Jaime
04-16 11:16 AM
Let's pray and hope for the best! Already some Nov and Dec 09 cases have been approved
wallpaper Of The Chicago White Sox …
sheela
08-13 11:46 AM
I was current per the june VB and the Texas processing dates were current tat that time too.... but no change in status.
This all is so frustrating. Good luck
This all is so frustrating. Good luck
GC_sufferer
07-11 04:16 PM
Interesting, she also ask USCIS to provide document regarding the weekend overtime work, for the past 3 years. WoW...
2011 wallpaper chicago white sox
AirWaterandGC
05-02 02:45 PM
Currently I am on H1B visa. My labor petition and I-140 were approved sometime last year. I have been on H1B for many years now and my current H1-B is valid till 2010. My wife is on a H1-B visa too. Her labor petition and I-140 were approved too last year.
I have been admitted to some of the top ranking business schools full-time MBA program and intend to join one of those. I understand that transfer to F-1 status might be challenging. Hence I was planning to transfer to H4 status. School starts in Sept and I plan to be working till end of August. My question is : When do I need to file the I-539 change of status from H1 to H4 ? There is no date on the form I-539 that I can request my status change to be effective from. Also there is no guideline as to when my H4 status application may be approved. If I file now and it gets approved quickly, I cannot work for my employer and would have to sit at home. However, if I wait till end of August, then resign, how fast do I need to file for the H4 change of status ? Would the school have any issues if the approval is pending and I wanted to start classes. (Note I do have H1 valid till 2010, but once I quit my job I may no longer be in H1 status). Most schools did not have any accurate answer and hence I am throwing it at you gurus.
I have been admitted to some of the top ranking business schools full-time MBA program and intend to join one of those. I understand that transfer to F-1 status might be challenging. Hence I was planning to transfer to H4 status. School starts in Sept and I plan to be working till end of August. My question is : When do I need to file the I-539 change of status from H1 to H4 ? There is no date on the form I-539 that I can request my status change to be effective from. Also there is no guideline as to when my H4 status application may be approved. If I file now and it gets approved quickly, I cannot work for my employer and would have to sit at home. However, if I wait till end of August, then resign, how fast do I need to file for the H4 change of status ? Would the school have any issues if the approval is pending and I wanted to start classes. (Note I do have H1 valid till 2010, but once I quit my job I may no longer be in H1 status). Most schools did not have any accurate answer and hence I am throwing it at you gurus.
more...
chintu25
01-13 10:40 AM
chintu25,
I did not ask you to explain any thing to me. You needed to make a good argument ..............hink did that. I will leave it there and do not want to take this discussion further on my opinions about day trading and it's nitty gritty.
Ouch Nix..... Relax
One of the important principals of trading longterm / day or swing is "DO NOT OVER THINK " Trader will loose all the rationale when his/her money is on the line.
DO NOT FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR TRADES Get your profits and move out or cut your losses and move on.
MAKE A PLAN ...STICK TO IT
I will try to answer any questions that anyone may have. I can also give an overview of my trading strategy on my blog posts.
Please do check the blogs and leave comments too.
Thanks to Pappu for letting me do the blogs
Last but not the least ......If you like what you read ...Consider donating atleast $ 10 to IV today ......
Thanks and Lets Play ;)
I did not ask you to explain any thing to me. You needed to make a good argument ..............hink did that. I will leave it there and do not want to take this discussion further on my opinions about day trading and it's nitty gritty.
Ouch Nix..... Relax
One of the important principals of trading longterm / day or swing is "DO NOT OVER THINK " Trader will loose all the rationale when his/her money is on the line.
DO NOT FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR TRADES Get your profits and move out or cut your losses and move on.
MAKE A PLAN ...STICK TO IT
I will try to answer any questions that anyone may have. I can also give an overview of my trading strategy on my blog posts.
Please do check the blogs and leave comments too.
Thanks to Pappu for letting me do the blogs
Last but not the least ......If you like what you read ...Consider donating atleast $ 10 to IV today ......
Thanks and Lets Play ;)
Ahimsa
07-19 10:20 AM
What do we say when people correlate illegal and legal immigrations as closely connected?
There was a hearing yesterday in the house "Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?"
Look what Mr. Steven A. Camarota (Center for Immigration Studies) quotes in his testimony (shown in italics): (http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/camarota071806.pdf)
...many observers have pointed out that when you reward law breaking, you make legal immigrants who have played by the rules, and in some cases have waited many years to come to our country, look like fools for taking America�s law seriously.
True. But see what he says then...
...Amnesties and Increased Legal Immigration Don�t Solve Problem. �Amnesty spurs more illegal immigration, as does increases in legal immigration. A 1997 report from the INS found that there was a surge of new illegal immigration when the 1986 amnesty went into effect. The increase seems to have been the result of family members joining their newly legalized relatives�
One of the most controversial provisions in S2611 is the very large increase in legal immigration it creates. The larger the pool of immigrants (legal or illegal) in the United States, the greater is the pull for more illegal immigration. Illegal aliens often live with legal immigrants and it is legal immigrants who often provide information about jobs and housing to their relatives and friends back home. Legal immigration has been increasing for more than three decades, and illegal immigration has been increasing right along with it. The top sending countries for legal immigration are by and large the top sending countries for illegal immigration. A survey funded by the National Institute of Health found that one-third of new legal immigrants were former illegal aliens. Legal and illegal immigration are closely linked. The past shows that if you increase one you increase the other. The Senate bill repeats the mistake of thinking amnesty plus increases in legal immigration will solve the problem. It did not in the past and there is no reason to think it will this time around. Instead, S2611 will almost certainly stimulate more illegal mmigration...
Obviously Mr. Camarota was generalizing the legal immigration and was not talking about employer sponsored immigration.
There was a hearing yesterday in the house "Should We Embrace the Senate's Grant of Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens and Repeat the Mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?"
Look what Mr. Steven A. Camarota (Center for Immigration Studies) quotes in his testimony (shown in italics): (http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/camarota071806.pdf)
...many observers have pointed out that when you reward law breaking, you make legal immigrants who have played by the rules, and in some cases have waited many years to come to our country, look like fools for taking America�s law seriously.
True. But see what he says then...
...Amnesties and Increased Legal Immigration Don�t Solve Problem. �Amnesty spurs more illegal immigration, as does increases in legal immigration. A 1997 report from the INS found that there was a surge of new illegal immigration when the 1986 amnesty went into effect. The increase seems to have been the result of family members joining their newly legalized relatives�
One of the most controversial provisions in S2611 is the very large increase in legal immigration it creates. The larger the pool of immigrants (legal or illegal) in the United States, the greater is the pull for more illegal immigration. Illegal aliens often live with legal immigrants and it is legal immigrants who often provide information about jobs and housing to their relatives and friends back home. Legal immigration has been increasing for more than three decades, and illegal immigration has been increasing right along with it. The top sending countries for legal immigration are by and large the top sending countries for illegal immigration. A survey funded by the National Institute of Health found that one-third of new legal immigrants were former illegal aliens. Legal and illegal immigration are closely linked. The past shows that if you increase one you increase the other. The Senate bill repeats the mistake of thinking amnesty plus increases in legal immigration will solve the problem. It did not in the past and there is no reason to think it will this time around. Instead, S2611 will almost certainly stimulate more illegal mmigration...
Obviously Mr. Camarota was generalizing the legal immigration and was not talking about employer sponsored immigration.
more...
tikka
05-30 04:18 PM
up we go...
2010 makeup Chicago White Sox 2011
looivy
07-14 01:20 PM
You are right that there is no hope for EB3 India. But only as long as you and others in EB3 do not meet their lawmakers. Take part actively in action items. We have details of every local town hall meeting in your area and you can go there. We can help you set up your meeting with your lawmaker in his office. We can help you meet in their DC office if you want to get really active. We have several more details and ideas and need people to work on them.
FYI we never use the terms like EB2 or EB3 in our meetings with lawmakers. There is no priority in our agenda based on category or nationality. ImmigrationVoice.org - About Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=47) You will not find anywhere EB2 or EB3 based agenda here.
Well Pappu, the fact of the matter is nothing has been done specifically to help EB3-I/C/ROW. IV may be EB agnostic but EB3-I seems to have been stuck forever to the point of despair.
I and other EB3s have donated to most of the IV causes and campaigns. We have written to our Senators, reps, sponsors and co-sponsors of bills but nothing has helped.
If IV renews its focus to help EB3-I/C/ROW then you can expect more contributiuons from EB3s.
I do not want a lesson on EB3/EB2/EB1...there is no end to opinions on this forum. What I and other EB3-I/C/ROW want are results. Contributions, meeting the lawmakers, writing to politicians etc will kick in fourth gear if there is a reasonable advancement of dates for EB3-I/C/ROW.
BTW, your and other IV leaders' efforts are very much appreciated. All that I am saying is that IV should be focused on EB3-I/C/ROW (through tagging recapture to a bill or something) now that EB2 is getting help from USCIS spillover.
FYI we never use the terms like EB2 or EB3 in our meetings with lawmakers. There is no priority in our agenda based on category or nationality. ImmigrationVoice.org - About Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=47) You will not find anywhere EB2 or EB3 based agenda here.
Well Pappu, the fact of the matter is nothing has been done specifically to help EB3-I/C/ROW. IV may be EB agnostic but EB3-I seems to have been stuck forever to the point of despair.
I and other EB3s have donated to most of the IV causes and campaigns. We have written to our Senators, reps, sponsors and co-sponsors of bills but nothing has helped.
If IV renews its focus to help EB3-I/C/ROW then you can expect more contributiuons from EB3s.
I do not want a lesson on EB3/EB2/EB1...there is no end to opinions on this forum. What I and other EB3-I/C/ROW want are results. Contributions, meeting the lawmakers, writing to politicians etc will kick in fourth gear if there is a reasonable advancement of dates for EB3-I/C/ROW.
BTW, your and other IV leaders' efforts are very much appreciated. All that I am saying is that IV should be focused on EB3-I/C/ROW (through tagging recapture to a bill or something) now that EB2 is getting help from USCIS spillover.
more...
delhirocks
06-29 01:30 PM
I have a BC which is issued on 2004. Do I still need 2 affidivits? My Lawyer didn't ask me to gather affidivits. Any thoughts on that?
Did anybody filing through FDBL? Any idea how long they are taking to file once they have all the documents and papers?
Thanks!
This is just my lawyers opinion, If the BC was issued/date of birth registered is after 1 year of birth, 2 affidavits are required.
Also, getting a affidavit made is fairly simple as it does not involve any governmental agency. It is a good idea to notorize it and have it on a cheap stamp paper.
Did anybody filing through FDBL? Any idea how long they are taking to file once they have all the documents and papers?
Thanks!
This is just my lawyers opinion, If the BC was issued/date of birth registered is after 1 year of birth, 2 affidavits are required.
Also, getting a affidavit made is fairly simple as it does not involve any governmental agency. It is a good idea to notorize it and have it on a cheap stamp paper.
hair Chicago White Sox iPhone
hopefulgc
09-03 11:59 AM
bsbawa10,
I am here with you, loyal and forever unapproved.
USCIS makes me feel like that pimple faced frail kid from the phys ed who never gets picked first or remotely early for any team sport.:):):)
No luck for me so far. I wonder how many of 2004 EB2s are still waitng ..like me
I am here with you, loyal and forever unapproved.
USCIS makes me feel like that pimple faced frail kid from the phys ed who never gets picked first or remotely early for any team sport.:):):)
No luck for me so far. I wonder how many of 2004 EB2s are still waitng ..like me
more...
mighty80
02-28 03:27 PM
Donated 50$ for advocacy event.
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID # 40927168VE4498036)
See related S-27C40062MM1153923
Business Name:
Immigration Voice (The recipient of this payment is Verified)
Email:
donations@immigrationvoice.org
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID # 40927168VE4498036)
See related S-27C40062MM1153923
Business Name:
Immigration Voice (The recipient of this payment is Verified)
Email:
donations@immigrationvoice.org
hot Screenshots Chicago White Sox
gomirage
06-20 06:12 PM
Now that CIR is officially dead for this year, what alternative is there ?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3987454.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3987454.html
more...
house WWE Royal Rumble 2011
hebron
07-14 04:00 PM
Sure ,, I am totally fed up I am in this country from 2000.
"...so far.I haven't contributed....I am ready to contribute...if IV is going to show some interest on EB3.
IV may not be ditching EB3, but I cannot understand why IV is quiet about the new bill that that is introduced in the house and is referred to the judiciary committee. This bill may be a political drama, but there is no reason why we should not create awareness. I personally think if this gets media attention, this will do good than harm. Especially since the AZ immigration, DOJ lawsuit etc.. are in the news these days. This bill is for legal immigration and we should support it to the best we can.
See this thread..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1598791-new-employment-based-visa-bill-introduced-3.html#post1969287
"...so far.I haven't contributed....I am ready to contribute...if IV is going to show some interest on EB3.
IV may not be ditching EB3, but I cannot understand why IV is quiet about the new bill that that is introduced in the house and is referred to the judiciary committee. This bill may be a political drama, but there is no reason why we should not create awareness. I personally think if this gets media attention, this will do good than harm. Especially since the AZ immigration, DOJ lawsuit etc.. are in the news these days. This bill is for legal immigration and we should support it to the best we can.
See this thread..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/1598791-new-employment-based-visa-bill-introduced-3.html#post1969287
tattoo Chicago White Sox: 96-66
saileshdude
04-08 07:55 PM
Enough is enough. I am ready to sign this.
I have 3 real names. All were working for Cognizant. One had 3 years of exp. Cooked up with 4 years of B.Tech and totalled it as 7 years. Came on L1 as PM and applied in EB1. He got GC in less than 1 year. Other 2 had real 7 years exp and got GC's in 8 months. All were working at Client's place and NOT intra company transfers.
I am not selfish. But I am sure this guy with 3 years exp may one day become a boss for any of us.
This misuse will hurt the genuine cases. Shall we we go serious and complaint? I am ready to sign and submit all the proof.
Actually I have heard of another cognizant case. But that was through a friend's friend chain so I am not sure how reliable it was. But seems like cognizant has been following this practice a lot.
I have 3 real names. All were working for Cognizant. One had 3 years of exp. Cooked up with 4 years of B.Tech and totalled it as 7 years. Came on L1 as PM and applied in EB1. He got GC in less than 1 year. Other 2 had real 7 years exp and got GC's in 8 months. All were working at Client's place and NOT intra company transfers.
I am not selfish. But I am sure this guy with 3 years exp may one day become a boss for any of us.
This misuse will hurt the genuine cases. Shall we we go serious and complaint? I am ready to sign and submit all the proof.
Actually I have heard of another cognizant case. But that was through a friend's friend chain so I am not sure how reliable it was. But seems like cognizant has been following this practice a lot.
more...
pictures 2011 Chicago White Sox get the
BECsufferer
09-01 11:59 AM
This is reality, my friend. There are multiple approvals showing up already on other sites.
What matters is "had my approval and even better GC arrived?" . The answer is No, yet. So let's keep the hype down and remember we all have long and will continue, but hopefully our kismat will change. But till than ...
Peace out!
What matters is "had my approval and even better GC arrived?" . The answer is No, yet. So let's keep the hype down and remember we all have long and will continue, but hopefully our kismat will change. But till than ...
Peace out!
dresses Chicago White Sox Wallpapers
omeya
05-19 12:10 PM
I did call all of them today.
more...
makeup chicago white sox wallpaper.
Legal
07-11 08:59 PM
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Posted July 11, 2007
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
Posted July 9, 2007
Posted July 11, 2007
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
Posted July 9, 2007
girlfriend Chicago Cubs I-Phone Wallpaper
gsc999
06-29 01:23 PM
Get a new BC made, and attach 2 affidatvits. I was able to get the new BC in 2 days. Though 'coz I was bon in a Hospital
---
I wasn't born in a Hospital so they won't have a record.
I just spoke to someone at http://www.yourmaninindia.com/ and they informed me that Delhi doesn't issue Non-availability of birth record certificate.
Any other options?
---
I wasn't born in a Hospital so they won't have a record.
I just spoke to someone at http://www.yourmaninindia.com/ and they informed me that Delhi doesn't issue Non-availability of birth record certificate.
Any other options?
hairstyles white sox wallpaper the midst
needhelp!
08-28 05:49 PM
waiting_4_gc wrote:
I didn�t want to go to DC rally due to my surgery appointment (September 6th) because I can not fly for three weeks after the surgery.
Guess what?, I have postponed my surgery appointment date, booked tickets and going to DC rally on Monday evening and flying back on Tuesday night.
I also urge people to take a day off and attend the rally.
I didn�t want to go to DC rally due to my surgery appointment (September 6th) because I can not fly for three weeks after the surgery.
Guess what?, I have postponed my surgery appointment date, booked tickets and going to DC rally on Monday evening and flying back on Tuesday night.
I also urge people to take a day off and attend the rally.
reddymjm
05-12 07:22 PM
Every EB2 was crying on porters. I hope they are getting sleep tonight.
susie
06-22 10:42 PM
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM FILES CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT AGAINST USCIS ON BEHALF OF IMMIGRANTS
Posted on: 6/20/2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Los Angeles � Reeves & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation filed a class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court, Central District CA, Case Number SACV08-688 JVX (SHx) on behalf of tens of thousands of immigrant families whose adult children have been wrongfully denied of visas. Attorneys for the families are seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (�USCIS�) to act in accordance with the provision of Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) that enables children to reunite with their families more quickly.
Prior to CSPA children who reached the age of 21 were no longer eligible to obtain an immigrant visa with the rest of their family. These children became known as �age-outs.� However, Congress enacted Section 3 of CSPA, codified as INA � 203(h)(3), to keep children together with their parents. Specifically, this provision allowed children to automatically convert the visa petition and retain the original filing date � known as the priority date � after the child had aged out. As such, an aged-out child, who is a derivative beneficiary of the visa petition of his parent, can reunite with their family faster by utilizing their parent�s earlier priority date. As of today, USCIS has not only failed to comply with INA � 203(h)(3), but has also failed to promulgate regulations or issue policy memorandum regarding this provision of law.
�This case affects tens of thousands of immigrant families,� said Robert L. Reeves, founder and Managing Attorney of Reeves & Associates, APLC. �A child abroad who aged-out is eligible under CSPA for an immigrant visa, and if the child is in the United States, he or she will be able to adjust to legal resident status,� explained Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit presents two different classes of aggrieved individuals. Nancy Miller, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, describes the two classes as �those who filed petitions with requests for retention of the parent�s original priority date whose petitions were denied and those who have received no response at all to their requests for retention of the original priority date.� In both cases parents remain separated from their children.
Although USCIS has granted some visa petitions and permitted retention of the earlier priority dates pursuant to INA � 203(h)(3) to some, there appears to be no uniform policy from USCIS as a whole. Jeremiah Johnson, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, said �the lack of any regulations or even policy memorandum has lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making affecting thousands on a global level.� Joyce Komanapalli, an associate with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, added �USCIS�s refusal to issue visa petitions with the original priority date is at odds with the language, structure, history and purpose of the Child Status Protection Act.�
�It is incomprehensible why USCIS would deny these requests given the plain language of the statute and the Congressional history of CSPA.� said Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit is seeking to compel USCIS to properly adjudicate all cases filed under CSPA, or INA � 203(h)(3), and comply with the requirements of retaining the parent�s original priority date in subsequent petitions filed by the parent.
Posted on: 6/20/2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Los Angeles � Reeves & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation filed a class action lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court, Central District CA, Case Number SACV08-688 JVX (SHx) on behalf of tens of thousands of immigrant families whose adult children have been wrongfully denied of visas. Attorneys for the families are seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (�USCIS�) to act in accordance with the provision of Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) that enables children to reunite with their families more quickly.
Prior to CSPA children who reached the age of 21 were no longer eligible to obtain an immigrant visa with the rest of their family. These children became known as �age-outs.� However, Congress enacted Section 3 of CSPA, codified as INA � 203(h)(3), to keep children together with their parents. Specifically, this provision allowed children to automatically convert the visa petition and retain the original filing date � known as the priority date � after the child had aged out. As such, an aged-out child, who is a derivative beneficiary of the visa petition of his parent, can reunite with their family faster by utilizing their parent�s earlier priority date. As of today, USCIS has not only failed to comply with INA � 203(h)(3), but has also failed to promulgate regulations or issue policy memorandum regarding this provision of law.
�This case affects tens of thousands of immigrant families,� said Robert L. Reeves, founder and Managing Attorney of Reeves & Associates, APLC. �A child abroad who aged-out is eligible under CSPA for an immigrant visa, and if the child is in the United States, he or she will be able to adjust to legal resident status,� explained Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit presents two different classes of aggrieved individuals. Nancy Miller, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, describes the two classes as �those who filed petitions with requests for retention of the parent�s original priority date whose petitions were denied and those who have received no response at all to their requests for retention of the original priority date.� In both cases parents remain separated from their children.
Although USCIS has granted some visa petitions and permitted retention of the earlier priority dates pursuant to INA � 203(h)(3) to some, there appears to be no uniform policy from USCIS as a whole. Jeremiah Johnson, a partner with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, said �the lack of any regulations or even policy memorandum has lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making affecting thousands on a global level.� Joyce Komanapalli, an associate with Reeves & Associates and co-counsel, added �USCIS�s refusal to issue visa petitions with the original priority date is at odds with the language, structure, history and purpose of the Child Status Protection Act.�
�It is incomprehensible why USCIS would deny these requests given the plain language of the statute and the Congressional history of CSPA.� said Mr. Reeves.
The class action lawsuit is seeking to compel USCIS to properly adjudicate all cases filed under CSPA, or INA � 203(h)(3), and comply with the requirements of retaining the parent�s original priority date in subsequent petitions filed by the parent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment