Napoleon
03-10 09:38 PM
Question #3 and #4 should conclude this discussion.
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
Also how do you define an established company.
If I stay employed for 2-3 yrs on my spouse's LLC and bring 200K each year, is that established?
From the above paragraph (quoted on Murthy site), it seems that it would be very much possible to just get self-employed (of course job description should be same and legal).
But here are the Questions:
1). How will USCIS be convinced that the original job offer was really the intended employment at the time the I-140 and I-485 were filed??
2). How do you prove to USCIS that the original job offer was something that you intended to take on getting your GC?
From the below excerpt (same Murthy site and part of above doc)
Ability of New Sponsor to Pay
m
The Memo clarifies that there should not be requests for "ability to pay" proof from the new sponsor as part of the I-140 approval process. However, the Memo does state that it would be appropriate to check the legitimacy of the new employer and the job offer in connection with the I-485 approval. So, the new employer may have to show financial viability and prove that there is a valid job offer in order for the foreign national employee and any family members to obtain the I-485 approval.
Questions:
3).Doesn�t the above mean that USCIS will still check to see if your (lets say) spouse�s company or start-up company has the ability to pay you?
4). So, even though USCIS is saying �Yes� to self employment, will they (excerpt from mandersons musings)
�..ask for 2 yrs of tax filings of future employer to prove that it's an established company (although they are not supposed to bring up 'ability to pay' issue which is already covered in approved 140 -- but being USCIS anything goes...)???
wallpaper Blonde Highlights On Brown
pappu
09-14 06:37 PM
DO NOT POST MEDIA LEADS ON THE FORUM PLEASE.
This is a request to every member working very hard in the media campaign and state chapters. If you get a response from any reporter for a media interview, DO NOT post the details on the forum. Please be alert if you find someone posting such message and immediately have that deleted.
If you get a media lead immediately send an email with information about the media lead to --- media at immigrationvoice.org
By sharing sensitive information on the open forum please understand that you maybe destroying the hard work of everyone in the media effort. It takes lot of effort to get media stories. Each of our member is a PR agent for us and we have a well planned strategy to help this entire community and get the immigration issues solved.
Thanks
This is a request to every member working very hard in the media campaign and state chapters. If you get a response from any reporter for a media interview, DO NOT post the details on the forum. Please be alert if you find someone posting such message and immediately have that deleted.
If you get a media lead immediately send an email with information about the media lead to --- media at immigrationvoice.org
By sharing sensitive information on the open forum please understand that you maybe destroying the hard work of everyone in the media effort. It takes lot of effort to get media stories. Each of our member is a PR agent for us and we have a well planned strategy to help this entire community and get the immigration issues solved.
Thanks
diptam
08-20 03:51 PM
Folks,
I sent the email with almost similar content as the hardcopy letter we are talking here and CC 'ed the email to USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV as well.
My Subject was : "Complaint about Unfair and Haphazard EB3 I-140 handling at Nebraska(NSC)"
Also i just noticed that USCIS account where i CC'ed came back with a "Out of Office Autoreply" and in the out of office message they said its an inactive account - blah ! blah !.... which gives me a feeling someone is definitely reading the account and its pretty much active but just to avoid burden of replying emails they utilized ( rather mis utilized) the feature in a very Naive manner.
Did anyone else received any reply - i'll post if i receive any reply.
By the way - How about dropping a email to Ombudsman as well , saw in another thread that this approach worked ... TSC and NSC 140 sufferers can put Subject as TSC and NSC accordingly.
cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov
Let us know how many wrote emails ( in case they couldn't get 7001 from employer) or both email and letter is good to keep the pressure ON !
I sent the email with almost similar content as the hardcopy letter we are talking here and CC 'ed the email to USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV as well.
My Subject was : "Complaint about Unfair and Haphazard EB3 I-140 handling at Nebraska(NSC)"
Also i just noticed that USCIS account where i CC'ed came back with a "Out of Office Autoreply" and in the out of office message they said its an inactive account - blah ! blah !.... which gives me a feeling someone is definitely reading the account and its pretty much active but just to avoid burden of replying emails they utilized ( rather mis utilized) the feature in a very Naive manner.
Did anyone else received any reply - i'll post if i receive any reply.
