kewlchap
10-11 10:54 PM
@ Neelu:
a. Contact your senator and your congressman/woman. I contacted both. Senator's office had a very nice system of faxing in your request, just for USCIS issues, so I did that, and got a letter in three days stating that Senator has contacted USCIS for me. Later, I got another letter which included USCIS response. If there is a number for your Senator's office, I suggest pick up the phone and get talking to them.
b. I will get started immediately instead of waiting. You do not know if your IO is working on other EB-2 India applications. He could be working on a chunk of EB-4 applications and not even picking up your application from the holding area, where it can lie for many days.
c. I feel that you should submit 7001 unless you believe you know where your application is. Meaning, if multiple IOs / infopass tell you the same info, then it is probably true and you can wait. If you get nebulous answers like "wait 60 days", then submit 7001. I dont think there is any reason / advantage of an attorney submitting it. I filled it out and FedEx'ed it overnight to Washington DC.
Someone else asked me for the POJ method for TSC. I just followed the POJ instructions listed on this forum.
Hope this helps, and good luck!
a. Contact your senator and your congressman/woman. I contacted both. Senator's office had a very nice system of faxing in your request, just for USCIS issues, so I did that, and got a letter in three days stating that Senator has contacted USCIS for me. Later, I got another letter which included USCIS response. If there is a number for your Senator's office, I suggest pick up the phone and get talking to them.
b. I will get started immediately instead of waiting. You do not know if your IO is working on other EB-2 India applications. He could be working on a chunk of EB-4 applications and not even picking up your application from the holding area, where it can lie for many days.
c. I feel that you should submit 7001 unless you believe you know where your application is. Meaning, if multiple IOs / infopass tell you the same info, then it is probably true and you can wait. If you get nebulous answers like "wait 60 days", then submit 7001. I dont think there is any reason / advantage of an attorney submitting it. I filled it out and FedEx'ed it overnight to Washington DC.
Someone else asked me for the POJ method for TSC. I just followed the POJ instructions listed on this forum.
Hope this helps, and good luck!
wallpaper tyler perry house of payne
snathan
11-23 05:13 PM
Where did I say that american's gave better advice than desis. I was just trying to compare mentality of two diff community for a same situation.
I m not asking for personal opinion as to how u feel when someone foreclose.I m asking for an advice as to what r the consequences
It was greedy people like you who brought us into this mess. Didnt you think twice before making this huge investment. There are lots of websites/sources saying if you are not going to live in that house for at least five years, Do not buy it.
Every one thought they can make money because the house price is going go up all the time. But only the other guys are 'Stupid'.
Well, when you are going for foreclose it will affect your credit history for very long time. Even it will reset your credit card rate to default APR around 32-38%. I am not sure about the other consequences.
I m not asking for personal opinion as to how u feel when someone foreclose.I m asking for an advice as to what r the consequences
It was greedy people like you who brought us into this mess. Didnt you think twice before making this huge investment. There are lots of websites/sources saying if you are not going to live in that house for at least five years, Do not buy it.
Every one thought they can make money because the house price is going go up all the time. But only the other guys are 'Stupid'.
Well, when you are going for foreclose it will affect your credit history for very long time. Even it will reset your credit card rate to default APR around 32-38%. I am not sure about the other consequences.
whitecollarslave
03-27 04:23 PM
IMHO you misinterpreted the memo. An employer can definitely choose not to hire based on immigration status. This has happened in the past (circa 2001) and evidently many employers do not hire H1B or any employees that require "job related" sponsorship. From the same link, in the next para it says that employers can clearly specify that they will NOT do sponsorship without violating the law. The only question is what is considered a sponsorship, any restricted position (in terms of job responsibility) can constitute a sponsorship (where by employers have legal burden beyond what it takes to hire a US Citizien/Permanent Resident for the same position). H1B definitely falls into this category and EAD borders that category. I am not an expert in labor laws but my experience says that employers have too much control on who they want to hire they can get by with almost anything. The biggest hurdle against any law suit is, EAD is an obscure document with very little clarity about rights that come with it and its usage. It was supposed to be an interim document whose usage only now is becoming main stream. May be one law suit or precedent will clarify it all. But once again employers will get by it the same way they get by with age, ethic, gender and racial descrimination.
Thanks for pointing this out. But you are confusing EAD with H-1B. You are right to quote that its legal to refuse employment to somebody who requires sponsorship (H-1B). That does not mean that refusing somebody with EAD is also legal. Your assumption or conclusion about that is not true. As soon as you use EAD you lose your H-1 status. EAD is not tied to H-1Bs or EB immigrants. EAD is issued to a whole bunch of immigrant types including refugees, FB, etc. There is no sponsorship required to hire somebody on EAD. A letter of job duties is a whole different story and nothing to do with hiring practice.
There is nothing obscure about EAD. Employment Authorization Document - if you have it, its valid for work anywhere in the US. Whats the use of EAD if employers won't accept it? What you say about EAD's usage becoming main stream only recently is not true. We need to start thinking outside the box of EB/H-1B, and so should the recruiters. It maybe true that the IT recruiters who normally hire people on either H-1B or green cards are now having people with EADs. But they are ignorant and they are breaking the law by having a policy to not hire somebody on EAD.
You are right, employers do have a lot of control in who they can hire. But they CANNOT pick and choose based on nationality, race, etc. Same way, as per Federal law, they CANNOT choose people who have only green card and reject somebody who has an EAD. (See the question from FAQ I posted earlier). If an employer says that they will not hire somebody on EAD, they are refusing to hire not just EB immigrants but also refugees, agricultural workers, FB immigrants. That is crystal clear discrimination as per Federal law.
The only thing that may create a problem is if the DHS and the Federal law treats a EB immigrant with an EAD differently than a FB, refugee or other immigrant with an EAD. (I had asked about this earlier)
I appreciate that you guys bring out opposing views but I am saddened by the attitude of our community of being helpless and not believing in our rights. It bothers me to know that the highly educated members of such an affluent community will surrender without even trying. This has nothing to do with the state of labor market. Wake up folks! The Federal government has a whole agency to protect people against such discrimination, and we are here speculating on nuances. If somebody denied you employment on EAD, just talk to them and see what they say. You don't need anything in writing.
What would you do if the same employers told you that they will not hire you simply because you wear a turban or you are from China (or Bulgaria or Pakistan)?
Thanks for pointing this out. But you are confusing EAD with H-1B. You are right to quote that its legal to refuse employment to somebody who requires sponsorship (H-1B). That does not mean that refusing somebody with EAD is also legal. Your assumption or conclusion about that is not true. As soon as you use EAD you lose your H-1 status. EAD is not tied to H-1Bs or EB immigrants. EAD is issued to a whole bunch of immigrant types including refugees, FB, etc. There is no sponsorship required to hire somebody on EAD. A letter of job duties is a whole different story and nothing to do with hiring practice.
There is nothing obscure about EAD. Employment Authorization Document - if you have it, its valid for work anywhere in the US. Whats the use of EAD if employers won't accept it? What you say about EAD's usage becoming main stream only recently is not true. We need to start thinking outside the box of EB/H-1B, and so should the recruiters. It maybe true that the IT recruiters who normally hire people on either H-1B or green cards are now having people with EADs. But they are ignorant and they are breaking the law by having a policy to not hire somebody on EAD.
You are right, employers do have a lot of control in who they can hire. But they CANNOT pick and choose based on nationality, race, etc. Same way, as per Federal law, they CANNOT choose people who have only green card and reject somebody who has an EAD. (See the question from FAQ I posted earlier). If an employer says that they will not hire somebody on EAD, they are refusing to hire not just EB immigrants but also refugees, agricultural workers, FB immigrants. That is crystal clear discrimination as per Federal law.
The only thing that may create a problem is if the DHS and the Federal law treats a EB immigrant with an EAD differently than a FB, refugee or other immigrant with an EAD. (I had asked about this earlier)
I appreciate that you guys bring out opposing views but I am saddened by the attitude of our community of being helpless and not believing in our rights. It bothers me to know that the highly educated members of such an affluent community will surrender without even trying. This has nothing to do with the state of labor market. Wake up folks! The Federal government has a whole agency to protect people against such discrimination, and we are here speculating on nuances. If somebody denied you employment on EAD, just talk to them and see what they say. You don't need anything in writing.
What would you do if the same employers told you that they will not hire you simply because you wear a turban or you are from China (or Bulgaria or Pakistan)?
2011 hot tyler perry house of payne
Macaca
12-05 05:36 PM
AMY GOODMAN: But let me give you one more clip, and that is around the issue of the Minutemen.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: This was the Minuteman Project, organizers calling their effort a peaceful protest over the government�s failure to secure its borders. Both the Mexican government and the Bush administration have described the Minutemen as vigilantes. You have been a vocal supporter.
LOU DOBBS: I just want to be clear to the Journal and to this audience: I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up and all they�ve accomplished, fully, relentlessly and proudly.
AMY GOODMAN: That�s you, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: That�s me.
AMY GOODMAN: Bill Parmley, a Minuteman leader in Goliad County in Texas, quit the group because of, what he described, widespread racism. Another Texas Minuteman, Janet Ahrens, had resigned because members, she said, wanted to �shoot the taco meat.� You never mentioned either of these people. Why not talk about these people quitting, because they�re concerned about how racist this group is?
LOU DOBBS: Well, frankly, I didn�t know about it. I don� think it�s�what makes them so newsworthy? And secondly, the reality is, the President called the Minutemen vigilantes immediately after they were formed. The idea that I would support volunteerism and the nature of the call to security on the border, I hope, doesn�t stun you too much, because the reality, again, is that there has never been an incident of violence involving the Minuteman organization, period. Do you want to take note of that?
AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned with, among others, one of the founders of the Minutemen being found with a gun, patrolling the border; issues like these? This is of concern, when there are so many immigrants who are found in the desert dead, not clear why they die.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, are you implying that the Minutemen are killing them?
AMY GOODMAN: No. But just�
LOU DOBBS: Then why would you say such a thing?
AMY GOODMAN: My question is�
LOU DOBBS: That�s terrible, Amy. I mean, good Lord!
AMY GOODMAN: My question is, when�
LOU DOBBS: Let�s answer one question: has there ever been a single incident of violence recorded on the part of the Minutemen on the border?
AMY GOODMAN: I believe�wasn�t there�
LOU DOBBS: There has never been.
AMY GOODMAN: I�m not�haven�t there been cases of immigrants who come over the border, who have been chased, who have been shot at, who have been beaten?
LOU DOBBS: That would be an incident of violence. That would be an incident of violence, wouldn�t it? To my knowledge, there has never been an incident of violence on the part of the Minutemen.
AMY GOODMAN: But the idea of armed men on the border�
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: �not authorized by the United States?
LOU DOBBS: Does it bother you that there are armed drug cartel members firing on law enforcement officers on the border, killing Mexican citizens, US citizens?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Absolutely.
LOU DOBBS: Does any of this bother you?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Absolutely does, yes.
LOU DOBBS: I would hope to heck it bothers you. Why would the Minutemen even be under discussion by comparison to that issue?
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
AMY GOODMAN: This was the Minuteman Project, organizers calling their effort a peaceful protest over the government�s failure to secure its borders. Both the Mexican government and the Bush administration have described the Minutemen as vigilantes. You have been a vocal supporter.
LOU DOBBS: I just want to be clear to the Journal and to this audience: I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up and all they�ve accomplished, fully, relentlessly and proudly.
AMY GOODMAN: That�s you, Lou.
LOU DOBBS: That�s me.
AMY GOODMAN: Bill Parmley, a Minuteman leader in Goliad County in Texas, quit the group because of, what he described, widespread racism. Another Texas Minuteman, Janet Ahrens, had resigned because members, she said, wanted to �shoot the taco meat.� You never mentioned either of these people. Why not talk about these people quitting, because they�re concerned about how racist this group is?
LOU DOBBS: Well, frankly, I didn�t know about it. I don� think it�s�what makes them so newsworthy? And secondly, the reality is, the President called the Minutemen vigilantes immediately after they were formed. The idea that I would support volunteerism and the nature of the call to security on the border, I hope, doesn�t stun you too much, because the reality, again, is that there has never been an incident of violence involving the Minuteman organization, period. Do you want to take note of that?
AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned with, among others, one of the founders of the Minutemen being found with a gun, patrolling the border; issues like these? This is of concern, when there are so many immigrants who are found in the desert dead, not clear why they die.
LOU DOBBS: Oh, are you implying that the Minutemen are killing them?
AMY GOODMAN: No. But just�
LOU DOBBS: Then why would you say such a thing?
AMY GOODMAN: My question is�
LOU DOBBS: That�s terrible, Amy. I mean, good Lord!
AMY GOODMAN: My question is, when�
LOU DOBBS: Let�s answer one question: has there ever been a single incident of violence recorded on the part of the Minutemen on the border?
AMY GOODMAN: I believe�wasn�t there�
LOU DOBBS: There has never been.
AMY GOODMAN: I�m not�haven�t there been cases of immigrants who come over the border, who have been chased, who have been shot at, who have been beaten?
LOU DOBBS: That would be an incident of violence. That would be an incident of violence, wouldn�t it? To my knowledge, there has never been an incident of violence on the part of the Minutemen.
