sanju
02-03 05:28 PM
Alright guys you seem to have more Political understanding than I have, that was one reason that I was talking 20 people, I have 6 people now, when we'll talk these things will come, as these 5 people may have your kind of Political knowledge
Look mirage, I want to help in anyway I can, and I know your intensions are good, but good intensions and mere frustartion arenot enough to produce the desired results. The effort has to timed well. Bush had good intensions, atleast thats what he said, but the outcome was not how everyone desired. I am telling you, conserve your energy for the right time, don't lose steam and willingness to do something about the issue, but do not waste your energy. Use it wisely. Although, I must say that I have witnessed a lot of gurus in these forums. Sometimes I see them logged in, but they do not always post. If I were you, I would do my hiomework, get those folks on board, chose the right time, and put in the best effort.
.
Look mirage, I want to help in anyway I can, and I know your intensions are good, but good intensions and mere frustartion arenot enough to produce the desired results. The effort has to timed well. Bush had good intensions, atleast thats what he said, but the outcome was not how everyone desired. I am telling you, conserve your energy for the right time, don't lose steam and willingness to do something about the issue, but do not waste your energy. Use it wisely. Although, I must say that I have witnessed a lot of gurus in these forums. Sometimes I see them logged in, but they do not always post. If I were you, I would do my hiomework, get those folks on board, chose the right time, and put in the best effort.
.
wallpaper Dirk Nowitzki,
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
HawaldarNaik
12-10 01:46 PM
I expect things to be more transparent from February onwards (note month of Feb), that is because i beleive that the new leadership will ensure that there is a transparency in the whole process rather than a lottery like approach to the dates.
Also i beleive the whole GC process will be more professional giving folks like us much much more respect than what the current approach is doing....
Also i beleive the whole GC process will be more professional giving folks like us much much more respect than what the current approach is doing....
2011 Last season, Dirk Nowitzki had
a_paradkar
07-25 05:00 PM
Do you need an EVL if you are just sending in 485 application for your spouse.
My 485 was filed in Sept 2005?
Kind of confused. can someone answer that?
My 485 was filed in Sept 2005?
Kind of confused. can someone answer that?
more...
h1techSlave
03-17 01:55 PM
People with PD having DEC 2003 and before will have fair chance as well.
Are you saying EB3-India visa date will be set as Jan 2004 by USCIS some time soon? I thought they kept saying that EB3-India dates would move very slowly only. So from the current Oct 2001 to Jan 2004 is a very long and narrow road.
Are you saying EB3-India visa date will be set as Jan 2004 by USCIS some time soon? I thought they kept saying that EB3-India dates would move very slowly only. So from the current Oct 2001 to Jan 2004 is a very long and narrow road.
WillIWin?
07-24 01:36 PM
If I-140 has been certified OR application has already been submitted, then maybe you DO need a employment letter - to prove that the job is still available.
If I-140 and 485 are being submitted concurrently, then OBVIOUSLY there is a job offer (thats part of the reason the I-140 is filed by company) and maybe the employment letter is not required.
My thoughts.
With the new form available on uscis web site.
It clearly says the documents to be attached to 485 and it says employment letter as initial evidence.
So we should attach it . If not now, then you will get RFE. Why to get RFE ?
If I-140 and 485 are being submitted concurrently, then OBVIOUSLY there is a job offer (thats part of the reason the I-140 is filed by company) and maybe the employment letter is not required.
My thoughts.
With the new form available on uscis web site.
It clearly says the documents to be attached to 485 and it says employment letter as initial evidence.
So we should attach it . If not now, then you will get RFE. Why to get RFE ?
more...
somegchuh
03-15 08:51 PM
I have been waiting for my GC on purpose. I really wanted it to take 6 years.
I really wanted to get my Labor to rot in PBEC and then I intentionally wanted to get stuck in Namecheck.
On a serious note, do you have any idea about how this systems works? Do you have any idea what BEC's were or what namecheck is.
We will talk about "what the hell have you have been doing for so long" in 4 years when you are moaning about how retrogression has affected you for the last 5 years.
C'mon guys, what the hell have you been doing for so long?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
I really wanted to get my Labor to rot in PBEC and then I intentionally wanted to get stuck in Namecheck.
On a serious note, do you have any idea about how this systems works? Do you have any idea what BEC's were or what namecheck is.
We will talk about "what the hell have you have been doing for so long" in 4 years when you are moaning about how retrogression has affected you for the last 5 years.
C'mon guys, what the hell have you been doing for so long?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
2010 Mavericks#39; Dirk Nowitzki
nojoke
02-27 06:42 PM
Armageddon or not, smart or fool, time will tell. My view is recession yes, outside chance of a depression. Armageddon...........not really.
Interesting thing is Berkshire stock is up while all this is going on. Gives you an idea how much high regard people have for its balance sheet, Buffet and Co. stock picking prowess and his 30 plus billion cash war chest at this time.
Who still thinks this is a normal recession? I feel like saying "I told you so".
Interesting thing is Berkshire stock is up while all this is going on. Gives you an idea how much high regard people have for its balance sheet, Buffet and Co. stock picking prowess and his 30 plus billion cash war chest at this time.
Who still thinks this is a normal recession? I feel like saying "I told you so".
more...
sam0407
07-13 11:11 AM
I agree with shivaz90, we put so much effort and unity to bring this issue to light and hoping for justice, Let’s not spoil that sprite. Whatever the hidden agenda behind Murthy’s letter to DHS.. let’s not loose our focus.
hair Card of the Day: Dirk Nowitzki
browncow
05-26 11:26 PM
I carry my GC, passport etc even if i get out of my house to my lawn.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
Cos, if you are not a US citizen, the burden lies on you to prove your legal status.
This is the reason why US is losing out on tourism in a huge way.
I also stick them to my body in a water resistant package when i dive into a swimming pool, in case a immigration nut lay waiting there. Law is law. Why can't they collect my finger print/iris scan and determine status ?
Cos, if you are not a US citizen, the burden lies on you to prove your legal status.
This is the reason why US is losing out on tourism in a huge way.
more...
jayleno
07-28 09:23 AM
The best way to protest is to STOP DRINKING. Just kidding. Dont worry...Lord Ganesha will punish those sinners.
If you are not sure if you can open a thread for this here...most probably you shouldnt.
If you are not sure if you can open a thread for this here...most probably you shouldnt.
hot plaguing Dirk Nowitzki may
anilsal
12-28 12:58 PM
Both of the flights were on the same itinerary and were booked through Thai. United was asking for money for international part of the travel because he said that Thai would charge United for the extra weight if United checked in the luggage all the way to Bangkok, which isn't really true because Thai did allow 70 LB then. I am not sure what the regulation is now.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
Then why did you not take the issue up with Thai after ur trip? You have the receipt for the extra charge from United? These are alliance partners and can sort it out. If you have the receipt and the itinerary, you can still contact Thai.
They will go extra lengths to retain you as a customer.
I think you are right that the guy was probably ignorant and didn't really care becasue I wasn't flying United after LA anyways.
Then why did you not take the issue up with Thai after ur trip? You have the receipt for the extra charge from United? These are alliance partners and can sort it out. If you have the receipt and the itinerary, you can still contact Thai.
They will go extra lengths to retain you as a customer.
more...
house Finals MVP Dirk Nowitzki
conchshell
07-28 01:59 PM
Someone should close it so that we can talk about the more important matter of getting the green card faster.
I would say let it go on ... because this is the kind of topic people really like to discuss. It breaks my heart to note that last week I started a thread to raise ideas about immigration problems ... lots of people went through it, but just a handful participated. Here is the thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20406
So when people have lost focus, they are not interested in discussing the core issue anymore ... then let this discussion go on, on top of it may be we can also start reviewing bollywood movies here .... sorry for being sarcastic, but this the state of affairs at IV forums these days!!:(
I would say let it go on ... because this is the kind of topic people really like to discuss. It breaks my heart to note that last week I started a thread to raise ideas about immigration problems ... lots of people went through it, but just a handful participated. Here is the thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20406
So when people have lost focus, they are not interested in discussing the core issue anymore ... then let this discussion go on, on top of it may be we can also start reviewing bollywood movies here .... sorry for being sarcastic, but this the state of affairs at IV forums these days!!:(
tattoo psa dna, dirk nowitzki
alex99
11-01 12:33 PM
Bumping..
more...
pictures Dirk Nowitzki Wallpaper
jayleno
10-15 03:31 PM
Buddy did you even read what I said???
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
Looks like you have a plan here. Yep.. lets go ahead and irritate the hell out of USCIS and every agency out there.
I'm out of here guys
All the best..
dresses #28: Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas
iamgsprabhu
10-15 02:55 PM
Kindly download the Attached Doc.
more...
makeup Dirk Nowitzki#39;s Alleged Baby
abhishek101
12-27 12:14 PM
Just to clarify on all the confusion:
If you are legally here i.e. on H1B yu can have any account and any mortgage. I can pretty much vouch for it because I am one of the persons in the bank incharge of enforcing the credit laws. The only requirement while giving a mortgage is what kind of credit scores and history you have. BOA is quite conservative in giving out loans while someother smaller institutions are not so conservative and hence the rejection from one and acceptance by the other.
For giving mortgage to illegals I do not know any reputable institution doing so. Yes there is always the grapevine.
I recently travelled to Delhi from SF using British Air in Dec. I chaged from Terminal 1 to terminal 4 while going and reverse while coming. Nobody asked for any visa, as far as I know it is not required. It was not required before then the requirement came in and now it is no longer there.
But I do have a valid visa on my passport.
About Hongkong it takes approximately 5 minutes to get a 15 day visa and the process is very smooth.
Singapore does not require any visa.
No visa for Germany, Middleeast and most of the East Asian stops.
If you are legally here i.e. on H1B yu can have any account and any mortgage. I can pretty much vouch for it because I am one of the persons in the bank incharge of enforcing the credit laws. The only requirement while giving a mortgage is what kind of credit scores and history you have. BOA is quite conservative in giving out loans while someother smaller institutions are not so conservative and hence the rejection from one and acceptance by the other.
For giving mortgage to illegals I do not know any reputable institution doing so. Yes there is always the grapevine.
I recently travelled to Delhi from SF using British Air in Dec. I chaged from Terminal 1 to terminal 4 while going and reverse while coming. Nobody asked for any visa, as far as I know it is not required. It was not required before then the requirement came in and now it is no longer there.
But I do have a valid visa on my passport.
About Hongkong it takes approximately 5 minutes to get a 15 day visa and the process is very smooth.
Singapore does not require any visa.
No visa for Germany, Middleeast and most of the East Asian stops.
girlfriend Dirk Nowitzki, F,
shana04
04-23 10:03 PM
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Congrats, you deserve it.
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Congrats, you deserve it.
hairstyles Do ya#39;ll reckon Dirk is one of
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
delax
07-13 08:35 AM
ALL I AM SAYING IS WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. REASON WHY I LIKE IV OVER MURTHY. IMMIGRATION IS MURTHY'S PRIMARY BUSINESS .. IV IS DOING NOT FOR MONEY BUT TO REALLY FIX THINGS ... MUST MEAN SOMETHING RIGHT ... GO IV
-M
You've got me totally wrong - Its not a question of liking one over the other. How can you compare a lobbying outfit whose objective is to change existing law to better suit reality to a law firm whose objective is to help clients attain permanent residency within the EXISTING law.
If you had been on one of the calls last week that Murthy organized for her clients - you would know what I am saying and why she is doing what she is doing or why she is not doing what everyone else is EXPECTING her to do.
-M
You've got me totally wrong - Its not a question of liking one over the other. How can you compare a lobbying outfit whose objective is to change existing law to better suit reality to a law firm whose objective is to help clients attain permanent residency within the EXISTING law.
If you had been on one of the calls last week that Murthy organized for her clients - you would know what I am saying and why she is doing what she is doing or why she is not doing what everyone else is EXPECTING her to do.
pointlesswait
07-14 09:17 AM
i think this is the most logical reasoning!
but the million $ question is: is for how long! :confused:
In order to use left-over visa numbers from EB1 and EB2-ROW, the PD cut-off for China and India must be locked. That's one of the reason why India's cut-off date has also moved.
but the million $ question is: is for how long! :confused:
In order to use left-over visa numbers from EB1 and EB2-ROW, the PD cut-off for China and India must be locked. That's one of the reason why India's cut-off date has also moved.
No comments:
Post a Comment