By the way - How about dropping a email to Ombudsman as well , saw in another thread that this approach worked ... TSC and NSC 140 sufferers can put Subject as TSC and NSC accordingly.
cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov
Let us know how many wrote emails ( in case they couldn't get 7001 from employer) or both email and letter is good to keep the pressure ON !
2011 rown hair blonde highlights.
485Mbe4001
03-06 10:07 PM
Hi,
i had sent you a PM last week, did you get it?
thx
Hi pappu (admn)
i work for an indian media/newspaper here in southern california, and trying to get an interview done for IV, which can be published subsequently, basically aiming our cause and goals and achievements and to create more awareness/publicity campaign about GC logjam.
Can you write me your contact number and suitable time for this, it will be a telephonic interview.
best
i had sent you a PM last week, did you get it?
thx
Hi pappu (admn)
i work for an indian media/newspaper here in southern california, and trying to get an interview done for IV, which can be published subsequently, basically aiming our cause and goals and achievements and to create more awareness/publicity campaign about GC logjam.
Can you write me your contact number and suitable time for this, it will be a telephonic interview.
best
more...
vin13
03-12 12:43 PM
Yes...this how we need to work. Why you dont support the donor idea. We dont need the free riders. We need only comitted people and not junks
I support the donor idea. But there is no transperency to who is leading what initative. If i want to contribute my time, i have to read through the posts every day for several hours to find who is leading the effort so i can discuss with them. Sometimes i feel there is so much more talk.
Why don't we list out the initiatives that is being considered or worked on. Along with some contact information so people can discuss offline with them. I cannot be online for several hours and read through all the discussions and still not find out who is coordinating the efforts.
I support the donor idea. But there is no transperency to who is leading what initative. If i want to contribute my time, i have to read through the posts every day for several hours to find who is leading the effort so i can discuss with them. Sometimes i feel there is so much more talk.
Why don't we list out the initiatives that is being considered or worked on. Along with some contact information so people can discuss offline with them. I cannot be online for several hours and read through all the discussions and still not find out who is coordinating the efforts.
qualified_trash
01-03 04:22 PM
I dont think one is necessarily doing kids a dis-service by electing to go back. On the contrary, kids experience tremendous personal growth through interaction with extended family which is not possible in a foreign land.
I come from a nuclear family in India and see no reason why my kid cannot develop into a good citizen the way my parents made sure I did..........
I learnt at a very young age that living with your cousins/uncles/aunts is not necessarily a guarantee of being close........ I am a lot closer to family I never lived with in the same city than I am to family who lived a few blocks from where we did.........
It is all in how the parents mold the environment for their kids. if we as parents fail in our duty towards our kids, does not matter where you live, we will do a great disservice to society..........
I come from a nuclear family in India and see no reason why my kid cannot develop into a good citizen the way my parents made sure I did..........
I learnt at a very young age that living with your cousins/uncles/aunts is not necessarily a guarantee of being close........ I am a lot closer to family I never lived with in the same city than I am to family who lived a few blocks from where we did.........
It is all in how the parents mold the environment for their kids. if we as parents fail in our duty towards our kids, does not matter where you live, we will do a great disservice to society..........
more...
pani_6
01-03 02:54 PM
I am going back in a few years!..this in Bhoga Bhumi(Land of material pleasures)...my land Bharath is Punya Bhommi(Land of Good Karma).I am heading home no matter what!
2010 dark rown hair with londe
bpratap
05-18 05:44 PM
I was also under the impression that Bank need not ask for Immigration Docs as long as I have good credit history and PayStub to prove I can re-pay the loan, but they (GMAC) is asking for 3yr continuous VISA from the date of closing.
The Loan Processing officer dont have any clue on VISA / Immigration procedure.
please share ur experiences or advice on how to handle this situation
Getting a bank loan is only dependent on showing that you will be able to pay it back. NO IMMIGRATION STATUS documents are required as long as you have SSN card. If SSN card says "Only with INS Authroization", then bank may ask further questions but if you are clear, the loan will be cleared. There are no legal restrictions.
The Loan Processing officer dont have any clue on VISA / Immigration procedure.
please share ur experiences or advice on how to handle this situation
Getting a bank loan is only dependent on showing that you will be able to pay it back. NO IMMIGRATION STATUS documents are required as long as you have SSN card. If SSN card says "Only with INS Authroization", then bank may ask further questions but if you are clear, the loan will be cleared. There are no legal restrictions.
more...
Jaime
09-12 05:27 PM
Bump
hair red hair blonde highlights.
raju123
06-01 04:00 PM
This might be useful to you.