AMY GOODMAN: But the idea of armed men on the border�
LOU DOBBS: Oh, come on!
AMY GOODMAN: �not authorized by the United States?
LOU DOBBS: Does it bother you that there are armed drug cartel members firing on law enforcement officers on the border, killing Mexican citizens, US citizens?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Absolutely.
LOU DOBBS: Does any of this bother you?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Absolutely does, yes.
LOU DOBBS: I would hope to heck it bothers you. Why would the Minutemen even be under discussion by comparison to that issue?
more...
hoolahoous
08-13 07:24 PM
i got my 'decision' email on 10th. But after that nothing. No CPO email/No welcome email/ No LUD.
I am hoping that they didn't let my case 'drop through cracks'. Considering USCIS's way of working I wouldn't be surprised. Will give a week or two more.
I am hoping that they didn't let my case 'drop through cracks'. Considering USCIS's way of working I wouldn't be surprised. Will give a week or two more.
vishwak
03-29 09:03 AM
I read the news too at The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
Hope this hold and comes true. All the best to my brothers and me.
Hope this hold and comes true. All the best to my brothers and me.
more...
bluekayal
01-11 01:30 PM
I hesitate to do this on a public forum
2010 Tyler Perry#39;s House of Payne:
gc4me
11-18 11:01 AM
I received a phone call (WOW!) from a sweet lady from CIS Ombudsman's office. I sent letters to his office and in the letter I mentioned my cell #. Anyway she wants a real person who got deniel. I told her that my friend got deniel (IVens are my fried). Anyway, she sent an email too after I asked her to give her info so that my friend can send her his case details. Unfortunately, the email I received shortly after the conversation, looks like general and does not have her ID. Please PM me if you like to hear more about the phone call.
==================
Thank you for your correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning the American Competitiveness Act in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) processing at the service centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding adjudication of these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please immediately forward us a case problem request, including a copy of your denial notice, detailed information as to the reasons for the immediate denial, and, if appropriate, evidence that you have submitted a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider.
Instructions for completing a DHS Form 7001 (case problem) can be found on our website: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/editorial_0497.shtm#10.
Please submit your case problem and supporting documents via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov or via facsimile to 202-357-0042 with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
(cmp)
==================
Thank you for your correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning the American Competitiveness Act in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) processing at the service centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding adjudication of these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please immediately forward us a case problem request, including a copy of your denial notice, detailed information as to the reasons for the immediate denial, and, if appropriate, evidence that you have submitted a Motion to Reopen or Reconsider.
Instructions for completing a DHS Form 7001 (case problem) can be found on our website: http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/editorial_0497.shtm#10.
Please submit your case problem and supporting documents via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov or via facsimile to 202-357-0042 with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
(cmp)
more...
prashantc
01-29 10:38 AM
Hi, Both my wife's and my approval notices state a WAC number. And I am stuck in PIMS for past 27 days now!!!!!!!!:mad:
hair tyler perry house of payne
BlueSkyPro
07-09 07:22 PM
Re-route the flower from USCIS to the two hospitals makes the flowers go steps farther and will definately make bigger noise to get attention. That is great.
more...
BharatPremi
09-24 03:57 PM
Without legislative or administrative reform, EB3-India would be reduced merely to a mechanism which folks would use to extend their H1Bs indefinitely on the basis of the underlying I-140, or a means to lock a priority date while they plan their strategy for an EB-2 petition for a PD port in the future. As some analysts have predicted, EB3-India wait times might get extended to decades without some sort of reform. Not to make light of the situation, but for an EB3-I applicant with a recent PD, the odds of getting a green card through a US-born child (once they turn 21) could become greater than through their own EB application.
"interfiling" to use old EB3 PD for new EB2 is not the easiest path for EB3-I guys specially if they have used AC21 and work on EAD now ( Most of us are in this category). Priority date porting is not an issue, USCIS does not have a problem with that. The problem is with "Job definition and level". While one use AC21 claims job position matching EB3 job classification and if there no enough progression gap between AC21 usage and "inerfiling" It becomes hard for a lawyer to convince USCIS that fellow is matching EB2 capability under same job classification. Hundred of such intefilings are waiting without no action from USCIS. My lawyer's advice wait till we logically can establish the skill progression, in other words minimum 3 years of wait from the day AC21 usage. And other important thing is "real promotion" in position should happen at employment and this whole explanation is based on assumption of employment at the same employer. If you change employment inbetween after AC21 usage and before interfiling , your 3 years wait cycle starts from new emploment date. I have not filed "interfiling" just because of these reasons and waiting for correct time to do that. In other words Eb3-I is really and badly screwed.
"interfiling" to use old EB3 PD for new EB2 is not the easiest path for EB3-I guys specially if they have used AC21 and work on EAD now ( Most of us are in this category). Priority date porting is not an issue, USCIS does not have a problem with that. The problem is with "Job definition and level". While one use AC21 claims job position matching EB3 job classification and if there no enough progression gap between AC21 usage and "inerfiling" It becomes hard for a lawyer to convince USCIS that fellow is matching EB2 capability under same job classification. Hundred of such intefilings are waiting without no action from USCIS. My lawyer's advice wait till we logically can establish the skill progression, in other words minimum 3 years of wait from the day AC21 usage. And other important thing is "real promotion" in position should happen at employment and this whole explanation is based on assumption of employment at the same employer. If you change employment inbetween after AC21 usage and before interfiling , your 3 years wait cycle starts from new emploment date. I have not filed "interfiling" just because of these reasons and waiting for correct time to do that. In other words Eb3-I is really and badly screwed.
hot in Tyler Perry#39;s House of
HV000
08-10 10:50 AM
These are stupid quotes that will only make the situation worse. The real solution is to make the fingerprinting independent of the green card process. There is no point in trying to push for a faster name check in the post 9-11 world, it will be shot down legitimately. We need to make sensible suggestions not demands.
You better read the OMBUDSMAN Report before coming with irrational thoughts!!
You better read the OMBUDSMAN Report before coming with irrational thoughts!!
more...
house tyler perry house of payne dvd
espoir
07-11 07:13 AM
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070711/NEWS/707110343/1001
tattoo hair housepayne tyler perry
HumHongeKamiyab
06-21 04:22 PM
In my lawyers requirement list there is only approved I 140..
At one post , I read this ???
Can some one confirm if we need to attach the copy of labor certificate ?
At one post , I read this ???
Can some one confirm if we need to attach the copy of labor certificate ?
more...
pictures Tyler Perry - Father
pappu
01-09 03:44 PM
Small suggestion.I am looking for IV's achievements (Not Campaigns,News updates etc) in IV home page since it's started.
I do see 1)Success with July 07 fiasco 2)2 year EAD
We should have a link(In Home Page) to a achievements page(which we have to keep updating we achieve something) which just briefly mentions IV's achievements.
If it is already there someone please post the link here.
We have it in about us page if you scroll down
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=47
I do see 1)Success with July 07 fiasco 2)2 year EAD
We should have a link(In Home Page) to a achievements page(which we have to keep updating we achieve something) which just briefly mentions IV's achievements.
If it is already there someone please post the link here.
We have it in about us page if you scroll down
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=47
dresses “Tyler Perry#39;s House of
nomad
07-12 02:22 AM
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/262484.html
Editorial: Green card fiasco
Stop mistreating those who play by rules
-
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 9, 2007
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them.
As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said last Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system."
This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost.
In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point?
In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: Green card fiasco
Stop mistreating those who play by rules
-
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 9, 2007
If you want to know what's really wrong with our immigration system, consider the July debacle at the Citizen and Immigration Service.
Individuals and businesses typically have to wait years to apply for "green cards" for permanent residency based on job skills. The backlogs have been so severe that an engineer from India or China has had to wait six years to apply for a green card. In other employment categories, the wait can be nine to 11 years. For people from the Philippines, the wait in some work categories is 22 years.
But then in the monthly Visa Bulletin issued June 13, the State Department said that employment-based visas would be available.
This set off a rush among sponsoring businesses and individuals who have waited in line for years to apply for green cards. Thousands prepared applications and mailed them in time for the immigration service to receive them by July 2, the first day of the application window.
Then on that very day, the State Department issued a "never mind" update, announcing that the 60,000 green cards it had expected to offer would no longer be available. The thousands who submitted applications will have their applications sent back to them.
As Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said last Tuesday, "We're right back to square one, with scientists, engineers, teachers and health care workers having to wait in endless lines for employment-based visas."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law sent irate letters to the Secretary of State and Secretary of Homeland Security. She said that changing course midmonth is contrary to years of practice, would result in the loss of thousands of dollars already expended by sponsoring businesses and individuals to prepare applications and, more important, would "threaten the integrity and predictability of our immigration system."
This is no way to treat people who try to play by the rules.
The Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman notes in his 2007 annual report to Congress that the nation has a "perpetual backlog" of employment-based green card applications. This backlog means that even green cards that should be available aren't used. This contributes to the backlog; if green cards are not issued in the year they are authorized, they are lost.
In 2006, more than 10,000 employment-based green cards were lost, even though the immigration service had 100,000 to 150,000 applications waiting to be processed. Since 1994, nearly 219,000 employment-based green cards have been lost because the immigration service isn't processing enough applications in a timely manner.
It gets worse. The funds appropriated by Congress to jumpstart a backlog elimination project expired Sept. 30. The backlog will continue.
In the long term, this country needs to increase the number of employment-based green cards to meet demand. But if the immigration service cannot even process applications in a timely fashion for the current numbers of employment-based green cards that are supposed to be available, what's the point?
In the short term, if Congress and the president do nothing else regarding immigration reform, they should at least make sure that the immigration service processes green card applications in timely fashion. The backlog is inexcusable and contributes to the nation's illegal immigration problem. If we want people to play by the rules, we have to make it possible for them to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
makeup house TYLER PERRY-HOUSE OF
addsf345
11-17 11:42 AM
How is response to MTRs sofar. Are they encouraging? What happens if MTR not approved what are the options?
I read on Mutrhy and RG's website that their initial MTR are successful and CIS has re-initiated 485s. This makes sense as the revocation of 485 in above cases were against the policy and possibly just an error. Its a different thing that it can create a havoc in candidates life, particulary if the candidate doesn't have H1 to back and if he is working on EAD. What a joke!!!
I read on Mutrhy and RG's website that their initial MTR are successful and CIS has re-initiated 485s. This makes sense as the revocation of 485 in above cases were against the policy and possibly just an error. Its a different thing that it can create a havoc in candidates life, particulary if the candidate doesn't have H1 to back and if he is working on EAD. What a joke!!!
girlfriend Tyler Perry has announced
nc14
09-09 03:53 PM
Took 45 minutes to cover all of them but time well spent. GO IV GO...
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
_______________
House Judiciary Committee Members
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 - took the message
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695 - took the message
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861 - took the message
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751 - took the message
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216 - My congressman, wanted me to leave a VM but I will try again. Called again and it went great.
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065 - took the message but said we cannot give a response as I am not from his constituency.
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265 - left a VM
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126 - called and spoke to a lady, she took the message but still tranferred to judiciary committe number, which no one picked.
Artur Davis (D-Ala.) 202-225-2665 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111 - left a VM
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755 - took the message
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 - took the message
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365 - took the message
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576 - took the message
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811 - VM
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035 - took the message with the zipcode
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431 - took the message
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203 - took the message
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 - took the message
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)202- 225-3816 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 - VM
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676 - Took the address and details.
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176 - took the message (said the bill is under judiciary and under review)
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 - DIDNT CALL HIM
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)202- 225-3072 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716 - took the message
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) 202-225-5635 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021 - took the message
Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) 202-225-6676 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176 - VM
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351 - took the message
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) 202-225-5101 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911 - took the message
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-4236 - took the message
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401 - took the message (didnt ask for anyting although I am from her state)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 - took the message with address
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 - took the message, very nice lady asked about the bill in detail.
Melvin L. Watt (D-N.C.)202- 225-1510 (ALREADY COSPONSOR DO NOT CALL)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 - took the message, very nice guy asked in detail what the bill is about.
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 - took the message, asked about the bill in detail.
WOOOHOO, my first time making all the calls. My confidence was sky high after the first 5 calls. Very much worth it.
..................................................
$470 till date
hairstyles dresses Tyler Perry#39;s House
innervoice
08-19 05:17 AM
Got Greened Today.
rams75
08-17 10:58 AM
I got my physical card yesterday but the last name is mis-spelled. What do I need to do and also has anyone experienced this? Also any thoughts on how long it will take to fix the name?
Thx
Hi pakrish, similar situation here. My wife's gc has the gender mentioned incorrectly. From what I've researched, we need to file for I-90 and choose option D - correction in green card. There are no fees required as it's a USCIS mistake but the original card needs to be sent with the form.
Thx
Hi pakrish, similar situation here. My wife's gc has the gender mentioned incorrectly. From what I've researched, we need to file for I-90 and choose option D - correction in green card. There are no fees required as it's a USCIS mistake but the original card needs to be sent with the form.
gc_on_demand
09-16 11:36 AM
WOW that is good.. by nov they will clear all backlog ..( Pending more than 1 year ).. from June 2009 name check will be cleared in 3 days..
No comments:
Post a Comment