aug 2005.
Whoever the lawyer is, he has no idea of how cutoff dates are calculated
hairstyles House Picture in Calabasas, CA
rockstart
08-10 03:43 PM
10th is almost over and I thought we had this trend that when USCIS wants to maintain status quo they publish bulletin early in the month and if the bulletin is delayed there is strong probablity that there will be some positive movement
satishku_2000
12-27 01:50 AM
I travelled in last november thru hongkong. You dont need a transit visa but I felt humiliated with the treatment. Hope you know what I mean.
And on another note My sis and her husband have been Bank Of America customers for a long time and they have decent amount of funds in their account .Their mortgage application was rejected by BOA because they dont have a GC only to be accepted by other lender and better APR on their loan :)
I like this country and capitalism ...God bless America.
And on another note My sis and her husband have been Bank Of America customers for a long time and they have decent amount of funds in their account .Their mortgage application was rejected by BOA because they dont have a GC only to be accepted by other lender and better APR on their loan :)
I like this country and capitalism ...God bless America.
crazyghoda
01-30 02:20 PM
Ok now I am confused. I was laid off while in India. Since I could not then use my H1 to reenter, I used the AP. So my I-94 is stamped as AOS. Are you saying this was not a lawful admission? Are you implying that from the time I entered the US on AP (Dec till date) is unlawful?
Since 245(k) allow status check since last lawful admission, only details that matters is, since last admission. Please note that entry into US on AP does NOT count as lawful admission. It has to be non-immigrant visa.
245(k) allows a waiver of 180 cumulative days for out-of-status since last lawful admssion (i.e. on H1/H4/L1/L2/F1 etc).
Please have all AC-21 related documents for latest job (or job offer).
Since 245(k) allow status check since last lawful admission, only details that matters is, since last admission. Please note that entry into US on AP does NOT count as lawful admission. It has to be non-immigrant visa.
245(k) allows a waiver of 180 cumulative days for out-of-status since last lawful admssion (i.e. on H1/H4/L1/L2/F1 etc).
Please have all AC-21 related documents for latest job (or job offer).
0 comments:
Post a Comment