sbajaj80
09-14 09:01 AM
Hang in there. We filed on July 2 as well. Checks got cashed yesterday. Receipt notices have been mailed from NSC. You guys should expect to hear something anytime now.
Application was received by J. Barrett on July 2 @ 10:25 am at NSC.
Application was received by J. Barrett on July 2 @ 10:25 am at NSC.
wallpaper Entering his name for the NBA
chandrajp
04-20 02:12 PM
I am getting ready to file I-485. Is it mandatory to apply I-131(EAD) and I-765 (AP)? I got 3yr extension which is valid till 2009 and i am not planning to use EAD anytime soon.
What if i just apply for I-485 in the beginning and apply for EAD or AP whenever there's need? Please let me know.
Thanks
You can apply EAD/AP whenever you want to, provided you have filed I485. It need not be exactly at the time the I485 is filed.
What if i just apply for I-485 in the beginning and apply for EAD or AP whenever there's need? Please let me know.
Thanks
You can apply EAD/AP whenever you want to, provided you have filed I485. It need not be exactly at the time the I485 is filed.
vdlrao
04-01 07:25 AM
Guys,
Not sure whether below information is any helpful.
My Priority date is : July 2007
I-140 approval date : March 2009
Processing : Consular
Today i received a mail from NVC to pay immigration processing fee of $794.
Does any ones what is this for ? does it help to know the demand ?
Regards
Somebody please comment on this.
Not sure whether below information is any helpful.
My Priority date is : July 2007
I-140 approval date : March 2009
Processing : Consular
Today i received a mail from NVC to pay immigration processing fee of $794.
Does any ones what is this for ? does it help to know the demand ?
Regards
Somebody please comment on this.
2011 With the 2011 NBA Draft now
pitha
07-01 11:21 AM
Lets say DOS revises bulletin on july 2, does that mean applications recieved on july 2 are accepted and all applications recieved after 2 will be rejected or will USCIS reject all applications recieved on july 2 also.
more...
english_august
07-11 12:20 AM
I hate to be nitpicking but
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
Phew! Even I hate for you to be nitpicking :eek:
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
Phew! Even I hate for you to be nitpicking :eek:
zzsbzz
07-15 09:47 PM
I'm wondering if these figures actually provide ammo for people who claim that H1b is driving down salary. A $50k median starting and a $60k median is not that great.
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations: $60,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for initial employment: $50,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for continuing employment: $68,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations: $60,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for initial employment: $50,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for continuing employment: $68,000
more...
addsf345
09-28 12:46 PM
Taxes are inevitable!
I personally haven't seen any issues with Call quality. Infact Call quality is excellent.
I agree about taxes. This is general understanding. However with my teleblend (formerly sunrocket) the taxes were only around $2 at the same address where I stay now. With vonage its $6.32 -- I have no idea why vonage taxes are almost 3 times to teleblend for almost equal price plans at the same address?
I personally haven't seen any issues with Call quality. Infact Call quality is excellent.
I agree about taxes. This is general understanding. However with my teleblend (formerly sunrocket) the taxes were only around $2 at the same address where I stay now. With vonage its $6.32 -- I have no idea why vonage taxes are almost 3 times to teleblend for almost equal price plans at the same address?
2010 Lakers get Darius Morris,
seekerofpeace
10-09 09:46 PM
My wife got the approval on Oct 5th...CPO mail was first followed by approval notice and I also got a CPO mail after 35 days of approval....strange and surreal it seems
dwhuser,
I may be wrong since my wife's case was separated.....But this was from my congressman's office who told me that the reason that her case is pending and delayed is because our case got separated during adjudication.
Best
SoP
dwhuser,
I may be wrong since my wife's case was separated.....But this was from my congressman's office who told me that the reason that her case is pending and delayed is because our case got separated during adjudication.
Best
SoP
more...
ski_dude12
08-17 01:40 PM
Anil,
I got an email from TSC mentioning that my file had been requested for review and to allow 60 days.
Also, I got a letter from USCIS (TSC) in response to the SR that my file was being actively worked on.
Is that the same as an officer reviewing the case? or that comes next after file has been requested.
Did you receive any email response from the Service center processing your case, after you raised an SR ?
If in that response..they mentioned that an officer is reviewing your case..then you should be safe..
I got an email from TSC mentioning that my file had been requested for review and to allow 60 days.
Also, I got a letter from USCIS (TSC) in response to the SR that my file was being actively worked on.
Is that the same as an officer reviewing the case? or that comes next after file has been requested.
Did you receive any email response from the Service center processing your case, after you raised an SR ?
If in that response..they mentioned that an officer is reviewing your case..then you should be safe..
hair Darius Morris - Michigan
PBECVictim
02-08 03:32 AM
On FEb 4th my wife and myself went for H1-B visa renewal interview at Chennai Consulate. Both visas got approved. My wife passport was returned with in 3 days. It seems they have found her petitition online. My passport stuck with consulate. I called consulate today, and they have asked me to call back next week end. She said they were not able to locate my petition online.
How long it can take? 1 week or 2 weeks or 1 month? Please provide your experiences for those passports took more than 3 days. I have seen max 1 month in the forum.
How long it can take? 1 week or 2 weeks or 1 month? Please provide your experiences for those passports took more than 3 days. I have seen max 1 month in the forum.
more...
skynet2500
10-13 11:38 AM
Could anyone successfully reach a IO today at TSC? I tried couple of times and the lady keep saying to call national processing center.
hot defends Darius Morris,
mhathi
09-15 03:43 PM
Called all but nine of congressmen. Will try to call all of them before 5:00pm eastern
more...
house Darius MorrisIn essence,
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
tattoo Now that Morris is officially
beautifulMind
06-16 09:02 PM
who is your lawyer
more...
pictures Michigan#39;s Darius Morris
ashres11
09-25 02:22 PM
Message Sent
Sent to:
[ Create a category to email this group ]
cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov
joint.intake@dhs.gov
uscis-complaint@dhs.gov
Add to Address Book
Sent to:
[ Create a category to email this group ]
cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov
joint.intake@dhs.gov
uscis-complaint@dhs.gov
Add to Address Book
dresses Re: A True PG: Darius Morris
cse_us
03-25 04:53 PM
!!!!!
I knew friends in Kaiser who were hired on H1 and got GC through Kaiser..
How the hell can they justify filing new GCs, but not accepting EAD!?
Kaiser stopped hiring on H1 since 2003. They used to hire on EADs until last week.
I knew friends in Kaiser who were hired on H1 and got GC through Kaiser..
How the hell can they justify filing new GCs, but not accepting EAD!?
Kaiser stopped hiring on H1 since 2003. They used to hire on EADs until last week.
more...
makeup Darius Morris#39; career averages
nkavjs
09-20 09:50 AM
Thanks CAdude for compiling the list.
COuld you please add me too.
Thanks
COuld you please add me too.
Thanks
girlfriend darius morris nba. images
JaiHo
09-24 02:42 PM
If there are 140K visas then EB3 category will get 140,000%28.7 = 40180
NACARA program = 40180-5000=35180
(refer Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002)
deduct 15% for consular processing = 29903
again consider 5 different Chargeability Areas
such as CHINA mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, PHILIP-PINES and rest = 29903/5= 5980
Worst case scenario, USCIS will have 5980 visas available for FY 2010.
Now, if you compare data published by USCIS on pending cases can we guess
we should see forward movement for EB3I at least July-2002 by end of FY 2010 ?
Is it fair assessment?
NACARA program = 40180-5000=35180
(refer Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002)
deduct 15% for consular processing = 29903
again consider 5 different Chargeability Areas
such as CHINA mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, PHILIP-PINES and rest = 29903/5= 5980
Worst case scenario, USCIS will have 5980 visas available for FY 2010.
Now, if you compare data published by USCIS on pending cases can we guess
we should see forward movement for EB3I at least July-2002 by end of FY 2010 ?
Is it fair assessment?
hairstyles The team that drafts Darius
tawlibann
03-26 06:22 PM
Agreed. But EAD doesn�t apply to EB based immigrants alone. There are hundreds of thousands of family based immigrants who use EAD until their status gets adjusted and I-140/AC21/180 days etc. are not applicable to them. Same applies to the spouses of EB applicants. In such cases it�s a waste of time/money for the company to consult with the legal department.
I believe it�s the responsibility of the EAD holder to communicate what he expects from the new employer (like AC21) after which the company could decide whether to go with the legal department or not. Just assuming that all EAD cases fall under I-140/AC21/180 days etc. is plain ignorance.
Even if the EAD falls under I-140/AC21, you don't necessarily have to invoke portability. It is none of their business under what category the EAD is. I can have an EAD from I-140/I-485 filing, and then use it to work for five years at one employer, and then switch to a third employer to port the I-485. If the GC process is going to take 10 years, why should I want to invoke AC21 every time I switch a job? I would do this only at the last job I take, when my PD becomes current.
I believe it�s the responsibility of the EAD holder to communicate what he expects from the new employer (like AC21) after which the company could decide whether to go with the legal department or not. Just assuming that all EAD cases fall under I-140/AC21/180 days etc. is plain ignorance.
Even if the EAD falls under I-140/AC21, you don't necessarily have to invoke portability. It is none of their business under what category the EAD is. I can have an EAD from I-140/I-485 filing, and then use it to work for five years at one employer, and then switch to a third employer to port the I-485. If the GC process is going to take 10 years, why should I want to invoke AC21 every time I switch a job? I would do this only at the last job I take, when my PD becomes current.
krishmunn
04-07 09:45 AM
Guys,
We rode the same wave even last year with many of the same Guru;s predicting the same movement to 2007 and what we saw 2 weeks movement .
I do not remember the predictions of last year but the fact is , last year it jumped from Jan 2005 (in Feb/March) to May 2006 (in September). That definitely is a BIG movement.
We rode the same wave even last year with many of the same Guru;s predicting the same movement to 2007 and what we saw 2 weeks movement .
I do not remember the predictions of last year but the fact is , last year it jumped from Jan 2005 (in Feb/March) to May 2006 (in September). That definitely is a BIG movement.
H1B-GC
09-23 04:01 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/New%20Structure/2nd%20Level%20%28Left%20Nav%20Parents%29/Green%20Card%20-%202nd%20Level/Pending%20Form%20I-485%20Reports.pdf
FYI :Goto Page 5 for India
Some Greens Please !! :)
FYI :Goto Page 5 for India
Some Greens Please !! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment