suriajay12
02-19 07:21 AM
And who do you think is going to process the paperwork for illegals? ... guess again, the same agency that is processing for Legal would-be-could-be immigrants. So how is it not going to increase processing time which would ultimately result in further delay?
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
Moreover, it doesn't matter wether their is delay or not. Simply, putting illegals in front of legals is ethically, morally and legally wrong!!
There is a difference.. In this case (>5 years), it will also include clauses or something that will not jeopardize your status. Compare requirements we have to meet in different stages and in this case. In LC, 140... you are at the mercy of many agencies, including mood of the officier who looks at your case, economic conditions, your employer, etc etc.. endless list . In this case you are just dependent upon yourself and if you can prove you were in the US for >5 years in whatever ways you can, then you are good. I know some who dont meet this 5 years may be disappointed, but they must find a way to include themselves if they can make sense. But not just cut the line.
To prove >5 year legally in US is fully on you.. which is VERY good. Support it.
wallpaper Eyewitness News at
sureshj
06-08 02:18 PM
To solve the FBI name check problem, the following suggestions should be communicated to lawmaker if possible:
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
gc03
07-24 09:02 AM
I totally agree with you. Excellent point.
2011 Live News Feed from Fox News 5
alterego
07-15 10:30 AM
Ramba,
"and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment"
That is the line that is the big caveat in this question. You must demonstrate to the adjudicating officer(to his/her satisfaction) that you plan to go back to your petitioning employer once your green card is approved. Either that or you invoke the AC21 statute by fulfilling those requirements.
This answer was speaking to that point.
A withdrawn 140 is a bad news on either front. Especially when it happens with the future intent clause, then how can you say you and the employer still have intent. It won't fly with the adjudicator.
With the AC21, if the 180 days has passed then 140 withdrawal often still does lead to RFE and sometimes outright denial but the MTR and appeal process can be successful on the grounds of AC21 portability rules. There are people on this forum with such experiences. Try searching for it.
Once again, this is a delicate situation and the poster is best served with good legal counsel. We are all of course giving our best layman interpretations here.
"and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment"
That is the line that is the big caveat in this question. You must demonstrate to the adjudicating officer(to his/her satisfaction) that you plan to go back to your petitioning employer once your green card is approved. Either that or you invoke the AC21 statute by fulfilling those requirements.
This answer was speaking to that point.
A withdrawn 140 is a bad news on either front. Especially when it happens with the future intent clause, then how can you say you and the employer still have intent. It won't fly with the adjudicator.
With the AC21, if the 180 days has passed then 140 withdrawal often still does lead to RFE and sometimes outright denial but the MTR and appeal process can be successful on the grounds of AC21 portability rules. There are people on this forum with such experiences. Try searching for it.
Once again, this is a delicate situation and the poster is best served with good legal counsel. We are all of course giving our best layman interpretations here.
more...
acecupid
07-13 11:22 AM
And has your lawyer sent a letter - if not, why is he/she still waiting to do so. Did you exhort her to do so. Will you exclude yourself from any AILF lawsuit benefit.
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
I am not saying my lawyer is any better, all these lawyers are nothing but blood suckers just like the employers. I'm just disgusted that people can stoop so low. The objective might be the same, but the intentions are far from it. I hope you understand that my friend and stop being a PR rep for murthy or any lawyer. :)
You are missing the forest for the trees friend - Its not one agianst the other. Focus on the objective.
I am not saying my lawyer is any better, all these lawyers are nothing but blood suckers just like the employers. I'm just disgusted that people can stoop so low. The objective might be the same, but the intentions are far from it. I hope you understand that my friend and stop being a PR rep for murthy or any lawyer. :)
Macaca
09-26 09:41 PM
Here's a classic example ..
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
senthil1 makes more sense then this!
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
The point to be made is simple. Over last few months IV members, as an organization, with all it's diverse members and even more diverse immigration problems, in general have moved towards having an opinion and pushing an agenda in a direction which may affect H1-B, F1 visas and not directly EB Green cards.
It would be more prudent if the message sent across is simple-- rather than use the term generic term of legal immigrants - it should focus towards EB-Green cards, coz very few (other than the stuck )understand that H1-B is non-immigrant visa and try to club the whole GC + H1B issue together.
From CNN's point of view (and the whole world) the Legal immigrants are GC, H1, F1, B1, L1, etc .. the onus is on IV to clear that IV stands for EB based GCs. period. Use the term "Immigrant" wisely and sparsely.
senthil1 makes more sense then this!
more...
mbartosik
11-27 07:50 PM
Nrc2008065862
2010 Channel 7 Eyewitness News
voldemar
06-20 06:01 PM
its illegal to take color photocopies of driver licences, ONLY send b/wAnd wait for RFE.
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
USCIS is asking for COLOR copies of DL and passport.
more...
HV000
03-18 06:18 PM
Please see the last sentece which says "Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country".
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
This will make prediction difficult since we do not know how many PDs are eligible in either country. Am i right?
When they use this spill over, only PD is imp not the country.
This will make prediction difficult since we do not know how many PDs are eligible in either country. Am i right?
hair KTSM News Channel 9 5.
noendinsight
10-26 10:24 AM
Eb3 India
PD- Jan 2004
PD- Jan 2004
more...
deepakjain
06-08 06:33 PM
My labour cleared in 2009, i guess i need to wait for 10 yrs more !!!, not good , not good at all :eek:
You might get your GC while you are at the retirement home....
You might get your GC while you are at the retirement home....
hot And while TV is still where
StarSun
03-18 10:25 AM
VA/MD/DC members, please step up and contact sukhwinderd for hosting members. He is keeping track of people wanting to host and people requiring hosts...........
There are a lot of people from far of states asking for hosts. These guys will only need a place to spend the night and a shower in the morning....Many of the VA/MD/DC members who have registered can just take one or two of the members home....
There are a lot of people from far of states asking for hosts. These guys will only need a place to spend the night and a shower in the morning....Many of the VA/MD/DC members who have registered can just take one or two of the members home....
more...
house Michiana#39;s News Channel.
gcnirvana
07-12 04:50 PM
I think you are in. Good Luck!
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
Mine is 3/21/06. So close...yet seems like so far :(
Hi,
My PD is March 1st 2006. Just wondering is March 1st is in or out? i.e. cut off is March 2nd or March 1st?
thanks,
Rwe
tattoo Scott Bush leaves jail after
Dhundhun
10-19 09:46 PM
Folks,
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
I was just looking at the Obama and McCain websites just to see how they look from design standpoint (I'm a UI designer by profession). I happened to read their views on Immigration. I was surprised to see that Obama's views were extremely vague and offered no solutions to retain or encourage highly skilled immigrant workers. McCain on the other hand has section on highly skilled immigrant workers and talks about retaining them after US education, H1B cap reform, greencard increase to reflect demand etc.
I heard them talking on same issue. Your findings are consistent with what ever I heard from their mouth.
Still it is hard to believe. Specially most of my GC holder friends have blind faith in Obama.
more...
pictures and Channel 5 will be able
485InDreams
09-26 10:19 AM
Thanks all and to the blogger who found this.... This thread make me believe...
Revolution - People of common interest meet...
Collusion - People of different interest meet
Revolution - People of common interest meet...
Collusion - People of different interest meet
dresses Three stations, KGO Channel 7,
alisa
01-20 02:15 AM
Man....
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
You guys (from India) are in a really really terrible situation.
First column shows the year. Second one estimates applicants for GC from India. Third (Years to Clear) one divides backlog by 10000 to estimate the number of years needed too clear that backlog, assuming 10000 visa numbers released per year. Fourth (Year cleared) adds that number to the Year column to give the year you can get your GC. Finally, assuming that AC21 added a year's worth of supply of visa numbers, a year is taken out from the final estimate.
Also dependents are not included in the calculations. Send them back.
Here is how I estimated backlogs. Backlogs for 2001 and 2002 are taken from jungalee43 posting.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
For years 2003 and forward,
a) 65000 applicants for H-1 assumed
b) 40 percent of these assumed to be Indians (26000)
c) 75 % of these 26000 assumed to have applied for and made it past the I-140 stage, i.e. 19500 added annually since 2003.
d) Each year, 10000 visa numbers allotted to Indians. (Assumption: Indians don't have any dependents. If you want to include dependents, 2001 backlog clears in 2023, and 2006 backlog clears in 2055)
Here are the results.
Year Backlog YTC YC AC21
2001 123194 12.3194 2012 2011
2002 160274 16.0274 2016 2015
2003 169774 16.9774 2016 2015
2004 179274 17.9274 2020 2019
2005 188774 18.8774 2020 2019
2006 198274 19.8274 2024 2023
2007 207774 20.7774 2024 2023
2008 217274 21.7274 2028 2027
2009 226774 22.6774 2028 2027
2010 236274 23.6274 2032 2031
Feel free to improve on this.
I had posted this statistics last year on IV. I had done good research to arrive at these figures. I hope the figures will open eyes of people who are bestowed with 'blissful ignorance'.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1265#post1265
more...
makeup the Channel 5 news team
paskal
01-21 02:21 AM
i like the way you did this
i wonder though if it's better to adjust it for depnedents
per USCIS figures the average is 2.5 individuals in a family for each approval
The timeline is stunninh when you put that in.
I will retire or die before a GC......!
i wonder though if it's better to adjust it for depnedents
per USCIS figures the average is 2.5 individuals in a family for each approval
The timeline is stunninh when you put that in.
I will retire or die before a GC......!
girlfriend Celebs News Channel 5.
solaris27
07-27 07:48 AM
Never join SRG America (Bartronics America)
hairstyles Channel 9 News Australia.
qesehmk
02-12 12:27 PM
Folks,
lets put the "you said .. I said" aside and just evaluate the definition of "assigned" and "used" visa numbers.
- correct me if I am wrong but I think Ron implies - "some numbers are assigned but then not used. These numbers still show up as used in the data report (since they were assigned)".
We have established that there is no document to support this but can we find out if this assumption can be true?
One can only infer based some facts and some assumptions.
Fact - Fallen new 485 demand (28% or more)
Fact - Law requires quarterly spillover.
Fact (?) - DoS allocated 30% of visas in Q1 (is it a fact?)
Fact - Dates did not move significantly
So all of these things fit together well only if one of the following is true
a) USCIS is utlizing the allocated visas.
b) EB3 to EB2 conversion is substantial enough to not warrant any movement in dates.
Regarding Ron's claim of 13K wasted in 2009. That is where I said I have a hard time accepting that. Because in 2009 EB did not receive any spillover from FB (to my best knowledge) and in 2009 EB did consumer 140K visas.
lets put the "you said .. I said" aside and just evaluate the definition of "assigned" and "used" visa numbers.
- correct me if I am wrong but I think Ron implies - "some numbers are assigned but then not used. These numbers still show up as used in the data report (since they were assigned)".
We have established that there is no document to support this but can we find out if this assumption can be true?
One can only infer based some facts and some assumptions.
Fact - Fallen new 485 demand (28% or more)
Fact - Law requires quarterly spillover.
Fact (?) - DoS allocated 30% of visas in Q1 (is it a fact?)
Fact - Dates did not move significantly
So all of these things fit together well only if one of the following is true
a) USCIS is utlizing the allocated visas.
b) EB3 to EB2 conversion is substantial enough to not warrant any movement in dates.
Regarding Ron's claim of 13K wasted in 2009. That is where I said I have a hard time accepting that. Because in 2009 EB did not receive any spillover from FB (to my best knowledge) and in 2009 EB did consumer 140K visas.
xela
03-19 10:33 AM
I assume there are more people like me out there that originally filed in 2003 or 2002 for ROW EB3 and then there came Perm
Since nobody had touched my 2003 file (backlog), my lawyer advised me that PERM would be a good way to go, it also would give me a chance to file with a new job descroption that fit my by now different position.
Bad thing was that she did not advise me to recapture my 2003 date but rather kept both applications in the running saying that we could cancel the 2003 when they finally got to it, which was June 2007 and at that point I could file in July for 485 with the Perm. Now my 2003 case was a regular one so we would have had to redo the hiring we did already for the perm.
I have this feeling there were many older backlogged cases that people ended up cancelling last year since their PERM ones are further along and they did not want to go through any more hiring processes or lawyers payments. Or because they gave up?
Since nobody had touched my 2003 file (backlog), my lawyer advised me that PERM would be a good way to go, it also would give me a chance to file with a new job descroption that fit my by now different position.
Bad thing was that she did not advise me to recapture my 2003 date but rather kept both applications in the running saying that we could cancel the 2003 when they finally got to it, which was June 2007 and at that point I could file in July for 485 with the Perm. Now my 2003 case was a regular one so we would have had to redo the hiring we did already for the perm.
I have this feeling there were many older backlogged cases that people ended up cancelling last year since their PERM ones are further along and they did not want to go through any more hiring processes or lawyers payments. Or because they gave up?
vina92
01-16 02:19 PM
I just signed up for monthly $20.00 contribution.
Vina92
.
Vina92
.
No comments:
Post a Comment