feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
wallpaper Madonna Angel Sleeve #3
PresidentO
02-11 01:23 PM
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
You rock dude! Am I the only one to remember how visa numbers spill between FB and EB every other year? (or) Am I hallucinating?
Family based visa used for FY2009 = 215,343
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = 10,567
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2010.
*********
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV.pdf
Family based visa used for FY2008 = 226,105
Family based immigrant visa numbers = 226,000
Unused visa = ZERO
available for employment based visa numbers for FY2009.
Always go by the facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
You rock dude! Am I the only one to remember how visa numbers spill between FB and EB every other year? (or) Am I hallucinating?
crazyghoda
01-30 02:15 PM
Wow! Thanks a lot for posting such detailed RFE information. This really helps a lot in understanding what I may be asked.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
2011 Angel and Cross Tattoo by The
rajuram
11-10 10:34 PM
We have no more excuses now.
1. Elections are over. So all arguments like "wait till the elections are over" do not apply.
2. We have a pro immigration president now.
3. Democrats are incharge of the house and the senate.
This is a good time to act. What is IV waiting for...
Ofcourse economy will grab the headlines, but it does not mean nothing else can be done. Do something before democrats start worrying about 2010 elections. Time to highlight that immigrants can help by buying houses (NPR had devoted some time to it recently, so they are aware, we just need to give it more publicity)
1. Elections are over. So all arguments like "wait till the elections are over" do not apply.
2. We have a pro immigration president now.
3. Democrats are incharge of the house and the senate.
This is a good time to act. What is IV waiting for...
Ofcourse economy will grab the headlines, but it does not mean nothing else can be done. Do something before democrats start worrying about 2010 elections. Time to highlight that immigrants can help by buying houses (NPR had devoted some time to it recently, so they are aware, we just need to give it more publicity)
more...
h1techSlave
03-17 02:04 PM
Including spillover generally EB3-I clears up around 5000 visas per year on average ( Though theoratically stuck at 3300-3500). 3 visas per applicant is at bit high end. I would not assume everybody is married AND have child.. I would put that around 1.75. But, yes, even if select these new parameters than also it would take years..Theoratically, ofcourse:):)
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
Based on your assumptions, it would take around 2 years to reach Dec 2003 for EB3-India.
# of visas required = 5000 or 6000 * 1.75 = 8750 or 10, 500
# of visas available = 5000
# years of wait until Dec 2003 = 1.75 to 2.1 years.
chmur
03-17 05:35 PM
The way I read it is ...People with PD's earlier than 2004-05 have been their long enough to understnd the pain and hence are active in all these forums , participate in such polls etc.
Others are happy with their EAD's and know anyway it's going to be a while and are in hibernation ...cannot blame them ...this GC following can get stressfull ....ignorance is bliss....suddenly the laws might change or something like July 07 might happen again ....
I think only those who got stuck in the Labor backlog (This could be huge #) and few other unlucky ones like me are the ones who are still waiting in India-EB3 Catergory pre 2004.
I know a bunch of India-EB3 pre 2004 got approved in the gold rush of July 2007
Others are happy with their EAD's and know anyway it's going to be a while and are in hibernation ...cannot blame them ...this GC following can get stressfull ....ignorance is bliss....suddenly the laws might change or something like July 07 might happen again ....
I think only those who got stuck in the Labor backlog (This could be huge #) and few other unlucky ones like me are the ones who are still waiting in India-EB3 Catergory pre 2004.
I know a bunch of India-EB3 pre 2004 got approved in the gold rush of July 2007
more...
sodh
07-23 04:15 PM
I don't know. Whole thing is confused. My lawyer is so confident and we applied with out, lets see...
Employment verification letter is the proof that you are still employed with the employer who filed your GC, Employment offer letter is that the same employer from whom you got your gc approved and your I-140 approved has an employment offer after the USCIS approves your GC. Hope this helps.
Employment verification letter is the proof that you are still employed with the employer who filed your GC, Employment offer letter is that the same employer from whom you got your gc approved and your I-140 approved has an employment offer after the USCIS approves your GC. Hope this helps.
2010 AngelsandDemonsSleeve.jpg
ramaonline
08-21 12:54 PM
The I485 Supplement A is for 245 i which means you had to be present in the US in the year 2000. Since you never entered the US until 2003 it does not look like this form is required in your case. Please call the USCIS customer service number to confirm this.
more...
swo
08-16 01:38 AM
I am wondering what part RD will paly in this new visa bulletin. In may case, I have PD of April 2002 (EB3-ROW) but RD of March 2007.
I guess they will still go by RD and I have to wait for 5-6 months. Please correct me If I am wrong?
You are in GREAT shape. You are current as of September. As long as there is no retrogression you should be good as soon as your security checks are cleared.
A 6 months wait is not unreasonable. I'd be happy with that if I was you!
I guess they will still go by RD and I have to wait for 5-6 months. Please correct me If I am wrong?
You are in GREAT shape. You are current as of September. As long as there is no retrogression you should be good as soon as your security checks are cleared.
A 6 months wait is not unreasonable. I'd be happy with that if I was you!
hair The Angel sleeve tattoos are
yabadaba
03-04 12:34 PM
Those were different times. Try taking mortgage now on your EAD.
Here are my particulars:
Family income: Almost 4-5 times per capital GDP
Job type: Stable
Credit score : Excellent
Highest education: MBA
Willing to put downpayment: Yes, required 20%
Mortgage application: Rejected as EAD is valid for only one year.
Now you tell me what should I do...
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
Here are my particulars:
Family income: Almost 4-5 times per capital GDP
Job type: Stable
Credit score : Excellent
Highest education: MBA
Willing to put downpayment: Yes, required 20%
Mortgage application: Rejected as EAD is valid for only one year.
Now you tell me what should I do...
shop around...talk to different lenders....there are many of them that understand that the ead is renewable. its up to u as a consumer how to make ur case.
more...
kishdam
02-20 03:28 PM
Thats a slight good news (in the current bad news or no news era regarding legal immigration) - hopefully there are are enough EB1 spillover visas to move EB2 by a few months each quarter.
hot house japan sleeve angel lotus by sleeve tattoo angel. angel sleeve tattoo
a_yaja
06-25 02:02 PM
Gurus,
A lot of information has been posted regarding items required for I-485 filing. However, I was not able to find one that was broken down form-wise. Hence, I came up with a list after going through the three forms individually. Please help me correct it by changing wrong info/ adding any ommisions on my part.
I-485 Check List
� Birth Certificate
� Copy of page with nonimmigrant visa
� Photos � 2 nos.
� Write A# or name with a pencil on the back of the photos
� Finger Printing (this is done after the I-485 is filed)
� Medical Exam Form (I-693)
� Form G-325A (this does not have a check list)
Evidence of Status
o Copy of I-94 showing admission to the United States
o Copy of approval of I129 extension (H1B extension notice) for primary
o Copy of approval of I539 (H4 extension)
� Employment Letter from Employer (original)
Evidence of eligibility
o Copy of I-140 approval (primary applicant)
o Copy of Marriage Certificate (derivative status)
� Filing Fee
I-131 Check List
� Govt. ID (driver�s lic. Or passport)
� AOS Receipt (not required for first time filing along with I-485 form)
� Photos � 2 nos.
� Write A# or name with a pencil on the back of the photos
� Letter explaining why you require AP
� Filing Fee
I-765 Check List (submit in following order)
� Copy of I-94 (front and back)
� Copy of last EAD (for renewal only)
� Photos � 2 nos.
� Write A# or name with a pencil on the back of the photos
� Filing Fee
A lot of information has been posted regarding items required for I-485 filing. However, I was not able to find one that was broken down form-wise. Hence, I came up with a list after going through the three forms individually. Please help me correct it by changing wrong info/ adding any ommisions on my part.
I-485 Check List
� Birth Certificate
� Copy of page with nonimmigrant visa
� Photos � 2 nos.
� Write A# or name with a pencil on the back of the photos
� Finger Printing (this is done after the I-485 is filed)
� Medical Exam Form (I-693)
� Form G-325A (this does not have a check list)
Evidence of Status
o Copy of I-94 showing admission to the United States
o Copy of approval of I129 extension (H1B extension notice) for primary
o Copy of approval of I539 (H4 extension)
� Employment Letter from Employer (original)
Evidence of eligibility
o Copy of I-140 approval (primary applicant)
o Copy of Marriage Certificate (derivative status)
� Filing Fee
I-131 Check List
� Govt. ID (driver�s lic. Or passport)
� AOS Receipt (not required for first time filing along with I-485 form)
� Photos � 2 nos.
� Write A# or name with a pencil on the back of the photos
� Letter explaining why you require AP
� Filing Fee
I-765 Check List (submit in following order)
� Copy of I-94 (front and back)
� Copy of last EAD (for renewal only)
� Photos � 2 nos.
� Write A# or name with a pencil on the back of the photos
� Filing Fee
more...
house guardian angel sleeve tattoos
retrohatao
02-15 05:00 PM
indi0617
Tried every thing:
1. Lawyer contacted USCIS. Waiting for security clearnace. USCIS does not expedite the issue
2. Contacted Congressman- nada
3. Contacted senetors - no help
4. E-mailed FBI- No reply
5. Faxed several letters- might have gone into trash bin
6. Sent snail mail. They have received it. Probably using the paper for various other uses.
That is the whole point to raise the issue in this forum, so that everyone in this forum aware of the problem.
You can not expedite it. You may sue, but never seen anyone doing that. It is such a hopeless ridiculous unresponsive process.
Mine is a very reputed industry. Does not matter who you are and whom you work for? They just do not care
Tried every thing:
1. Lawyer contacted USCIS. Waiting for security clearnace. USCIS does not expedite the issue
2. Contacted Congressman- nada
3. Contacted senetors - no help
4. E-mailed FBI- No reply
5. Faxed several letters- might have gone into trash bin
6. Sent snail mail. They have received it. Probably using the paper for various other uses.
That is the whole point to raise the issue in this forum, so that everyone in this forum aware of the problem.
You can not expedite it. You may sue, but never seen anyone doing that. It is such a hopeless ridiculous unresponsive process.
Mine is a very reputed industry. Does not matter who you are and whom you work for? They just do not care
tattoo Angel Tattoo Sleeve
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
more...
pictures Angel Tattoo Sleeve
vghc
07-03 11:59 AM
If you call it re-distribution of pain, I would call it sharing the pain. I think its high time ROW candidates felt the pain which we non-ROW have suffered for a long time. You are objecting just because you are on the better side and wish to continue with the better bargain. If you think about it as a EB group in general, then its absolutely ridiculous that there should be country limits for EB category GC when there is no limits on H1B which is the primary route for most EB category GC applications. I completely agree with you on the family quotient of your arguement, they should not get the GC numbers which is meant only for primary EB applicant. Not that I want families to suffer, but the family GC numbers for EB applicants should not count towards GC number cap.
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
dresses Tribal Tattoo Half Sleeve
venky321
02-13 06:12 PM
This is ridiculous; no one asked you to come to this country.
Nor are you entitled to anything besides what they chose to bestow.
Remember that.
Nor are you entitled to anything besides what they chose to bestow.
Remember that.
more...
makeup sleeve tattoo - Big Tattoo
Legal
07-04 08:38 PM
only other thing that would help India EB2,3 would be to use these recaptured numbers to be used ONLY for priority dates older than 3years or something like that. Even if achieve legislation to recapture the EB numbers.. unlesss we seek something like this EB India will be screwed for ever.
I meant without country cap....
I meant without country cap....
girlfriend Angel Sleeve Tattoo Idea,
makemygc
07-05 10:56 AM
Core is putting their time and mmoney and doing this all for everybody
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
Pray please tell me what the core did for people stuck in BEC's.
Even these people contributed and once the dates were made current everybody and I'm sorry to say including the core forgot about them.
I know I'll be bashed for wrting this and pls dont get offended but I just had to ask.
Answer me this. God forbid but if you have a cancer and your brother has a malaria and you have just one doctor to treat. Would you ask doctor to treat you first since you have a bigger issue than your brother? No, right.
Dude, we all are brothers in this mess and everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I agree that core should work to eliminate BEC problem as well as any other opportunity to get any other immediate relief but core has limited resources, very limited funding plus and core needs to work on areas which fixes maximum number of lives here.
There are around 40000 people stuck in BEC and if 20% of those can join core and contribute, I'm sure that is enough number to allocate resources accordingly. But somehow people has got the wrong idea that IV is not for people stuck in BEC. I've seen similar posts in immigrationportal.com as well.
Now if IV will work for people who were eligible to file in July or even for people who just filed on Jul 2nd, i'm sure people will come and say that IV is for July 2nd people only. But that is not the case. Any issues/bill/ammendment which can bring some immediate relief should be worked along with our core issues which is retrogression. Once you are out of BEC (I hope you do asap as several of my friends stuck there), I'm sure your main issue will be retrogression and not BEC even if there are other people stuck there.
So lets not divide these communities any more, work together towards common cause that can bring some relief to our brother, sisters and ourselves. We all be benefitted if we all support each other.
Hope you understand.
Thanks
hairstyles Religious Angel Tattoos,
p_kumar
02-21 10:09 AM
If possible, please change it without any delay? EB3 is only able to cross past May 2001 for 3 times in last 3 years where EB2 are enjoying GC most of time. No point in playing wait game with EB3 India. Otherwise, you will wait for-ever. :)
How does one "change" to EB2?. I have a PD of Oct 2003 EB3. Should i submit a new labor and if it is approved my category will be EB2 PD Oct 2003?. Should i also file another I-140?.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
How does one "change" to EB2?. I have a PD of Oct 2003 EB3. Should i submit a new labor and if it is approved my category will be EB2 PD Oct 2003?. Should i also file another I-140?.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
Sakthisagar
06-11 10:46 AM
Thank You for doing this, Great work.
Sent two times yesterday and today after the change in the content.
May GOD Bless
Sent two times yesterday and today after the change in the content.
May GOD Bless
logiclife
04-23 05:29 PM
Everyone, calm down.
Gautam: We understand that you are not an IV member and you attended a public event and asked the congressman a question and got a dissatisfactory answer to your question.
It was a public event and it was well within your rights to ask your question. Fine.
Here is the issue with your questions and expectation and also with expectation of other members who have been thoroughly dissatisfied on Saturday:
1). Need to temper expectations, lawmakers are not really experts in Immigration law or any law...they set policy...they dont practice law everyday...
Firstly, your question is such that it is beyond congressman's capacity to answer. You asked about the non-immigrant intent tied to the student visa and you said that it doesnt make sense to have that non-immigrant intent on student visas and its prevent you from getting a degree from your school where you are getting/got admission.
You have to realize that these are highly technical issues and no Congressman or Senator....NONE...not even Ted Kennedy, not even John McCain (they have spent good part of this decade coming up with comprehensive bill last year) would understand deeply technical legal issues like "Non Immigrant Intent" in the law and the bills. NOT EVEN JOHN CORNYN who has spend huge time on skilled immigration and whose previous bill actually has stuff to remove the non-immigrant intent from student visa adjudication in consulates. Lawmakers work at policy level and THEIR STAFF works the details. The kind of question you asked was something that you can get answers on from a staff member. And not just any staff member, it has to the the JUDICIARY COUNSEL of the congressman or the Senator. Otherwise, they would not know the different between H1 and F1 and the difference between GC quota (140,000) and H1 Quota (65,000).
Congress passes thousands of bills each year. Each day in session, Congressmen vote on over a dozen bills. For each bill they vote, they get a 5-10 line brief description. So never expect lawmakers to know your issues in that great details.
2). Need to have a polite tone.
This point I am making is not just pertinent to you (Gautam), but to everyone. When you are dealing with a lawmaker so closely involved with a 700-page bill of which 98% is dealing with sparing the lives of 11 million illegals who are living in fear of deportation, prison, raids and separation from their children, you have to be VERY VERY CAREFUL when asking for things like "I am not getting GC therefore, I cant get promotion", "I am making only 80K and with GC I can make 120K", "I cannot go to Ivy league school for next 2 years"... Not that these arent legit issues. They are. But when a person sees questions from the undocumented community, some of them were breaking into tears when asking questions...your questions and your tone has to be very careful. I dont know if anyone stayed thru the end. I and Pratik were there till the end and we talked to Congressman after the crowd dispersed and there were just some reporters, organizers etc at around 7:45 PM. Some questions towards the end,...people were breaking into tears when asking..."my son cannot go to school anywhere next year when he grads from highschool"..."When are the raids going to stop"...etc. These guys are plucked from their homes and workplace and their Kids actually end up on the streets as it recently happened in New Bedford, Massachussetts. Kids were unable to go home (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)beause their parents didnt come from work (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/350_are_held_in_immigration_raid/)and there wasnt anyone from social services notified about the parents being picked up by Immigration enforcement.
In the environment, when children possibly become homeless/lost/kidnapped because their parents are in jail suddenly, (read news articles on raids in New Bedford Massachussets (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)), IF YOU DONT HAVE A VERY SOFT AND POLITE TONE and a very compelling story, your point is going to backfire and you will risk looking like RICH SPOILED AND PRIVILEGED KIDS who ALREADY HAVE LEGAL STATUS and ALREADY HAVE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP and are yelling on top of their lungs to speed that up.
Your case is legit, not doubt, but WHEN IN CONTRAST with undocumented, you run the risk of looking like snobs and elitists. That's just how it is. And lawmakers dont exactly get goosebumps when you name-drop words like "Harvard", "Stanford" and "Berkeley" and "U Penn". Its not like they are going to go weak on their knees when you say "I went to harvard and how dare you dont get me a Greencard. I will go back to India/China". It doesnt really make a difference to them. They have people WORKING FOR THEM in their staff who went to Ivy league schools.
And frankly, Gautam, your tone of asking the question was..."what are you doing about this...you dont understand what you are losing , you will lose us to India and China and France"....is THE WRONG TONE. It was nowhere near polite or calm. It was pretty "WTF" attitude like you said we should all use, and IT WONT WORK. If shouting out, yelling, soundbites and rhetoric would have worked, we would have gotten the job done a long time ago.
Merits of the issue and argument is one thing...no matter how strong your point is YOU HAVE TO be POLITE and be FRIENDLY and ask nicely. Otherwise you will really get nothing back from your lawmakers.
Its not like you are going to threaten to vote against them. YOU HAVE NO VOTING power for next 15 years.
Gautam: We understand that you are not an IV member and you attended a public event and asked the congressman a question and got a dissatisfactory answer to your question.
It was a public event and it was well within your rights to ask your question. Fine.
Here is the issue with your questions and expectation and also with expectation of other members who have been thoroughly dissatisfied on Saturday:
1). Need to temper expectations, lawmakers are not really experts in Immigration law or any law...they set policy...they dont practice law everyday...
Firstly, your question is such that it is beyond congressman's capacity to answer. You asked about the non-immigrant intent tied to the student visa and you said that it doesnt make sense to have that non-immigrant intent on student visas and its prevent you from getting a degree from your school where you are getting/got admission.
You have to realize that these are highly technical issues and no Congressman or Senator....NONE...not even Ted Kennedy, not even John McCain (they have spent good part of this decade coming up with comprehensive bill last year) would understand deeply technical legal issues like "Non Immigrant Intent" in the law and the bills. NOT EVEN JOHN CORNYN who has spend huge time on skilled immigration and whose previous bill actually has stuff to remove the non-immigrant intent from student visa adjudication in consulates. Lawmakers work at policy level and THEIR STAFF works the details. The kind of question you asked was something that you can get answers on from a staff member. And not just any staff member, it has to the the JUDICIARY COUNSEL of the congressman or the Senator. Otherwise, they would not know the different between H1 and F1 and the difference between GC quota (140,000) and H1 Quota (65,000).
Congress passes thousands of bills each year. Each day in session, Congressmen vote on over a dozen bills. For each bill they vote, they get a 5-10 line brief description. So never expect lawmakers to know your issues in that great details.
2). Need to have a polite tone.
This point I am making is not just pertinent to you (Gautam), but to everyone. When you are dealing with a lawmaker so closely involved with a 700-page bill of which 98% is dealing with sparing the lives of 11 million illegals who are living in fear of deportation, prison, raids and separation from their children, you have to be VERY VERY CAREFUL when asking for things like "I am not getting GC therefore, I cant get promotion", "I am making only 80K and with GC I can make 120K", "I cannot go to Ivy league school for next 2 years"... Not that these arent legit issues. They are. But when a person sees questions from the undocumented community, some of them were breaking into tears when asking questions...your questions and your tone has to be very careful. I dont know if anyone stayed thru the end. I and Pratik were there till the end and we talked to Congressman after the crowd dispersed and there were just some reporters, organizers etc at around 7:45 PM. Some questions towards the end,...people were breaking into tears when asking..."my son cannot go to school anywhere next year when he grads from highschool"..."When are the raids going to stop"...etc. These guys are plucked from their homes and workplace and their Kids actually end up on the streets as it recently happened in New Bedford, Massachussetts. Kids were unable to go home (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)beause their parents didnt come from work (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/350_are_held_in_immigration_raid/)and there wasnt anyone from social services notified about the parents being picked up by Immigration enforcement.
In the environment, when children possibly become homeless/lost/kidnapped because their parents are in jail suddenly, (read news articles on raids in New Bedford Massachussets (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/children_stranded_after_immigration_raid/)), IF YOU DONT HAVE A VERY SOFT AND POLITE TONE and a very compelling story, your point is going to backfire and you will risk looking like RICH SPOILED AND PRIVILEGED KIDS who ALREADY HAVE LEGAL STATUS and ALREADY HAVE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP and are yelling on top of their lungs to speed that up.
Your case is legit, not doubt, but WHEN IN CONTRAST with undocumented, you run the risk of looking like snobs and elitists. That's just how it is. And lawmakers dont exactly get goosebumps when you name-drop words like "Harvard", "Stanford" and "Berkeley" and "U Penn". Its not like they are going to go weak on their knees when you say "I went to harvard and how dare you dont get me a Greencard. I will go back to India/China". It doesnt really make a difference to them. They have people WORKING FOR THEM in their staff who went to Ivy league schools.
And frankly, Gautam, your tone of asking the question was..."what are you doing about this...you dont understand what you are losing , you will lose us to India and China and France"....is THE WRONG TONE. It was nowhere near polite or calm. It was pretty "WTF" attitude like you said we should all use, and IT WONT WORK. If shouting out, yelling, soundbites and rhetoric would have worked, we would have gotten the job done a long time ago.
Merits of the issue and argument is one thing...no matter how strong your point is YOU HAVE TO be POLITE and be FRIENDLY and ask nicely. Otherwise you will really get nothing back from your lawmakers.
Its not like you are going to threaten to vote against them. YOU HAVE NO VOTING power for next 15 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment