vandanaverdia
09-10 03:48 PM
Well... We are eager & all hope to see Andy at the rally....
wallpaper love poems for dad from
partha_vus
10-26 11:35 AM
PD Jan 2001(ported priority Date)
I-140 Approed June 2007
I485 Applied RD:July 2, 2007
EAD cards received
thanks
I-140 Approed June 2007
I485 Applied RD:July 2, 2007
EAD cards received
thanks
rck4evr
09-10 02:03 PM
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
2011 i love you mom and dad poem. perm2gc. 12-27 05:38 PM
meera_godse
01-31 02:15 PM
1. Is travel advisable or even permitted during such a transition ?
2. If one travels to india after getting an H1 & decides to return way before October (say around june), is he permitted to enter so early before the job cycle starts in oct ? coz this rule applies to F1 people. or will he be allowed to enter just before oct, say in sept or so ?
3. what if one travels when H1 has been filed but not yet received.
2. If one travels to india after getting an H1 & decides to return way before October (say around june), is he permitted to enter so early before the job cycle starts in oct ? coz this rule applies to F1 people. or will he be allowed to enter just before oct, say in sept or so ?
3. what if one travels when H1 has been filed but not yet received.
more...
EB2_Jun03_dude
04-25 10:08 AM
"Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On April 25, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you." :) :)
I had a soft LUD on 4/22 and now this :) :).
Btw: I did not get any email for my wife's case(derivative application) which is pending at the Newark, NJ office(interview done in Feb 08') !
Current Status: Card production ordered.
On April 25, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you." :) :)
I had a soft LUD on 4/22 and now this :) :).
Btw: I did not get any email for my wife's case(derivative application) which is pending at the Newark, NJ office(interview done in Feb 08') !
jainnidhi26
03-11 09:59 AM
Is there any acco/carpool available near REAGAN INTERNATIONAL ??
more...
imv116
04-04 11:05 AM
Well, if we start to talk what is ethical and unethical. The entire immigration system and IT consulting is unethical.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
That�s the down side from the client side on going for consulting and contracting. Every wise manager knows that! If every one were to hire full time, no matter H1B, EAD or PR, we wouldn�t be in the situation looking for a new assignment.
I agree that it is unethical on there part, but there is a much bigger unethical part on the part of the client companies for not hiring new grads and willing to train them in the areas of there business. New grad hiring doesn�t happen here as it happens in India.
Simply putting it, they don�t have a choice.
House wives with EAD�s and PR cards have started to get into contract jobs with 5-6 years of experience. Most of them are probably not even academically CS educated. Forget about the huge career gap they have.
No one, be it experienced or new grad likes to be code striped at client place, but for some one who is willing to take that risk of humiliation, I see nothing wrong in taking such a step to advance there career.
But there should be an optimal level that one should project them selves too in order to be accepted, can manage to get a decent time to learn things etc.
Also, client companies if they are serious should be more careful by calling for an on-site interview and testing them on the basics with a written test.
2010 Valentine#39;s Day Love Poem:
Abhinaym
02-19 12:02 PM
How exactly are illegals going to prove that they have been here for more than 5 years?
That's exactly what I wanted to ask! How on earth are they going to prove a presence?
1. Drivers license (that only shows the date they started)
2. Utility bills (is that possible?)
3. Bank statements (I'm not sure if undocumented ones get accounts)
4. Employment proof (right...)
5. Real estate titles
I'm not saying they can't, but trying to think how...
That's exactly what I wanted to ask! How on earth are they going to prove a presence?
1. Drivers license (that only shows the date they started)
2. Utility bills (is that possible?)
3. Bank statements (I'm not sure if undocumented ones get accounts)
4. Employment proof (right...)
5. Real estate titles
I'm not saying they can't, but trying to think how...
more...
desi3933
01-30 02:43 PM
I agree with the point above, but does this even apply to CrazyGhoda/OP? Because, he already has I485/AOS pending, which is a legal presence in the US in itself. Hence, I don't see him accruing any "out of status/illegal presence" days. He "MIGHT" have to show a future/current employer who is sponsoring his GC, depending on what his RFE asks for.
Please comment.
You didn't get it. One could have filed I-485 and still accruing out-of-status days. Hint - Employment history and salary details since last admission.
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Please comment.
You didn't get it. One could have filed I-485 and still accruing out-of-status days. Hint - Employment history and salary details since last admission.
Please note that I am not implying that CrazyGhoda is accumulating out-of-status, I don't have all the details for his case.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
hair house love poems for dad from
GC20??
07-12 03:52 PM
Visa Bulletin for August 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5092.html)
more...
sanju
11-11 10:46 PM
With democrats in control, at the very minimum we should try to push recapture of lost visa numbers. Tie that with the ability of immigrants to buy houses, we could have a game winner...
As I said earlier, try something original. Do you know anyone on this forum who is oppose to the idea of recapture? You seem to suggest as if someone is saying "NO we do not want recapture". Is that what you think? And what makes you think that democrats will allow recapture? They have been in power in the congress for last 2 years. If they would have passed recapture, the current president would have for sure signed the bill into law. Democrats want comprehensive bill. They don't love any of us. Maybe, when they are passing comprehensive bill, and if they have some space left on the white paper, and they have nothing else to put in there, they may consider putting recapture. No matter how liberal we tend to be in our individual thought process and outlook, which generally is the tendency for most people in EB community to support democrats, the fact is, policies of Democratic party almost never support EB applicants. When Democrats have to chose between undocumented, family, H1 and EB applicant. We will be the lowest priority, or no priority. And because most of us inherently think/support democrats, we expect them to return the favor. "Wrong" expectation.
And why blame EB community for supporting Democrats. Majority of population usually votes for candidate/party who has the policies to screw them. I mean, a lot of people who earn less then 40K vote republican, either in the name of religion aka conservativeness or whatever. Republicans give tax breaks to rich and screw the people who vote for them. Large percentage of Democratic supporters tend to live in cities or suburbs. They tend to earn more and are usually educated, for example, most people with college degree voted for Obama, and now Democrats will screw them for voting Dems in power by putting higher taxes on them. I guess, the rule is, parties who win elections have the onus of screwing the people who elected or supported them in the elections.
I am merely trying to say that even if you tend to support Democrats, don't expect them to return the favor, but apply the general rule and get ready to be screwed for bringing them in power.
.
As I said earlier, try something original. Do you know anyone on this forum who is oppose to the idea of recapture? You seem to suggest as if someone is saying "NO we do not want recapture". Is that what you think? And what makes you think that democrats will allow recapture? They have been in power in the congress for last 2 years. If they would have passed recapture, the current president would have for sure signed the bill into law. Democrats want comprehensive bill. They don't love any of us. Maybe, when they are passing comprehensive bill, and if they have some space left on the white paper, and they have nothing else to put in there, they may consider putting recapture. No matter how liberal we tend to be in our individual thought process and outlook, which generally is the tendency for most people in EB community to support democrats, the fact is, policies of Democratic party almost never support EB applicants. When Democrats have to chose between undocumented, family, H1 and EB applicant. We will be the lowest priority, or no priority. And because most of us inherently think/support democrats, we expect them to return the favor. "Wrong" expectation.
And why blame EB community for supporting Democrats. Majority of population usually votes for candidate/party who has the policies to screw them. I mean, a lot of people who earn less then 40K vote republican, either in the name of religion aka conservativeness or whatever. Republicans give tax breaks to rich and screw the people who vote for them. Large percentage of Democratic supporters tend to live in cities or suburbs. They tend to earn more and are usually educated, for example, most people with college degree voted for Obama, and now Democrats will screw them for voting Dems in power by putting higher taxes on them. I guess, the rule is, parties who win elections have the onus of screwing the people who elected or supported them in the elections.
I am merely trying to say that even if you tend to support Democrats, don't expect them to return the favor, but apply the general rule and get ready to be screwed for bringing them in power.
.
hot house i love you dad poems from love poems for dad from daughter. poems for
va_labor2002
07-25 07:08 AM
JCMenon,
I totally agree with your attitude and thinking. There is nothing wrong to request this issue to USCIS. It won't hurt us ! They will realize the magnitude of the issue and may do something to convinse the lawmakers.
We should definietly try this,even if the outcome may be failure !
Good Luck.
We can not file for 485 that is the reason we need to let our voices heard to USCIS, it may be waste of time for some one but at least it would be worth a try.
We did try a lot with S1932, outcome zero.
We did try a lot with CIR, outcome zero.
When so potentially yielding means(S 1932 and CIR) can fail in a same way USCIS option may also fail, but at least we know that we tried this option.
If stuck labor says it is a waste of time (No offence taken), I am not going to buy his arguement, just because he is a super moderator. maximun he can ban me from the site, but I donot worry of voicing my openion for an issue that I think might work out.
Lets do an openion poll and decide how many are in favor of this.
I totally agree with your attitude and thinking. There is nothing wrong to request this issue to USCIS. It won't hurt us ! They will realize the magnitude of the issue and may do something to convinse the lawmakers.
We should definietly try this,even if the outcome may be failure !
Good Luck.
We can not file for 485 that is the reason we need to let our voices heard to USCIS, it may be waste of time for some one but at least it would be worth a try.
We did try a lot with S1932, outcome zero.
We did try a lot with CIR, outcome zero.
When so potentially yielding means(S 1932 and CIR) can fail in a same way USCIS option may also fail, but at least we know that we tried this option.
If stuck labor says it is a waste of time (No offence taken), I am not going to buy his arguement, just because he is a super moderator. maximun he can ban me from the site, but I donot worry of voicing my openion for an issue that I think might work out.
Lets do an openion poll and decide how many are in favor of this.
more...
house 2011 love poems for dad from
anilsal
12-26 03:50 PM
MasterCard is quite attractive with the new WorldPoints concept. A point for every dollar spent. When you have sufficient points, you can get air tickets etc.
An issue with Discover card is that it is not widely accepted outside the US - not in Canada or in Europe (the merchant will have to call some number to get authorization). Amex is usable worldwide.
Many merchants do not accept either Amex or Disc in the US.
An issue with Discover card is that it is not widely accepted outside the US - not in Canada or in Europe (the merchant will have to call some number to get authorization). Amex is usable worldwide.
Many merchants do not accept either Amex or Disc in the US.
tattoo hot love poems for dad love poems for dad from daughter. happy irthday poems
breddy2000
06-13 12:37 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/13/MNG88QE8HV1.DTL&type=politics
more...
pictures wallpaper pictures i love you dad poems love poems for dad from daughter. i
pappu
07-24 10:56 AM
I will try to dig out the actual memo. But this is from the oh law firm page:
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
---
06/17/2007: Flexible RFE/NOID Response Time Rule and Advisory for July EB-485 Filing
* As we advised earlier, the USCIS published a new rule that allows the USCIS to have more discredtion and control over the two issues: One is shortening of the timeframe for responses to RFE from previous 12 weeks to any period of time which they see fit. The second rule is their authority to either reject or deny petitions or applications without issuing RFE where "initial evidence" is missing in the filing. Previously, the so-called Yates memo indirectly required the agency to avoid rejection and denial with a recommend to issue RFEs as much as possible. This part of the Yates memo is overridden by the new rule who took effect yesterday, June 16, 2007. It is thus likely that the Service Centers will more aggressively reject or deny the I-485 applications where the "initial evidence" are missing in the filing packet. It is thus very important that people understand the definition of "initial evidence." The initial evidence varies between the nonimmigrant and immigrant proceedings and for that matter, each type of proceedings. The immigration regulation lists in details the initial evidence. However, the instructions sheets to each petition or application lists the initial evidence that are required for filing. Accordingly, beginning from today, people may want to read the instruction sheet for I-485 form carefully to learn the list of initial evidence and not to miss omitting these evidence in filing I-485 applications.
* One of the initial evidence which is listed is the sealed I-693, the Medical Examination results completed and sealed by the USCIS designated civil surgeons who examined the applicants per the immigration rules. As we reported yesterday, attorneys asked the USCIS authorities to accept I-485 applications without the medical result, but their answer was that they were taking it under advicement but as it stands now, the sealed medical report would be required as initial evidence, accoring to the USCIS authorities who were present at the AILA Annual Conference in Orlando. We understand that in some areas, there are a huge backlog in the physician's clinics for such medical examination. However, people can shop around the authorized physicians in much broader areas. For instance, people usually were asked to schedule such medical examination in the local "district" office where the applicants resided. The definition of "district office" has been broaden lately. Former district offices have been turned into field offices of a district office. Accordingly, people can schedule the medical examination through a physician located outside of their residence if the area falls under the jurisdiction of "district" even if it is outside the jurisdiction of "field office."
---
dresses love poems for dad. dresses
prioritydate
12-20 07:03 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
more...
makeup images dad poems Is Dad in your life, love poems for dad from daughter.
nixstor
07-02 10:56 PM
This is because Rajiv Khanna and Murthy do not like each other and compete with each other. Murthy is on the board of AILA and Rajiv is not. So murthy will promote the lawsuit and rajiv will not.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
Competition is a good thing. How ever, your post sounded like they feud with each other no matter how much genuine the issue is. Why would any of them would like to be at the end of losing if they know for sure that the other is winning? Any sane mind will join the bandwagon, esp when their business interests are at stakes.
Keeping it aside, I did not mean to dampen any one's spirits on filing a law suit. I had similar thoughts in my mind and it just happened to be similar to Rajiv Khanna's. I could be wrong in this case. I will be very happy if we come out in flying colors in this law suit. How ever my preference is to get more and more media/blog attention and try to get recapture/ability to file 485 based on the momentum we build because of this screw up by DOS & USCIS.
girlfriend love poems for dad from
pappu
01-17 11:19 AM
/\/\/\/
bumping up the thread since this is the most crtical thing for us to achieve at this time so that we can put more resources at work in the coming months. As everyone could see on this thread, only few members have signed up for recurring contributions. We sent emails to all 8000+ members and the emails are still bouncing. Members have put fake email addresses. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profile. In future when we send out updates by email or phone, such members will not get any updates too.
Since yesterday more than 2000 members have visited IV site and read this thread. We did not even get 1/100th of members signing up for this and contributing as little as $20.
Is this your commitment to the cause?
bumping up the thread since this is the most crtical thing for us to achieve at this time so that we can put more resources at work in the coming months. As everyone could see on this thread, only few members have signed up for recurring contributions. We sent emails to all 8000+ members and the emails are still bouncing. Members have put fake email addresses. Despite repeated requests members have not updated their profile. In future when we send out updates by email or phone, such members will not get any updates too.
Since yesterday more than 2000 members have visited IV site and read this thread. We did not even get 1/100th of members signing up for this and contributing as little as $20.
Is this your commitment to the cause?
hairstyles love poems for dad from
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...
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:54 PM
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...
Do you know that July 1st was a Sunday? A non-working day.
my 2 cents...
Do you know that July 1st was a Sunday? A non-working day.
nc14
09-10 03:28 PM
This sucks man. Another reccess to delibrate on HR6020 and they will be back at 5:00 for a vote.
Who knows if we will ever get a chance to day or not. GURU's please give your opinions.
............................................
$470 till date
Someone please confirm...
Who knows if we will ever get a chance to day or not. GURU's please give your opinions.
............................................
$470 till date
Someone please confirm...
No comments:
Post a Comment