kshitijnt
04-30 03:59 PM
Aytes basically gave a message, if you legislate we will slow it down through administration.
He doesnt want to be bothered.
He doesnt want to be bothered.
ind_game
05-15 10:09 AM
There was a campaign on wrongful denial in AC21 , there was also letter campaign not sure what happened after that ? It was IV action item too... What was the conclusion ? should we all suffer even if it is a training issue, if they act such nice on letters , then why they act as if there is no form and if AC21 is for real aliens from a real alien world.
Trust me your frustration is understandable......
Guys,
1. Consultant companies are making money by threatening to withdraw I-140 if an employee leaves the company for a better job
2. USCIS is already making enough money on these improper denials (I would like to call it white collar extortion)
3. Attorneys are making money on these cases
In the end we the immigrants are the losers.
Please make more noise on these kinds of issues concerned with I-140 withdrawls and I-485 denials, as this is becoming more and more apparent. Write blogs, spread in forums, write news letters. Go to your local congressman's office and make them aware of the situation. My local congresswoman's office is under the impression that my case is unique, but I am trying to convince them that this is wide spread by sending them the links of Ombudsman etc.,
We need to increase the awareness.
We do not want to get to a point where we may not utilize AC21 properly.
thanks
Trust me your frustration is understandable......
Guys,
1. Consultant companies are making money by threatening to withdraw I-140 if an employee leaves the company for a better job
2. USCIS is already making enough money on these improper denials (I would like to call it white collar extortion)
3. Attorneys are making money on these cases
In the end we the immigrants are the losers.
Please make more noise on these kinds of issues concerned with I-140 withdrawls and I-485 denials, as this is becoming more and more apparent. Write blogs, spread in forums, write news letters. Go to your local congressman's office and make them aware of the situation. My local congresswoman's office is under the impression that my case is unique, but I am trying to convince them that this is wide spread by sending them the links of Ombudsman etc.,
We need to increase the awareness.
We do not want to get to a point where we may not utilize AC21 properly.
thanks
hariswaminathan
03-05 03:08 AM
I hate to be the one to throw cold water on this - i dont believe its anything worth writing home about - I dont believe its really "pre-adjudication" for something exciting looming but IOs finally reaching the backlog of cases which they are supposed to as normal course of action to varify all the information pertaining to each case is correct and issue RFEs for missing bits. Dont forget last year they were all diverted to GC2Citizen cases because of voting bank pressure and coupled with July 2007 filers there was a huge backlog of cases just left pending.
Generally Numbers dont lie (except Satyam) and I havent heard anything in Congress that may be remotely close to passing that may change the landscape for EB folks and therefore am guessing that they have not really been intimated on any urgent action to be done within next few months for something looming.
Generally Numbers dont lie (except Satyam) and I havent heard anything in Congress that may be remotely close to passing that may change the landscape for EB folks and therefore am guessing that they have not really been intimated on any urgent action to be done within next few months for something looming.
geofu54
07-18 08:32 PM
Thank you for all the great work. I'm a new poster, but a long-time lurker/reader/supporter of this site. My spouse and I supported IV about the bulletin fiasco thing (we wrote letters to congresspersons and media... no way let the agencies set a precedent of getting away with murder about the legal immigration issue). We just now made donation for IV's next action.
My own case was approved early this year (and I do consider myself as a "lucky" one), but my spouse's case is still pending. Her security checks all got cleared within a month after we filed I-485, so we have no idea exactly what holds her. And now looks like we are engulfed by retrogression... legals' fight is far from over.
We will make another donation... and will spread the words to our July filer friends. keep up the great work guys!
My own case was approved early this year (and I do consider myself as a "lucky" one), but my spouse's case is still pending. Her security checks all got cleared within a month after we filed I-485, so we have no idea exactly what holds her. And now looks like we are engulfed by retrogression... legals' fight is far from over.
We will make another donation... and will spread the words to our July filer friends. keep up the great work guys!
more...
485Mbe4001
08-18 12:23 PM
you can modify the letter posted by mirage to include your details. i had updated it to the following.
I understand that the visa allotment process is constrained by the laws passed by the Congress, USCIS should also understand that applicants from retrogressed countries that have spent significant years of their careers waiting without any indication or guidelines as to when their dates will be current. I am sure everyone will understand the futility of waiting in a line where your position keeps increasing or decreasing every month with no end in sight.
It will help us make concrete long term decisions if you could provide the following information for the retrogressed countries.
-- number of pending EB1, EB 3 and EB 2 AOS cases per year for retrogressed countries from 1999-2008.
-- number of unallocated EB visas from 1996-2007
I also wanted to send the letter, but saw a ton of comments on the original letter. It would be a good idea, if some one goes thru the comments and update the letter in the original post. I think we should all send a decent letter.
I understand that the visa allotment process is constrained by the laws passed by the Congress, USCIS should also understand that applicants from retrogressed countries that have spent significant years of their careers waiting without any indication or guidelines as to when their dates will be current. I am sure everyone will understand the futility of waiting in a line where your position keeps increasing or decreasing every month with no end in sight.
It will help us make concrete long term decisions if you could provide the following information for the retrogressed countries.
-- number of pending EB1, EB 3 and EB 2 AOS cases per year for retrogressed countries from 1999-2008.
-- number of unallocated EB visas from 1996-2007
I also wanted to send the letter, but saw a ton of comments on the original letter. It would be a good idea, if some one goes thru the comments and update the letter in the original post. I think we should all send a decent letter.
satyachowdary
09-12 08:53 AM
Hi Milind123,
I just contributed $100, here are my order details :
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 09:12 GMT-04:00
Google Order #131954606924512
Thanks
Satya Chowdary
I just contributed $100, here are my order details :
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 09:12 GMT-04:00
Google Order #131954606924512
Thanks
Satya Chowdary
more...
Libra
09-11 07:56 PM
anandsumit, anzerraja, laknar thank you for your contributions.
kumar4j2ee
09-17 02:02 PM
Order Details - Sep 17, 2007 1:33 PM EDT
Google Order #371403364547278
Google Order #371403364547278
more...
reddymjm
09-10 10:28 AM
Not quite true - this is done at 140 not 485
Yes. By Law and by the Book. But I just saw in my friend circle. Most of them were US Masters.
Yes. By Law and by the Book. But I just saw in my friend circle. Most of them were US Masters.
danu2007
05-22 05:02 PM
I have made a one time contribution of $100.
Receipt ID: 97J49355KG857603M
Thanks
Receipt ID: 97J49355KG857603M
Thanks
more...
Green.Tech
06-05 06:22 PM
Hoolabalooo...
newbie2020
05-02 11:00 AM
Do we also need to contact the Senate Judiciary committee for any of these bills yet
http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/110/immigration110.cfm
http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/110/immigration110.cfm
more...
ras
10-16 05:47 PM
Added some missing in's and to's, etc. if it appears appropriate, you may keep the changes.
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
thomachan72
04-10 12:53 PM
min contribution required is $25 per month
Hi Pappu,
I just joined the 12 mth subscription of $25. Please enroll me into the donor forum. Thanks
Hi Pappu,
I just joined the 12 mth subscription of $25. Please enroll me into the donor forum. Thanks
more...
eb3_nepa
12-18 04:05 PM
If we start the fasting and rallying the American people will view it as nothing but "Countries of the East" sending their millions to other countries to show their strength in numbers.
Another thing. There was a suggestion of starting "free coaching classes" for kids as a volunteer service. Excellent Idea IFFF AND ONLY IFFF we are doing it With the actual intent of providing education to the under-privileged. Otherwise, once immigrants' voices are heard, and relief comes through, guess what will happen? These coaching classes will stop dead in their tracks. This will attract NEGATIVE publicity sending a message that the so called "Volunteer Effort" was nothing but a PUBLICITY STUNT.
Another thing. There was a suggestion of starting "free coaching classes" for kids as a volunteer service. Excellent Idea IFFF AND ONLY IFFF we are doing it With the actual intent of providing education to the under-privileged. Otherwise, once immigrants' voices are heard, and relief comes through, guess what will happen? These coaching classes will stop dead in their tracks. This will attract NEGATIVE publicity sending a message that the so called "Volunteer Effort" was nothing but a PUBLICITY STUNT.
pkv
05-07 10:09 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9186416
Congress penalizes U.S. troops, legal U.S. residents in attempt to punish illegal immigrants
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/07/2008 06:51:18 PM PDT
map loc val immig state
When Congress passed an economic-stimulus package giving hefty rebates to most taxpayers, it tried to make sure that illegal immigrants didn't get any of the cash.
But in doing so lawmakers inadvertently penalized hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. residents - and tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed overseas - simply because their spouses lack a Social Security number.
"Imagine an American soldier in Iraq whose foreign-born wife is waiting for an immigration petition to be approved and doesn't have a Social Security card. Now the couple can't even get a rebate," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. "That is really stupid."
Others in the predicament include about a million legal residents whose spouses are still overseas because of long immigration queues and hundreds of thousands of H-1B work visa holders in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
The scope of the problem is only now becoming clear as the government begins mailing out rebate checks. The first checks were electronically deposited in bank accounts last week.
Because illegal immigrants don't have Social Security numbers and instead routinely use "tax identification numbers," Congress banned rebates for taxpayers who use the IRS-issued numbers.
If a married couple files jointly and one spouse doesn't have a Social Security number, the couple won't get the $1,200 checks that other couples will receive. They're also ineligible for the $300 rebate per child. Many Armed Forces members stationed overseas have foreign spouses who can't get Social Security numbers.
William Luong, stationed at a U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Japan, said his fellow seamen resent that they've landed in the same category as illegal immigrants.
"They understand the reason they're getting the shaft," said Luong, 21, who is from the Los Angeles area. "but a lot are frustrated or angry about it."
More than 288,000 troops are stationed overseas, according to the Pentagon - not counting those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many live in places - Korea, Japan and Germany - where extended stays often result in marriages to locals.
The unintended situation developed after the House in late January passed the economic-stimulus legislation at the urging of President Bush. But anti-illegal immigration groups then lobbied the Senate to add the Social Security requirement, fearing that illegal immigrants would get their hands on the checks.
The Federation for American Immigrant Reform - whose members went on radio talk shows to bash the House version of the stimulus bill - has no apologies.
"No law was ever written that doesn't find someone falling through the cracks," said Ira Mehlman, a FAIR spokesman, who said he hoped government officials will come up with some way to help Armed Forces members.
But H-1B visa holders and legal immigrants who are being denied rebates say they want some justice, too.
"If the government collects taxes from us, we should be able to get rebates given to other legal residents, it should be a level-playing field," said Parveen Kumar, an H-1B visa holder who lives in Sunnyvale.
Kumar moved to Silicon Valley from India with his wife three years ago. He now works as an engineer at Intelliswift Software in Fremont. But his wife, Anu, is on a H-4 "dependency visa" that doesn't allow her to work.
After he found out about the rebate law, he went to the Mountain View office of the Social Security Administration and asked if he could get a number for his wife. He was told no.
John Johnston, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, confirmed on Wednesday that the agency's policy is not to issue Social Security cards simply for the purpose of issuing tax rebates.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, there are now between 600,000 and 800,000 H-1B visa holders in the United States. Exactly how many are married to spouses ineligible to work in this country is unclear.
Another group of immigrants - about a million nationwide - are non-citizen green-card holders who are already facing seven-year waits to get permission for their spouses to immigrate to their country.
"I've been in America for well over 20 years, and I consider myself an American," said Amir Nikpouri of Orland Park, a suburb of Chicago. "All I'm trying to do is obey the laws, but this one seems really unfair."
Nikpouri, 31, was married three years ago, but his wife won't be eligible to immigrate from Iran for a few more years.
"We are here legally and paying taxes and enjoying what a married family should be enjoying," said Aung Moe of San Jose, 33, a Burmese political refugee who works as an engineer at Applied Materials. His wife, Mon, is an electrical engineer who is forced to live separately from her husband in Singapore.
"Already we cannot be together, and now she cannot get a Social Security number," he said. "This needs to be fixed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress penalizes U.S. troops, legal U.S. residents in attempt to punish illegal immigrants
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/07/2008 06:51:18 PM PDT
map loc val immig state
When Congress passed an economic-stimulus package giving hefty rebates to most taxpayers, it tried to make sure that illegal immigrants didn't get any of the cash.
But in doing so lawmakers inadvertently penalized hundreds of thousands of legal U.S. residents - and tens of thousands of U.S. troops stationed overseas - simply because their spouses lack a Social Security number.
"Imagine an American soldier in Iraq whose foreign-born wife is waiting for an immigration petition to be approved and doesn't have a Social Security card. Now the couple can't even get a rebate," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. "That is really stupid."
Others in the predicament include about a million legal residents whose spouses are still overseas because of long immigration queues and hundreds of thousands of H-1B work visa holders in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.
The scope of the problem is only now becoming clear as the government begins mailing out rebate checks. The first checks were electronically deposited in bank accounts last week.
Because illegal immigrants don't have Social Security numbers and instead routinely use "tax identification numbers," Congress banned rebates for taxpayers who use the IRS-issued numbers.
If a married couple files jointly and one spouse doesn't have a Social Security number, the couple won't get the $1,200 checks that other couples will receive. They're also ineligible for the $300 rebate per child. Many Armed Forces members stationed overseas have foreign spouses who can't get Social Security numbers.
William Luong, stationed at a U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Japan, said his fellow seamen resent that they've landed in the same category as illegal immigrants.
"They understand the reason they're getting the shaft," said Luong, 21, who is from the Los Angeles area. "but a lot are frustrated or angry about it."
More than 288,000 troops are stationed overseas, according to the Pentagon - not counting those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many live in places - Korea, Japan and Germany - where extended stays often result in marriages to locals.
The unintended situation developed after the House in late January passed the economic-stimulus legislation at the urging of President Bush. But anti-illegal immigration groups then lobbied the Senate to add the Social Security requirement, fearing that illegal immigrants would get their hands on the checks.
The Federation for American Immigrant Reform - whose members went on radio talk shows to bash the House version of the stimulus bill - has no apologies.
"No law was ever written that doesn't find someone falling through the cracks," said Ira Mehlman, a FAIR spokesman, who said he hoped government officials will come up with some way to help Armed Forces members.
But H-1B visa holders and legal immigrants who are being denied rebates say they want some justice, too.
"If the government collects taxes from us, we should be able to get rebates given to other legal residents, it should be a level-playing field," said Parveen Kumar, an H-1B visa holder who lives in Sunnyvale.
Kumar moved to Silicon Valley from India with his wife three years ago. He now works as an engineer at Intelliswift Software in Fremont. But his wife, Anu, is on a H-4 "dependency visa" that doesn't allow her to work.
After he found out about the rebate law, he went to the Mountain View office of the Social Security Administration and asked if he could get a number for his wife. He was told no.
John Johnston, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, confirmed on Wednesday that the agency's policy is not to issue Social Security cards simply for the purpose of issuing tax rebates.
According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, there are now between 600,000 and 800,000 H-1B visa holders in the United States. Exactly how many are married to spouses ineligible to work in this country is unclear.
Another group of immigrants - about a million nationwide - are non-citizen green-card holders who are already facing seven-year waits to get permission for their spouses to immigrate to their country.
"I've been in America for well over 20 years, and I consider myself an American," said Amir Nikpouri of Orland Park, a suburb of Chicago. "All I'm trying to do is obey the laws, but this one seems really unfair."
Nikpouri, 31, was married three years ago, but his wife won't be eligible to immigrate from Iran for a few more years.
"We are here legally and paying taxes and enjoying what a married family should be enjoying," said Aung Moe of San Jose, 33, a Burmese political refugee who works as an engineer at Applied Materials. His wife, Mon, is an electrical engineer who is forced to live separately from her husband in Singapore.
"Already we cannot be together, and now she cannot get a Social Security number," he said. "This needs to be fixed."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
desi485
11-20 09:20 PM
Typically, if someone is doing a AC21 jump + H1b transfer, it means that the h1b gets transferred to the new employer and the new employer is the h1b petitioner. If the h1b is based on an approved 140 - the beneficiary gets it for 3 years and unless the person is completing his 3 years with the new employer when the 140 revoke happens, the h1b is still valid unless the new employer decides he will cancel it or the person is layed off and thats when the person is in deep trouble because he/she does not have EAD. Correct me if I am wrong. H1b revocation by ex employer may not affect the candidate because candidate already did a transfer
I am not 100% sure but if person has not completed 6 years, he can continue till he completes 6 years. If person has already crossed 6 years limit, H1 extension or transfer does not stand valid without any underlying pending AOS. This is what RG termed as opposite to conventional internet wisdom. Also, the law requires to provide a notice to cancel EAD, but not to cancel H1B. Correct me if I am wrong!
I am not 100% sure but if person has not completed 6 years, he can continue till he completes 6 years. If person has already crossed 6 years limit, H1 extension or transfer does not stand valid without any underlying pending AOS. This is what RG termed as opposite to conventional internet wisdom. Also, the law requires to provide a notice to cancel EAD, but not to cancel H1B. Correct me if I am wrong!
NKR
04-02 02:33 PM
That is right. People can express their opinions. No name calling and rough language.
That�s right, no name calling and no country name calling. D.R.D owes us an apology.
That�s right, no name calling and no country name calling. D.R.D owes us an apology.
GOTGC
07-24 03:09 PM
makes no sense.....
EB3 India setp 2006 wasnt even current in Jun 2007....
Since LuckyPaji mentioned his brother came on investors visa, I'm thinking even he applied under INVESTOR CATEGORY-EB5..
Probably he is right that he got EAD, 140 and 485 receit notices etc...:) ..
Anyway he is not sure about his category..So it could be EB5 which was NEVER retrogressed..
EB3 India setp 2006 wasnt even current in Jun 2007....
Since LuckyPaji mentioned his brother came on investors visa, I'm thinking even he applied under INVESTOR CATEGORY-EB5..
Probably he is right that he got EAD, 140 and 485 receit notices etc...:) ..
Anyway he is not sure about his category..So it could be EB5 which was NEVER retrogressed..
skillet
06-20 01:07 PM
Mine was filed in Feb 07. My lawyer has opened an inquiry and its pending too
jayleno
07-14 03:11 PM
Just dropped a check for $5. I hope all of the remaining members do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment