roseball
07-09 04:57 PM
Quote:
The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said.
/End Quote
This statement from Mr. Aytes can be used to prove the conspiracy against July filers. If they knew that the security check process would have been completed shortly, then why in the world would they have to approve them before July....They had all the time till end of the fiscal year (Sept 30th) to approve such cases once the security checks were complete and still not allow wastage of immigrant visas for the current fiscal year. They only approved it for one of the following two reasons:
-- They didnt want all of us to file under the old fee system. That would cause USCIS a loss of $225-300 million (based on guestimates from www.immigration-law.com)
-- They were not ready to accept the work load of 300-400k I-485 applications which could have led to huge backlogs for years to come because the current political situation will in no way increase the number of immigrant visas for legal immigrants. All they care for is illegal immigrants.....
The agency approved some applications �when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,� Mr. Aytes said.
/End Quote
This statement from Mr. Aytes can be used to prove the conspiracy against July filers. If they knew that the security check process would have been completed shortly, then why in the world would they have to approve them before July....They had all the time till end of the fiscal year (Sept 30th) to approve such cases once the security checks were complete and still not allow wastage of immigrant visas for the current fiscal year. They only approved it for one of the following two reasons:
-- They didnt want all of us to file under the old fee system. That would cause USCIS a loss of $225-300 million (based on guestimates from www.immigration-law.com)
-- They were not ready to accept the work load of 300-400k I-485 applications which could have led to huge backlogs for years to come because the current political situation will in no way increase the number of immigrant visas for legal immigrants. All they care for is illegal immigrants.....
wallpaper adorable love quotes for your
shivarajan
05-27 06:35 PM
It's absolutely true that few official documents they do not take color photocopy in many "office" shops (e.g vehicle title etc). May be the guy considered this too to be in that category. I have faced it myself on many occasions with different people.
Just b'cos something did not happen to us we can't abruptly come to conclusions :rolleyes:
Just b'cos something did not happen to us we can't abruptly come to conclusions :rolleyes:
ajay
04-13 10:12 AM
A very useful piece of information has been brought to our attention by shiankuraaf.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
Thank you very much!
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR08.shtm
Table 6 Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Type and Major Class of Admission: Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk04Im.shtm
Table 4 Immigrants admitted by type and selected class of admission: fiscal years 1986-2004
Employment-based preferences (Total Number)
Year QUOTA ISSUED Unused/Excessively used
1986 140000 56617 83383
1987 140000 57519 82481
1988 140000 58727 81273
1989 140000 57741 82259
1990 140000 58192 81808
1991 140000 59525 80475
1992 140000 116198 23802
1993 140000 147012 -7012
1994 140000 123291 16709
1995 140000 85336 54664
1996 140000 117499 22501
1997 140000 90607 49393
1998 140000 77517 62483
1999 140000 56678 83322
2000 140000 106642 33358
2001 140000 178702 -38702
2002 140000 173814 -33814
2003 140000 81727 58273
2004 140000 155330 -15330
2005 140000 246877 -106877
2006 140000 159081 -19081
2007 140000 162176 -22176
2008 140000 166511 -26511
Sum total of the differences from 1986 to 2008: 626,681. Vow!!!
So when looked between the period of 1986 and 2008,
there were a total of 626,681 un-used visa numbers that can be re-captured.
This is based on the BIG assumption that the yearly quota for EB categories is 140,000 from 1986 to 2008.
Does anybody know how to verify this important assumption online --a link to a gov website perhaps?
It would be good to verify when the law specifying 140,000 visa numbers per year was passed and
what were the criteria for visa number usage prior to the existence of the law.
It is clearly a well prepared format and nobody has brought this kind of helpful information to our group. We would need people like you and I am sure I will also support this if we are aggressively pursuing it. But again as somebody here said in this discussion that we should be careful about the seriousness of the situation being counted by the lawmakers.
Kudos to you.
2011 hot love quotes and sayings
newbee7
07-09 04:32 PM
You chose to ignore this from your post
when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly
certain = 100%
You are reading what you want to read.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Certainty is releated to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly
certain = 100%
You are reading what you want to read.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Certainty is releated to belief not reality. It still means the name check was not completed. The law does not say they "when you are certain that the FBI name check can be cleared..please allot a visa."
more...
GCapplicant
07-18 10:23 AM
Mine reached on July 2nd 9:01 AM. I don't think they must have rejected any application. I think, if someone is saying "rejected" means USCIS refused to accept the fedex, in which case package should be returned back to lawyers in 3/4 days.
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Exactly,Even I think so...If they did not want to accept they would have done at the door step.So I think better we can wait and see for another week if any cases are like that.My lawyer mentioned she hasnt got any rejections until now.She has been sending continuous applications even a week before during this problem.She mentioned last week that she is still sending applications in and has Fed ex delivery confirmations for all the applications.
If your package was accepeted by USCIS then it would be on hold and based on yesterday's news, now it should be ready for processing. I am checking this with couple of lawyers and I will update this thread with anything I find out.
Exactly,Even I think so...If they did not want to accept they would have done at the door step.So I think better we can wait and see for another week if any cases are like that.My lawyer mentioned she hasnt got any rejections until now.She has been sending continuous applications even a week before during this problem.She mentioned last week that she is still sending applications in and has Fed ex delivery confirmations for all the applications.
canleo98
06-30 11:10 PM
http://immigrationportal.com/announcement.php?f=190&a=95
It is possible. Such an action would be illegal, but CIS has already stopped accepting I-485 applications for another category known as “Other Workers,” despite June Visa Bulletin showing that category is current. My advice to all of you is keep filing all through the month of July. For all we know, they may never issue such an illegal policy or they might lose a lawsuit filed against them. So keep filing. Regards to all. Rajiv.
__________________
Rajiv S. Khanna; Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna
It is possible. Such an action would be illegal, but CIS has already stopped accepting I-485 applications for another category known as “Other Workers,” despite June Visa Bulletin showing that category is current. My advice to all of you is keep filing all through the month of July. For all we know, they may never issue such an illegal policy or they might lose a lawsuit filed against them. So keep filing. Regards to all. Rajiv.
__________________
Rajiv S. Khanna; Law Offices of Rajiv S. Khanna
more...
desidude
09-26 11:47 AM
I just sent an email to the editor... hope these mails open their eyes and they repost the correct article... :D
2010 cute quotes and sayings for
vivid_bharti
05-06 09:25 PM
Can you please brief us regarding what action IV has taken...
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
Thanks for sending the letter to USCIS and now posting the response here. IV has taken action in this regards.
more...
prioritydate
12-20 03:59 PM
Folks, I didn't worked for an year(2001) due to, you know what I am saying....
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
hair love sayings and quotes for
varshadas
12-14 09:12 AM
Hello All,
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
mrdelhiite
07-13 08:25 AM
GCBy3000,
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
ALL I AM SAYING IS WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. REASON WHY I LIKE IV OVER MURTHY. IMMIGRATION IS MURTHY'S PRIMARY BUSINESS .. IV IS DOING NOT FOR MONEY BUT TO REALLY FIX THINGS ... MUST MEAN SOMETHING RIGHT ... GO IV
-M
Your criticism of Murthy is noted as you are entitled to speak your mind. But let me ask you a simple question:
Did you exhort your lawyer to send a letter to Secretary Chertoff or the USCIS Director? OR
Did your lawyer send a letter on his own, exhorting the Secretary and the USCIS Director to correct this wrong?
I know the Mahatma would have asked himself the same questions before hurling allegations.
Whatever maybe the intentions of Murthy, this letter is certainly going to help not harm our case.
AND YES - For full disclosure, I am a client of Murthy and have been so for more than five years.
ALL I AM SAYING IS WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. REASON WHY I LIKE IV OVER MURTHY. IMMIGRATION IS MURTHY'S PRIMARY BUSINESS .. IV IS DOING NOT FOR MONEY BUT TO REALLY FIX THINGS ... MUST MEAN SOMETHING RIGHT ... GO IV
-M
hot Cute love sayings for a
moonrah
07-02 10:23 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see how the per country limit is unfair! It was set up so that immigrants from ALL nations would have EQUAL opportunity to immigrate to the U.S. and to prevent any one (or two) countries from monopolizing the visa numbers. Getting rid of the per country limit would most certainly lead to immigration from a limited number of sources (countries) and thus jeopardize the diversity of the immigration process. Getting rid of it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul because those countries who are severely retrogressed now would only see limited benefits and those who are not all that retrogressed would fall backwards - is that fair!? It seems these forms are dominated by "certain" groups who have their own agenda and don't really care about ROW! It makes me feel uncomfortable being an IV member from ROW!
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
Whatever you are saying is true for Family based categories. Employement category is defined to have skilled immigrants to help US businesses, that is why it is called employment based category. Let me explain you what you are saying. You are saying that I will ask compnay A to wait for five years to give promotion to person X, because quotas for his country are not available, and until he gets his green card he can not get promotion, instead give promotion to person Y which is less qualified but can get green card next month since his country has quotas available. Now does it make sense for company A to give promotion to less qualified person just because person X can not get his green card? Company won't do that and will end up sponsoring another qualified person. Or let me explain you in different way. If certain company has need for specific skill for long term and provided that there are not enough citizens to do that job, in this case company has to sponsor an immigrant, but since the requirement is for long term, company doesn't want him to be on immigrant visa for long term because sponsoring immigrant visa means money and more liability. In this case, even though company has much better match from a country whose immigrant visa are not available for many years, company might end up taking immigrant who is less qualified for the job. And company might say that, we can not take you since you won't be able to get green card for many years. If company does that then it would be an discrimination, but company doesn't have any choice.
Initially, it would have been good idea to have country limits because nobody was anticipating this kind of backlogs. But in current situation it doesn't make sense to keep it like that way. Goverment understands it, but they don't want to do anything because this has become political issue because of groups which represent illegal immigrants. With time goverment and companies have to be practicle and change policies or laws. This has been happening and it should happen, particularly when it doesn't make sense. For goverment diversity is important but for company getting job done is more important. And primary purpose of EB category is to get things done.
more...
house cute sayings for oyfriends
srkamath
07-13 02:30 PM
I agree. Infact my application hasnt even been touched once (July 2, RD), no soft LUD either, even after FP .. makes me believe that there might be other applications out there too that have never been touched so far..so we cant assume that all the cases prior to July 2007 have already been pre-adjudicated, just because the processing-dates at NSC say July 2007. I think the processing dates reflect only those cases whose PD was current when the processing-dates timeframe came out. We will know more accurately when the processing-dates are updated next month. If the processing-dates, even after next month's update remain at July, 2007, then we can probably assume that our cases have already been pre-adjudicated. (still makes me wonder how that can happen without any soft LUDs at all, but anything is possible). I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
We should compare the processing date at NSC / TSC with the erroneous receipt date they show in the online case status. Their computer systems are more likely to have recorded that date than the presumably hand-typed receipt date on our I-485 receipt notices......
My actual receipt date is July 2nd, but the online case status shows Aug23 rd, i'm not expecting anything to happen until TSC proc. date gets past Aug 23rd.
tattoo cute sayings for oyfriends
mpadapa
09-26 10:00 AM
Just wrote an email to the editor...Hopefully he learns and corrects the article..
more...
pictures cute oyfriend quotes sayings,
harish
04-23 08:06 PM
Congratulations Googler!
Hopefully we can still look forward to receiving updates from you in the future! :)
Hopefully we can still look forward to receiving updates from you in the future! :)
dresses funny love quotes and sayings.
ramus
07-05 02:02 PM
Can we please stop this discussion and follow some action items...
Lets stop this now...
Thanks...
Lets stop this now...
Thanks...
more...
makeup sayings and quotes
komaragiri
07-23 02:29 PM
It's part of initial evidence. Not sure why your lawyer mentioned that u don't need it for I-485 filing.
girlfriend Boyfriend Quotes Quotations
ramus
07-03 05:32 PM
Please ask others to do it now...
Thanks.
Thanks.
hairstyles love quotes for your
gnrajagopal
07-28 01:23 PM
Would you be offended if your picture is put on toilet seat??
Are you ever offended by the sculptures that are engraved on the temple walls. women are potrayed in a very sensual way on these sculptures. i sometimes wonder that would have happened if those artists had the medium of vedio in those days? temples walls would have been.... well lets leave that to imagination
Are you ever offended by the sculptures that are engraved on the temple walls. women are potrayed in a very sensual way on these sculptures. i sometimes wonder that would have happened if those artists had the medium of vedio in those days? temples walls would have been.... well lets leave that to imagination
nomi
12-11 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Originally Posted by Nomi
I agree with you. Why we don`t explore this option ???? USCIS make so many rule by itself then why they don`t make this rule to file 485 while PD is not current without going in Senate. Like they start premium processing of I-140. They make this rule without any bill in US Senate. correct me if I am wrong
I think, core team should look this option or ask us to find more information about it. I think, core team can meet with high official from USCIS.
what do you guys think about it ??
thx.
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Originally Posted by Nomi
I agree with you. Why we don`t explore this option ???? USCIS make so many rule by itself then why they don`t make this rule to file 485 while PD is not current without going in Senate. Like they start premium processing of I-140. They make this rule without any bill in US Senate. correct me if I am wrong
I think, core team should look this option or ask us to find more information about it. I think, core team can meet with high official from USCIS.
what do you guys think about it ??
thx.
pappu
07-01 10:23 PM
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/VISA AVAILABILITY LITIGATION
This document is a form, which means that you can only type in the areas within each box. Click in the boxes and start typing. If your answers are longer than the box provided, please use a separate sheet of paper. For the check boxes, click in the correct box to mark it. Thank you!
Please be sure to include a copy of the following with this questionnaire:
• Completed I-485 as submitted to USCIS, and any cover letter sent with it;
• Evidence of method and date of mailing (USPS, Fed Ex, etc)
• A list or index of attachments sent with the I-485 (if the cover letter provides the list or index, no need to send us a separate one)
• USCIS letter rejecting the adjustment application and / or any related correspondence, if received.
Date questionnaire is completed:
Completed by:
Attorney Contact Information:
Name
Email
Firm
Address
Telephone
Fax
Adjustment Applicant Information:
Name
Address
Phone
Email
Nationality or citizenship
Adjustment Application Filing Information:
Date adjustment application was submitted to USCIS and method of submission:
Where was the adjustment sent? (Please note the specific DHS(USCIS) office)
What was the employment-based immigrant category under which the adjustment application applied?
USCIS rejection of the adjustment application:
Did DHS (USCIS) expressly inform the applicant or attorney, orally or in writing, why it was rejecting or returning the adjustment application?
If yes, please explain in detail:
Please send us a copy of any written notice or other correspondence from USCIS rejecting or returning the adjustment application.
2
Harm to adjustment applicant:
Please describe any harm that the adjustment applicant has suffered or is continuing to suffer due to the rejection of the adjustment application.
Please return this form and documents by email or fax to:
visabulletin@ailf.org
or fax (202) 742-5619 attn. AILF LAC
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/VISA AVAILABILITY LITIGATION
This document is a form, which means that you can only type in the areas within each box. Click in the boxes and start typing. If your answers are longer than the box provided, please use a separate sheet of paper. For the check boxes, click in the correct box to mark it. Thank you!
Please be sure to include a copy of the following with this questionnaire:
• Completed I-485 as submitted to USCIS, and any cover letter sent with it;
• Evidence of method and date of mailing (USPS, Fed Ex, etc)
• A list or index of attachments sent with the I-485 (if the cover letter provides the list or index, no need to send us a separate one)
• USCIS letter rejecting the adjustment application and / or any related correspondence, if received.
Date questionnaire is completed:
Completed by:
Attorney Contact Information:
Name
Firm
Address
Telephone
Fax
Adjustment Applicant Information:
Name
Address
Phone
Nationality or citizenship
Adjustment Application Filing Information:
Date adjustment application was submitted to USCIS and method of submission:
Where was the adjustment sent? (Please note the specific DHS(USCIS) office)
What was the employment-based immigrant category under which the adjustment application applied?
USCIS rejection of the adjustment application:
Did DHS (USCIS) expressly inform the applicant or attorney, orally or in writing, why it was rejecting or returning the adjustment application?
If yes, please explain in detail:
Please send us a copy of any written notice or other correspondence from USCIS rejecting or returning the adjustment application.
2
Harm to adjustment applicant:
Please describe any harm that the adjustment applicant has suffered or is continuing to suffer due to the rejection of the adjustment application.
Please return this form and documents by email or fax to:
visabulletin@ailf.org
or fax (202) 742-5619 attn. AILF LAC
