humsuplou
12-01 07:14 PM
Thanks for the input.
I actually went to my appoitnment this morning at my local uscis office, the lady was nice. but i was told that the hospital letter need to state what are my granma's sickness instead just sayong terminally ill. and she had me to go back with a new letter tomorrow, and if her supervisor approves it, I will get it right away.
just some info to share.
wish me luck!
I actually went to my appoitnment this morning at my local uscis office, the lady was nice. but i was told that the hospital letter need to state what are my granma's sickness instead just sayong terminally ill. and she had me to go back with a new letter tomorrow, and if her supervisor approves it, I will get it right away.
just some info to share.
wish me luck!
wallpaper My daughter#39;s hand
pappu
11-20 01:23 PM
All pls PM each other and exchange phone numbers and emails so that you can start building your local IV community. Once you have contacted each other, you can start the action items for state chapters.Core members can help you whenever you need help. However we want local members to organize themseves and form a community so that future events can be planned.
forgerator
10-23 11:08 AM
Ok, thanks for the info...really appreciate it...will let him know to stay atleast 3-4 days and then leave.....by the way did u go to Ottawa for stamping or some place else in canada?
I went to Vancouver . It's the same thing as Ottawa. I've been to Ottawa twice as well. Got passport either next day or within two business days (Alhamdulilah)
I went to Vancouver . It's the same thing as Ottawa. I've been to Ottawa twice as well. Got passport either next day or within two business days (Alhamdulilah)
2011 Against my hands. I love my
REDS
07-20 08:28 AM
I am facing the same situation .My PD is Sep 2003 and my I 140 is pending, recently filed 485 and on top of that i am unmarried, I am scared that my 485might get approved before i get married.
more...
a1b2c3
08-05 11:51 AM
it was pending..pls check the PM I sent you.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
HRPRO
02-21 09:51 AM
Jagan,
If you go in person, the Consular Officer addresses most issues in the afternoon. You could ask for a meeting with him and explain your situation.
I think this will be the easiest resolution.
Hope you get your passport soon.
If you go in person, the Consular Officer addresses most issues in the afternoon. You could ask for a meeting with him and explain your situation.
I think this will be the easiest resolution.
Hope you get your passport soon.
2010 wallpapers of love hearts.
Tazike
06-27 09:44 PM
I read an answer written by an immigration lawyer about this type of situation and according to him once the divorce is final the conditional green card is invalid effective that day. That means that the immigrant spouse becomes out of status and would lose her right to work. Because of this the immigrant spouse should apply for a waiver right away once the divorce is final. Staying here and working while being out of status can cause problems of its own.
It's generally true that getting divorced does not affect one's green card. The exception however is when a person has a conditional marriage based green card and gets divorced before the conditions are removed.
It's generally true that getting divorced does not affect one's green card. The exception however is when a person has a conditional marriage based green card and gets divorced before the conditions are removed.
more...
bskrishna
06-09 11:49 AM
Thanks a lot for the VISA issue....
Cant i travel via Germany to India with stolen visa issue ?
Your travel agent should know if he/she is experienced about transit visa. Amsterdam does not need a transit visa (even with an invalid US visa). Not sure about Frankfurt.
You will need one for sure if you travel via UK. I had some friends who had to go through a lot of difficulty for going back on a B1 visa to India via Heathrow
Cant i travel via Germany to India with stolen visa issue ?
Your travel agent should know if he/she is experienced about transit visa. Amsterdam does not need a transit visa (even with an invalid US visa). Not sure about Frankfurt.
You will need one for sure if you travel via UK. I had some friends who had to go through a lot of difficulty for going back on a B1 visa to India via Heathrow
hair A Gift Of The Heart 16th
santa123
01-23 01:40 PM
CIS Ombudsman - Send Your Recommendations
Looks like another good opportunity to express our hardships and seek CHANGE. Pls write to CIS.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0501.shtm
Your recommendations are accepted and encouraged. The Ombudsman is dedicated to identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process and preparing recommendations for submission to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for process changes. The Ombudsman believes that process change recommendations from individuals like you represent one of the best sources for identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process.
Ideally, your recommendations for process changes should not only identify the problem you are experiencing, but should also contain a proposed solution that will not only benefit your individual case, but others who may be experiencing the same problem as well.
The CIS Ombudsman is dedicated to open and accessible communication with both individuals and employers and not only welcomes, but encourages your comments.
Send your comments, examples, and suggestions to the Ombudsman at 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
Looks like another good opportunity to express our hardships and seek CHANGE. Pls write to CIS.
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0501.shtm
Your recommendations are accepted and encouraged. The Ombudsman is dedicated to identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process and preparing recommendations for submission to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for process changes. The Ombudsman believes that process change recommendations from individuals like you represent one of the best sources for identifying systemic problems in the immigration benefits process.
Ideally, your recommendations for process changes should not only identify the problem you are experiencing, but should also contain a proposed solution that will not only benefit your individual case, but others who may be experiencing the same problem as well.
The CIS Ombudsman is dedicated to open and accessible communication with both individuals and employers and not only welcomes, but encourages your comments.
Send your comments, examples, and suggestions to the Ombudsman at 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
more...
sanprabhu
07-17 04:32 PM
I think we should send post cards to all the senators. The message should be simple:
1. RECAPTURE of the lost EB visas for the last decade.
2. Per Country quota flexibility.
The post cards should be sent to all the 100 senators.
If people want to send flowers it should be again to soldiers at Walter Reed. I think this time it should say Thank you for your service by USCIS.
1. RECAPTURE of the lost EB visas for the last decade.
2. Per Country quota flexibility.
The post cards should be sent to all the 100 senators.
If people want to send flowers it should be again to soldiers at Walter Reed. I think this time it should say Thank you for your service by USCIS.
hot heart hands sea love
vactorboy29
02-24 12:51 PM
Basic purpose of our forum is to create awareness/educate legal Immigrants so that they can get help for there cause at the same time we get some help from them to push forward this movement. Recently we are seeing big inflow of queries because economy is bad our brother and sisters getting in deep trouble.
How we can voice our concern in this bad time key is to find the solution.
My thoughts on this................
1) Get the help from our Indian/Chinese community on all levels like city, state and national level.
2) We will run advertisement campaign about, who we are and where we stand. This adv. could be air on Lue's show or even on other popular shows...
3) We need lobbying in congress .I know we have this in this place but we can show our strength through legal Indian/Chinese Immigrant plus Indian/Chinese American citizen then we got big weight in our plate.
4) To get all of the above and may be more we need Money and Man power to execute this.
How we can voice our concern in this bad time key is to find the solution.
My thoughts on this................
1) Get the help from our Indian/Chinese community on all levels like city, state and national level.
2) We will run advertisement campaign about, who we are and where we stand. This adv. could be air on Lue's show or even on other popular shows...
3) We need lobbying in congress .I know we have this in this place but we can show our strength through legal Indian/Chinese Immigrant plus Indian/Chinese American citizen then we got big weight in our plate.
4) To get all of the above and may be more we need Money and Man power to execute this.
more...
house the shop Love+heart+hands
Edison99
09-15 12:30 PM
Enjoy the freedom!
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
tattoo You make my heart happy.quot;
485Mbe4001
06-29 03:57 PM
i dont think you will get the copies of I140, it is owned by the company and they have every right to keep it. Nothing much you can do about it, its perfectly legal for them to do that. If its a desi lawyer you might have change of getting a copy but most of the lawyers will not suggest your company to give it. i went through the same, my company was ok with giving me the copy but the lawyers suggested against it.
more...
pictures Unity Hands - Heart and Love
ilovestirfries
09-27 08:07 PM
Wowww...There were 34 views without a single reply.. :confused:
There isn't anybody who concurs/disagrees with my situation? Its amazing how these discussion boards work...:mad:
There isn't anybody who concurs/disagrees with my situation? Its amazing how these discussion boards work...:mad:
dresses One aspect of love that
dog123
09-18 06:01 PM
I got receipt on August 29 and approval e-mail on Today (September 18th).
Rashesh
Rashesh
more...
makeup Hands Heart
kaisersose
10-15 03:04 PM
If you have two jobs on hand, and your sponsoring employer keeps the offer for the future job open, then you can simply use your EAD for both jobs. What would you need the H1B for unless you have reasons to believe the I-485 will be denied?
If you wish to change employers, i.e. no longer take up the job with the employer who did your labor cert, then wait for 180 days after the receipt date of your I-485, find a " same or similar" job and use AC21 portability. - The AC21 law is kind of complex, most use the services of a (competent) lawyer.
A top attorney's fee for sending an AC21 letter to the USCIS is $3000. I assume all competent lawyers would be priced similarly.
But he also adds it is not necessary to use his services for Ac21, if the case is simple and straightforward. If you feel there are some twists or ambiguities in your case, then it is best to pony up the dough and have a lawyer send the letter instead of you.
If you wish to change employers, i.e. no longer take up the job with the employer who did your labor cert, then wait for 180 days after the receipt date of your I-485, find a " same or similar" job and use AC21 portability. - The AC21 law is kind of complex, most use the services of a (competent) lawyer.
A top attorney's fee for sending an AC21 letter to the USCIS is $3000. I assume all competent lawyers would be priced similarly.
But he also adds it is not necessary to use his services for Ac21, if the case is simple and straightforward. If you feel there are some twists or ambiguities in your case, then it is best to pony up the dough and have a lawyer send the letter instead of you.
girlfriend IS OUR DEEPEST LOVE amp; INNER
Dhundhun
07-16 03:53 PM
If the processing date is July 17, on what basis they are selecting files which has reciept date July 30...
In case of EADs, we saw that for straight forward cases, they sent card in even 2 weeks, where on website Processing Date used to be reported 90 days before posting date.
So perhaps the simpler cases, which they though to be complete, while receiving FP feedback or Name Check feedback - just a guess - and yes while Processing Date is July 17, people of much later dates got approved. This is despite USCIS telling that applications will be processed in order.
In case of EADs, we saw that for straight forward cases, they sent card in even 2 weeks, where on website Processing Date used to be reported 90 days before posting date.
So perhaps the simpler cases, which they though to be complete, while receiving FP feedback or Name Check feedback - just a guess - and yes while Processing Date is July 17, people of much later dates got approved. This is despite USCIS telling that applications will be processed in order.
hairstyles stock photo : Female hands
newbee7
07-05 01:05 AM
From 07 report:
Case Problem Processing
1. How to Submit A Case Problem
The Ombudsman�s website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman, provides detailed information on how to submit a case problem:
First, please write a letter or use DHS Form 7001, which was accessible on the Ombudsman�s website as of June 6, 2007. If writing a letter, please provide the following information in the order below to assist in identifying your case.
� For the person with the case problem, please provide the person�s: (1) full name; (2) address; (3) date of birth; (4) country of birth; (5) application/petition receipt number; and (6) �A� number;
� The USCIS office at which the application/petition was filed;
� The filing date of the application/petition; and
� A description of the problem.
Finally, please mail your case problem, including your dated and signed letter and copies of documents relevant to your case inquiry, to either of the following addresses:
Via regular mail:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Case Problems
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Via courier service:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Case Problems
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
245 Murray Lane
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Case Problem Processing
1. How to Submit A Case Problem
The Ombudsman�s website, www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman, provides detailed information on how to submit a case problem:
First, please write a letter or use DHS Form 7001, which was accessible on the Ombudsman�s website as of June 6, 2007. If writing a letter, please provide the following information in the order below to assist in identifying your case.
� For the person with the case problem, please provide the person�s: (1) full name; (2) address; (3) date of birth; (4) country of birth; (5) application/petition receipt number; and (6) �A� number;
� The USCIS office at which the application/petition was filed;
� The filing date of the application/petition; and
� A description of the problem.
Finally, please mail your case problem, including your dated and signed letter and copies of documents relevant to your case inquiry, to either of the following addresses:
Via regular mail:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Case Problems
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Via courier service:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Case Problems
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
245 Murray Lane
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
chanduv23
12-08 11:32 PM
Come on fellow IVans
Just CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE
Just CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTE
cal97
08-15 08:01 PM
I am in the same boat. Filed I-485 with an EB2 approved I-140 P.D June 2004. DBEC approved my EB3 LC with PD 2001.
This is what I know can be done:
1. File I-140 and I-485 for the older LC. USCIS may later ask you to withdraw
one case.
2. File for a new I-140 for the older LC, wait for it to be approved and then
file for substitution of I-140. Then the EB2 will get the older PD. This is the
I-140 porting process that my attorney explained to me.
3. File for I-140 and after approval file for CP.
I have opted for the last option. My attorney has filed for my EB3 I-140 and asked for CP. Since I-140 approvals are taking so long and with no PP I do not expect anything for a year more atleast. Again, you have an option to port the I-140 to EB2 if you do not want to go through the CP route after the older PD I-140 is approved.
Hope this helps.
HI!
I have approved EB-2/I-140(PD October'2005) & also approved labor(EB-3)(PD October'2003). I have filed for I-485 last month. According to my lawyer, he has asked USCIS to port EB-3 priority date to EB-2 (by giving required documents+ letters +forms etc). Will USCIS approve this porting?
Regards,
USA2007
This is what I know can be done:
1. File I-140 and I-485 for the older LC. USCIS may later ask you to withdraw
one case.
2. File for a new I-140 for the older LC, wait for it to be approved and then
file for substitution of I-140. Then the EB2 will get the older PD. This is the
I-140 porting process that my attorney explained to me.
3. File for I-140 and after approval file for CP.
I have opted for the last option. My attorney has filed for my EB3 I-140 and asked for CP. Since I-140 approvals are taking so long and with no PP I do not expect anything for a year more atleast. Again, you have an option to port the I-140 to EB2 if you do not want to go through the CP route after the older PD I-140 is approved.
Hope this helps.
HI!
I have approved EB-2/I-140(PD October'2005) & also approved labor(EB-3)(PD October'2003). I have filed for I-485 last month. According to my lawyer, he has asked USCIS to port EB-3 priority date to EB-2 (by giving required documents+ letters +forms etc). Will USCIS approve this porting?
Regards,
USA2007
No comments:
Post a Comment