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
more...
vvicky72
07-15 10:28 AM
Thanks.
hot Light rown on top and dark
she81
08-13 04:48 PM
I am exactly in the same situation. Sometimes I feel that I should just dump the EB3 application (PD: 12/04) and start a brand new EB2. Maybe the EB2 PD of say 12/08 will end up to be better than EB3 12/04.
I believe everyone is thinking in the same direction... but if and only if we're able to come out of the blackhole called I-140.
I believe everyone is thinking in the same direction... but if and only if we're able to come out of the blackhole called I-140.
more...
house Brown hairs have many
9years
10-28 07:27 PM
Hi Vayumahesh,
My attorney told me that it takes around a month to get ported (may be he is just saying in general). As I mentioned earlier My I-140 (EB2 one) shows EB3 priority date. I hope something will happen in a month or two.
Good luck to you on your EB2 I-140.
Thanks.
My attorney told me that it takes around a month to get ported (may be he is just saying in general). As I mentioned earlier My I-140 (EB2 one) shows EB3 priority date. I hope something will happen in a month or two.
Good luck to you on your EB2 I-140.
Thanks.
tattoo rown hair with red highlights
addsf345
12-01 02:16 PM
1. MTR -USCIS fee$585, Lawyer fee vary between $750 to $3500. Dependents another $500 extra in lawyer fee
2. US court no idea - but RG website says they take cases free of charges if case is strong as they can get attorney fee from USCIS..
Do you mean the district court asks cis to compensate candidate??? I have never heard this - wondering!!! Don't think its true!
2. US court no idea - but RG website says they take cases free of charges if case is strong as they can get attorney fee from USCIS..
Do you mean the district court asks cis to compensate candidate??? I have never heard this - wondering!!! Don't think its true!
more...
pictures rown hair light red
looneytunezez
05-19 07:49 PM
Congrats...
FINAL UPDATE
HURRAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
My I-485 case got reopened after being in denial status for three months............ My attorney got a letter from USCIS.
::::::::::::::::::To recap::::::::::::::
I went to the Congressional office on 05/14/2009 morning.
Congressional office made a call to Nebraska Service Center regarding the case on the same day afternoon (05/14/2009 afternoon)
USCIS sent letter to my attorney on Friday (05/15/2009).
My attorney received it this morning (05/19/2009).
Looks like magic........Whoever has been working on my case from the past three months made a huge reversal decision in just a few hours on 05/14/2009 afternoon with atmost attention........I like this sudden surge in commitment and care on my case.......
Here is the wording:
Quote""""""""""""""""""""""""
Reference is made to the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) filed on April 23, 2009. You are seeking reopen the decision rendered by USCIS on February 17, 2009, denying application filed by you.
The motion as submitted has been reviewed. It meets the requirements of Title 8, COde of Federal Regulations, $103.5 concerning the proper filing of a motion. Accordingly, the request to reopen the previous decision will be and is hereby granted.
The facts and issues in this matter were properly discussed in the decision, supra, and need not be repeated here as they are a matter of record.
After a complete review of the record of proceedings, including your motion, the grounds for denial have been overcome.
The application will be reopened and the processing continued. Once the processing is completed, you will receive a notice under separate cover.
Sincerely
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Unquote
FINAL UPDATE
HURRAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
My I-485 case got reopened after being in denial status for three months............ My attorney got a letter from USCIS.
::::::::::::::::::To recap::::::::::::::
I went to the Congressional office on 05/14/2009 morning.
Congressional office made a call to Nebraska Service Center regarding the case on the same day afternoon (05/14/2009 afternoon)
USCIS sent letter to my attorney on Friday (05/15/2009).
My attorney received it this morning (05/19/2009).
Looks like magic........Whoever has been working on my case from the past three months made a huge reversal decision in just a few hours on 05/14/2009 afternoon with atmost attention........I like this sudden surge in commitment and care on my case.......
Here is the wording:
Quote""""""""""""""""""""""""
Reference is made to the Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) filed on April 23, 2009. You are seeking reopen the decision rendered by USCIS on February 17, 2009, denying application filed by you.
The motion as submitted has been reviewed. It meets the requirements of Title 8, COde of Federal Regulations, $103.5 concerning the proper filing of a motion. Accordingly, the request to reopen the previous decision will be and is hereby granted.
The facts and issues in this matter were properly discussed in the decision, supra, and need not be repeated here as they are a matter of record.
After a complete review of the record of proceedings, including your motion, the grounds for denial have been overcome.
The application will be reopened and the processing continued. Once the processing is completed, you will receive a notice under separate cover.
Sincerely
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Unquote
dresses Her hair color is rown with
indio0617
03-09 10:09 AM
both amendments J-1 and removal cap for Nurses (India) will pass
more...
makeup londe highlights in rown
ImmiLosers
12-23 06:38 PM
I have recently contacted CIS Ombudsman (3-4 Months ago) regarding my I-485 application.
My lawyer is perpetually suggesting it may jeopardize the case.
Is it true? and Why?
My lawyer is perpetually suggesting it may jeopardize the case.
Is it true? and Why?
girlfriend 2011 Long Brown Hair with
hsd31
09-01 01:33 PM
kalinga_sena case seems to be the worst.
Besides kalinga_sena and me, looks like gclabor07 and mgmanoj have also been in the US 10+ years and still don't have an EAD. That will be an interesting poll too: 10+ years in the US and still no EAD.
Besides kalinga_sena and me, looks like gclabor07 and mgmanoj have also been in the US 10+ years and still don't have an EAD. That will be an interesting poll too: 10+ years in the US and still no EAD.
hairstyles londe highlights in brown
Sachin_Stock
08-23 09:49 AM
Does it mean the eligibility criteria/job requirement for EB2 is changed from Bachelors + 5 years of experience to Bachelors + 10 years of experience?
Read the definition of EB-2, and its sub-classification for Advanced Degree, Exception abilities and National Interest Waiver.
Read the definition of EB-2, and its sub-classification for Advanced Degree, Exception abilities and National Interest Waiver.
sanju
07-24 10:38 AM
This is so out of whack. Employment based green card issue is not about India or Indians. Our issue is about America and us i.e. highly skilled people from all countries waiting for their green cards. STOP BRANDING EMPLOYMENT BASED GREEN CARD AS "INDIA ISSUE". Such an attitude doesn't help at all and it is a big turn-off for people from other countries. Let’s be mature about solutions to the issue.
Also, people who give money to campaigns - Hillary, Obama or any other candidates, they are not giving the money to change any policy for getting green cards sooner for employment based categories. Our issue is not even on the radar screen of most "ethnic communities". And problem gets worst when news media, people like Lou Dobbs try to misguide the general public with their hate mongering propaganda - again with the objective to increase the value of his own stock. Often times Lou Dobbs will try to make it all look like "conspiracy theory" being hatched against American middle class - just to get their attention. For example Lou says that people from Indian American community are contributing to Hillary to promote outsourcing????? Hello!!!! Who is in the world is idiot enough NOT to believe that increased outsourcing affects everybody in US, including Indian-Americans. Sometimes news media will call Hillary as senator from the state of Punjab and other similar bull shit but catchy news items. And it is ok if majority of the middle-class Americans shake their heads in disbelief (because they are ignorant about the facts), as if a massive conspiracy theory is being hatched against the middle class. But people who have any common sense have the responsibility to think rationally and filter "real news" from news intended to increase ratings of a news shows/channels.
Also, the idiots who give campaign funds do so to buy proximity to power to increase their own profile. People who give money to campaigns are SICK and corrupt. These people are simply taking pictures with the candidate or a politician (not a lawmaker - there is a difference) to increase the value of their own stock. Too often this forum has mentioned the name of Chatwal being close to Clintons. Guys, lets face it, Chatwal is doing excellent marketing for himself. I don't think he is as close as he projects and as most people think he is. The way system works, anybody who is ready to give $1000 for a campaign can get their pictures with the "POLITICIAN", especially during campaign season. And these photo-ops freaks do not care about anybody other than them self. Therefore, the so called "indian lobby" exist only in the imagination of people who read news articles that are written by paid journalists.
About Cornyn amendment, this was clearly a party line vote. It had nothing to do with the position of a Senator on the issue. Did you notice that Sen. Grassley voted in favor of the SKIL bill? Anybody knows why???? As most people here may already know, Sen. worked overtime to derail the CIR. Because of that, leaders of the Democratic party in the Senate are upset with him on immigration issue. And thus, most democrats voted to oppose Cornyn’s proposal. That is how things work in the Senate – which is no different than the way things work at the any other workplace. Vote on Cornyn amendment had nothing to do with the stand of a Senator on an issue.
So, it is ok if Conryn amendment did not go through – “this time”. There will be more opportunities in the future. The thing is, Democratic Senators like Cantwell need to lead in pushing EB provisions. That may help to easy out the partisan vote on such proposals in the future.
Just my take on the situation.
NY/NJ/CT/MA Members -
Please write to Sen.HILARY CLINTON expressing your dissatisfaction or concern with regard to failure of Sen.Cornyn Amendment. It's critical that we as Indians get her opinion on this issue. She voted NO on this amendment DESPITE the indian lobby contributing to her campaign. Also its likely that she might become our next president.
Obviously, Sen.Obama does not care much for Indians!
Also, people who give money to campaigns - Hillary, Obama or any other candidates, they are not giving the money to change any policy for getting green cards sooner for employment based categories. Our issue is not even on the radar screen of most "ethnic communities". And problem gets worst when news media, people like Lou Dobbs try to misguide the general public with their hate mongering propaganda - again with the objective to increase the value of his own stock. Often times Lou Dobbs will try to make it all look like "conspiracy theory" being hatched against American middle class - just to get their attention. For example Lou says that people from Indian American community are contributing to Hillary to promote outsourcing????? Hello!!!! Who is in the world is idiot enough NOT to believe that increased outsourcing affects everybody in US, including Indian-Americans. Sometimes news media will call Hillary as senator from the state of Punjab and other similar bull shit but catchy news items. And it is ok if majority of the middle-class Americans shake their heads in disbelief (because they are ignorant about the facts), as if a massive conspiracy theory is being hatched against the middle class. But people who have any common sense have the responsibility to think rationally and filter "real news" from news intended to increase ratings of a news shows/channels.
Also, the idiots who give campaign funds do so to buy proximity to power to increase their own profile. People who give money to campaigns are SICK and corrupt. These people are simply taking pictures with the candidate or a politician (not a lawmaker - there is a difference) to increase the value of their own stock. Too often this forum has mentioned the name of Chatwal being close to Clintons. Guys, lets face it, Chatwal is doing excellent marketing for himself. I don't think he is as close as he projects and as most people think he is. The way system works, anybody who is ready to give $1000 for a campaign can get their pictures with the "POLITICIAN", especially during campaign season. And these photo-ops freaks do not care about anybody other than them self. Therefore, the so called "indian lobby" exist only in the imagination of people who read news articles that are written by paid journalists.
About Cornyn amendment, this was clearly a party line vote. It had nothing to do with the position of a Senator on the issue. Did you notice that Sen. Grassley voted in favor of the SKIL bill? Anybody knows why???? As most people here may already know, Sen. worked overtime to derail the CIR. Because of that, leaders of the Democratic party in the Senate are upset with him on immigration issue. And thus, most democrats voted to oppose Cornyn’s proposal. That is how things work in the Senate – which is no different than the way things work at the any other workplace. Vote on Cornyn amendment had nothing to do with the stand of a Senator on an issue.
So, it is ok if Conryn amendment did not go through – “this time”. There will be more opportunities in the future. The thing is, Democratic Senators like Cantwell need to lead in pushing EB provisions. That may help to easy out the partisan vote on such proposals in the future.
Just my take on the situation.
NY/NJ/CT/MA Members -
Please write to Sen.HILARY CLINTON expressing your dissatisfaction or concern with regard to failure of Sen.Cornyn Amendment. It's critical that we as Indians get her opinion on this issue. She voted NO on this amendment DESPITE the indian lobby contributing to her campaign. Also its likely that she might become our next president.
Obviously, Sen.Obama does not care much for Indians!
lskreddy
04-30 03:30 PM
Taking a break at work so decided to listen in. Aytes said something astonishing a little bit ago -- the FIFO was a great idea but under present circumstances it is not...something about very early PD applications may take longer...
This is an outrageous statement and he deserves to be berated and grilled about it. I hope IV core is paying attention and will bring this to Lofgren's attention.
I hope a full transcript will be made available. There should be a point by point response to all their BS.
I agree. This was an outrageous statement.
This is an outrageous statement and he deserves to be berated and grilled about it. I hope IV core is paying attention and will bring this to Lofgren's attention.
I hope a full transcript will be made available. There should be a point by point response to all their BS.
I agree. This was an outrageous statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment