buddyinus
08-12 04:24 AM
Agree with you 100% - But Once you start a thread with assertive words peoples start relying on you.... I also posted lots of conversations between myself and USCIS but i was never assertive.
Anyway - this argument will go on forever.
Can we request SriKondoJi/likes not to post anything with strong Affirmative words unless they have some kind of confirmations beyond the general Public's assumption ??
Thanks
Now, the fool is trying to change the subject by asking ppl to join the rally. Why in the world wud ppl trust him? The thread is barely 10 pages and after realizing that therez no point in discussing about what this thread is all about, he has shifted subject loyalites. How lame and insane is this guy? Pappu, LogicLife where r u guyz? Why dont u ban him?
Anyway - this argument will go on forever.
Can we request SriKondoJi/likes not to post anything with strong Affirmative words unless they have some kind of confirmations beyond the general Public's assumption ??
Thanks
Now, the fool is trying to change the subject by asking ppl to join the rally. Why in the world wud ppl trust him? The thread is barely 10 pages and after realizing that therez no point in discussing about what this thread is all about, he has shifted subject loyalites. How lame and insane is this guy? Pappu, LogicLife where r u guyz? Why dont u ban him?
wallpaper View your profile. Things to
mirage
03-31 12:42 PM
Wow, so you're telling me be happy as somebody else is in pain now ???
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
We're much better off here in the US when you compare our compatriots suffering in Britain. Britain has enforced a lot more regulations on immigrants, much to their chagrin.
Let's grin and bear it and hope to see the 'green' light at the end of the tunnel.
Their problems doesn't make me smile here. I want solutions to my problems.
We're much better off here in the US when you compare our compatriots suffering in Britain. Britain has enforced a lot more regulations on immigrants, much to their chagrin.
Let's grin and bear it and hope to see the 'green' light at the end of the tunnel.
Kodi
06-22 02:59 PM
can some one share there login user name and password to check status of labor. My lawyer has not shared this with me and i have to check with him every other day ... wish i could do it myself ... you can pm me if u prefer
-M
Login is uniqe for each employer. My login will not work for you.
-M
Login is uniqe for each employer. My login will not work for you.
2011 map maps new ny for
Edison99
09-01 08:54 PM
Since Jan 2000
Let us see who is waiting for most time in USA.
5 years and counting.
If you can tell your history of Green card and any tip on applying early would appreciate.
Let us see who is waiting for most time in USA.
5 years and counting.
If you can tell your history of Green card and any tip on applying early would appreciate.
more...
needhelp!
09-11 12:57 PM
1, mamthavijai, theMan, lccleared, GC2015
kumar1
03-13 02:08 PM
I never got any notification of any file transfer from NSC to TSC. I do not know if that happened or not.
Hi,
I can see that your 485 recipt date should be around 7/25/07 which is around mine.
Was your 485 transferred to TSC or NSC ? If so, did the Transfer notice have a different Receipt date ?
I am just trying to figure out when they may get to my case. My 485 Recipt date was 7/31/09 and then it was transferred to TSC and the transfer notice had a receipt date of 10/1/09. Not sure if they'd consider the Receipt date in the 485 Receipt or the 485 Transfer Notice.
The reason for my my anxiety is, I provided a change of Address (more than 200 miles) to USCIS and am wondering if I'd get a rfe.
Thanks
Hi,
I can see that your 485 recipt date should be around 7/25/07 which is around mine.
Was your 485 transferred to TSC or NSC ? If so, did the Transfer notice have a different Receipt date ?
I am just trying to figure out when they may get to my case. My 485 Recipt date was 7/31/09 and then it was transferred to TSC and the transfer notice had a receipt date of 10/1/09. Not sure if they'd consider the Receipt date in the 485 Receipt or the 485 Transfer Notice.
The reason for my my anxiety is, I provided a change of Address (more than 200 miles) to USCIS and am wondering if I'd get a rfe.
Thanks
more...
sunny1000
04-30 04:54 PM
This is the style of the officer of USCIS of America!
Some idiot gave me a red for asking for this translation...Whoever that is, please note that not all speak Hindi and I wanted to know what the poster was saying. So, go screw yourself if you don't like it.:mad::mad:
Some idiot gave me a red for asking for this translation...Whoever that is, please note that not all speak Hindi and I wanted to know what the poster was saying. So, go screw yourself if you don't like it.:mad::mad:
2010 Chinatown New York City
nixstor
07-11 12:32 PM
eb2 china was at jan2006 for a while. this will be the first time that they will be moving beyond jan 2006.
The movement EB-2 china gets some times is solely because of the visa number that category gets. This typically happens in the first Q. EB2-I and EB2-C will have different PD's . Some time in 2nd Q or mid 2nd Q, both I and C will have used up their quota and they will continue to have the same PD until the end of the fiscal year as PD is the only thing that matters.
The movement EB-2 china gets some times is solely because of the visa number that category gets. This typically happens in the first Q. EB2-I and EB2-C will have different PD's . Some time in 2nd Q or mid 2nd Q, both I and C will have used up their quota and they will continue to have the same PD until the end of the fiscal year as PD is the only thing that matters.
more...
santb1975
06-20 12:53 AM
Are we not reaching 20K even??
hair See what#39;s new on the Big Map:
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases – especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer – and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications – ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD’s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to: Ombudsman
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant’s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant’s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
hebron
10-22 10:50 AM
I filed my EB2 with the same employer. Did not get any RFE for PERM Labor. I have M.S degree from US. I am in the same job role from the beginning (Web Developer).
I sent you private message. Could you please take a look?
I sent you private message. Could you please take a look?
hot Chinatown, New York City
champu
02-13 09:22 PM
i am going to marry my sister's daughter.. Sweet girl
All the girls are not like that. ;)
anyway my comments are about the crazy, career oriented, tradition less girls. And most of teh US girls are like that. Ofcourse not 100%, there may be few jewels..
Isn't it incest
All the girls are not like that. ;)
anyway my comments are about the crazy, career oriented, tradition less girls. And most of teh US girls are like that. Ofcourse not 100%, there may be few jewels..
Isn't it incest
more...
house Chinatown, New York
chanduv23
05-14 11:58 AM
Just an update from my side:
I have just talked local Congresswoman's Office and I have talked to a staff member for 1 hour and she is helping me. She is going to call NSC and get to the root cause of this problem.
Guys,
If you are reading this, do not lose hope. We have to try every avenue and knock every door that is open.
Great going. Please post your updates. I am sure, you will be fine.
I have just talked local Congresswoman's Office and I have talked to a staff member for 1 hour and she is helping me. She is going to call NSC and get to the root cause of this problem.
Guys,
If you are reading this, do not lose hope. We have to try every avenue and knock every door that is open.
Great going. Please post your updates. I am sure, you will be fine.
tattoo New York, NY 10001
andycool
04-12 11:59 AM
How long it takes to get 140 approved in premium?
15 days if no REF ...
If they cant approve i think they will pay you back the 1200 $:rolleyes:
15 days if no REF ...
If they cant approve i think they will pay you back the 1200 $:rolleyes:
more...
pictures en:Citibank branch in Chinatown district of en:Lower Manhattan (en:New York
chanduv23
08-12 11:29 AM
Almost all companies, in every field (engg, medicine, nursing, research..) hire people through contracting agencies. Most of the companies these days hire only US citizens or GC or EAD and try best not to hire H1b and if you look at their employees, it is rare to find 50% or more h1b holders.
On the contrary, outsourcing companies may have majority of their workers coming here on L1 or H1b and when such a fgee is imposed, I guess, for the biggies, it is just a small adjustment in their costs of bringing workers which they will adjust in their other expenses.
Overall, I am not sure, how much revenue such a law will generate. Will it generate enough revenue which is being claimed (600 million?)
To me, this kinda speech and trashing Indian companies and outsourcing etc... and showing that they acted on it just looks like it is pure politics to save face during the election year.
On the contrary, outsourcing companies may have majority of their workers coming here on L1 or H1b and when such a fgee is imposed, I guess, for the biggies, it is just a small adjustment in their costs of bringing workers which they will adjust in their other expenses.
Overall, I am not sure, how much revenue such a law will generate. Will it generate enough revenue which is being claimed (600 million?)
To me, this kinda speech and trashing Indian companies and outsourcing etc... and showing that they acted on it just looks like it is pure politics to save face during the election year.
dresses Chinatown, New York City
akgind
07-13 10:31 PM
I am in a similar situation, not a lawyer, but worried about my children's future and trying to do what we can to help everyone with the same issue. Can you provide details of the changes in cspa that you have proposed? CSPA and Dream Act are two channels that may benefit our children. If I can understand what your efforts are in respect of CSPA, we can figure out what we can do.
Any assistance you can give to help legal age out children would be fantastic I sent an e-mail to Weldon's office for an update today as we are waiting to hear if he will use our legislation and get a co sponsor to amend the cspa
Any assistance you can give to help legal age out children would be fantastic I sent an e-mail to Weldon's office for an update today as we are waiting to hear if he will use our legislation and get a co sponsor to amend the cspa
more...
makeup Chinatown+new+york+night
greyhair
04-30 09:25 PM
Sen. Kyl: Has also released a press statement, did not read it, asked me to check it on the senators webpage. Took my opinion though.
Senator Jon Kyl Press Office (http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324534)
Kyl and Graham have released the press statement together -
Kyl, Graham Response to Partisan Democrat Immigration Proposal
WASHINGTON, D.C. � U.S. Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham today made the following statement in response to the immigration reform proposal announced by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and other Democratic Senators:
�A conceptual paper that promises everything to everyone is not the same as responsible legislation that compiles the best ideas from both sides of the aisle. The Senate Democrats� proposal is nothing more than an attempt to score political points. It poisons the well for those of us who are working toward a more secure border and responsible, bipartisan reform of our immigration laws.
�What is being billed as a comprehensive immigration and enforcement package, is actually far more permissive than the 2007 bill. It doesn�t provide the funding to ensure that the border is actually secured, it doesn�t end chain migration, and there is no real temporary worker program. Both of us have been involved in serious efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and believe, given the increase in violence along the border, that additional border security measures must be funded immediately.
�Since 2007, threats have increased, some border technology has failed, and the American people have lost confidence in the federal government�s ability to secure our borders. So it is our belief that Congress should focus on border security first and that will eventually allow Congress to seriously consider bipartisan immigration reform, instead of politically-motivated �conceptual papers.�
�Most of the border enforcement measures that have been proven effective can be achieved by appropriating necessary funding. We need to work on a bipartisan basis to get this done.�
Senator Jon Kyl Press Office (http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=324534)
Kyl and Graham have released the press statement together -
Kyl, Graham Response to Partisan Democrat Immigration Proposal
WASHINGTON, D.C. � U.S. Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham today made the following statement in response to the immigration reform proposal announced by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and other Democratic Senators:
�A conceptual paper that promises everything to everyone is not the same as responsible legislation that compiles the best ideas from both sides of the aisle. The Senate Democrats� proposal is nothing more than an attempt to score political points. It poisons the well for those of us who are working toward a more secure border and responsible, bipartisan reform of our immigration laws.
�What is being billed as a comprehensive immigration and enforcement package, is actually far more permissive than the 2007 bill. It doesn�t provide the funding to ensure that the border is actually secured, it doesn�t end chain migration, and there is no real temporary worker program. Both of us have been involved in serious efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and believe, given the increase in violence along the border, that additional border security measures must be funded immediately.
�Since 2007, threats have increased, some border technology has failed, and the American people have lost confidence in the federal government�s ability to secure our borders. So it is our belief that Congress should focus on border security first and that will eventually allow Congress to seriously consider bipartisan immigration reform, instead of politically-motivated �conceptual papers.�
�Most of the border enforcement measures that have been proven effective can be achieved by appropriating necessary funding. We need to work on a bipartisan basis to get this done.�
girlfriend Chinatown, New York City
langagadu
03-04 12:19 PM
do have your 140 approved?
Doesnt seem like anything is cooking at TSC! I-140 and I-485 still shows
"On Oct 1st 2007 we received....blah blah blah...."
-GCisaDawg
Doesnt seem like anything is cooking at TSC! I-140 and I-485 still shows
"On Oct 1st 2007 we received....blah blah blah...."
-GCisaDawg
hairstyles locate new york thoughtful
zoooom
07-15 03:39 PM
Login to your bank account (This is for BoA)
Go to Bill Pay>>Payees>>Add a Payee
You will see two options
1)Pay a company
2) Pay an Individual
Click the GO button next to Pay an Individual (without entering any information)
In the next page
You will see a small form
Payee- is the name- in whose favor the check will be made
Nickname is for your reference
In Identifying information- you can put your handle
Rest is obvious
Payee creation is one time setup
Once you have created a payee
Go to Bill Pay>>Overview
and here you will see an option to make a payment
Thanks and Done...
ref num: 7YFFZ-0KY4F
Go to Bill Pay>>Payees>>Add a Payee
You will see two options
1)Pay a company
2) Pay an Individual
Click the GO button next to Pay an Individual (without entering any information)
In the next page
You will see a small form
Payee- is the name- in whose favor the check will be made
Nickname is for your reference
In Identifying information- you can put your handle
Rest is obvious
Payee creation is one time setup
Once you have created a payee
Go to Bill Pay>>Overview
and here you will see an option to make a payment
Thanks and Done...
ref num: 7YFFZ-0KY4F
pappu
11-30 01:21 AM
Great work Jimi and the CA chapter members!
santb1975
05-25 04:17 PM
with your contributions.
