amitjoey
01-18 11:48 AM
Guys, this is the time to show the core group that we are a bunch of people thankful that there is IV to help us fight this fight.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We want do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
We need to stand united and raise awareness and sign up for the $20minimum a month recurring contribution.
I understand that some of you do intend to contribute and have contributed generously in the past,
But here are some mindsets, All of us fall in these 4 mindsets.
1) you probably think "why should I sign up for a monthly recurring contribution program". I am a generous contributor and I contribute almost monthly anyways.
2) I have contributed enough.
3) I will contribute if I feel like, when I see something comming out of this effort.
4) I do not have to contribute.
If you are in category 1).I can tell you, I understand because I have been a generous contributer in the past. But guys, the reason I signed up for a monthly recurring contribution is that it helps IV know that 'X' amount of funds are guaranted every month, this way they can better plan.
Category 2) Contributed enough - Okay why dont just sign up for a minimum amount of $20/month once more. What is enough is not enough.
Category 3) This has been discussed, I do not want to talk about this category of members.
Category 4) Again - No Comments-
Lets show the core team that all of us fall in the first 2 categories.
The last thing we want the core to do is bite their fingers over funds. We want do not want the core to get stressed out over funds. They have enough real work to do already.
Inspite of being a serious team player, and a generous contributor it took me two days to sign up for the recurring monthly contribution program, so I give all of the ones that have not set up a monthly recurring contribution benefit of doubt. But this is our last chance, I urge you to be one of the 1000 people we need for this effort.
wallpaper HTC-INCREDIBLE-leather
niklshah
07-13 09:27 PM
murthy was too scared too give any statemant before, this statemant was ok but it was too late when she saw that the momentum is getting strong she jumped in.
Jbpvisa
07-12 11:01 PM
http://www.murthy.com/chertoff_murthy.html
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
July 12, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Michael Chertoff, Esq.
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
RE: USCIS Decision to Reject I-485 Filings
Dear Mr. Chertoff:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you and to share my views during your panel discussion at the Harvard Worldwide Congress June 15, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I understand and appreciate that the responsibility vested in you as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is no simple task. We applaud your service to our nation. After meeting with you personally and speaking with you, I am more convinced than ever that you will do the right thing for our country and for the people you serve, both in terms of securing our nation and in being the leader of the DHS, with over 20 federal agencies reporting to you, including the USCIS.
Purpose of this Letter
I am writing to you at this time to address recent actions by the USCIS to refuse to accept I-485 adjustment of status filing during July 2007 that are having significant impact upon the reliability of the legal immigration system in this country, as well as impacting legal foreign nationals and the many U.S. businesses that rely upon the work they perform.
USCIS Decision Contradicts its Long Standing Procedure
In contradiction of its own long standing policy and procedure, we understand that the USCIS, through its Director Gonzalez, contacted the U.S. Department of State (DOS) and requested or required the DOS to issue a �revised� Visa Bulletin on July 2, 2007. The USCIS then used the revised Bulletin to refuse to accept I-485 filings. This decision deprives thousands of foreign nationals, and their families, of the rights and privileges that are attendant to the I-485 filing.
These Highly Skilled Professionals Followed All the Rules and Believe in the American Dream
These professionals and their employers have played by our established immigration laws and rules. The vast majority of these thousands of potential applicants has a U.S. employer corporation, university or other business as a sponsor for permanent resident status. The exceptions from an employer are for those who are considered of �extraordinary ability� or whose work is in our �national interest.� Many of these applicants have completed their Bachelor�s, Master�s and/or PhD programs from U.S. universities. They believe in the opportunities of this great nation and strive to achieve the American Dream by following all the rules, working hard, paying taxes, and striving to do the right thing. They believe in this country, and rely upon our systems, our government, and our processes. Unfortunately, on July 2, 2007, we let them down. The USCIS abandoned its own system and long standing practices. This happened through manipulation of the use of visa numbers, insisting upon the issuance of a "revised visa bulletin," and instituting the USCIS policy of rejecting every employment-based I-485 that could have been filed during the month of July 2007.
USCIS Decision Denies Substantive and Procedural Rights to Highly Skilled Workers and Their Employers - Many of Whom Have Already Suffered and Will Suffer Further Harm/ Injury
Not only does the USCIS' action harm the individuals and employers involved, it undermines the reliability of our entire employment-based immigration system. The unexpected decision of the USCIS to refuse to accept any I-485 filings denies both substantive and procedural due process rights to would be applicants across the U.S. All of these applicants are employment based (EB) applicants who are primarily highly skilled professionals or experienced workers, that the U.S. seeks in high demand areas, including: science, technology, medicine, research, business, academia, and education.
The harm in not accepting the filings in July 2007 goes beyond mere delay. In reliance upon the July Visa Bulletin, starting in mid-June 2007, these applicants took the steps necessary to prepare their filings and made decisions in reliance upon the USCIS accepting their filings during July 2007. In order to be present in the U.S., as required for these filings, many applicants and their families canceled travel plans abroad or arranged to return to the U.S. on short notice missing family weddings and other important life events. They undertook medical examinations and paid for the required tests which must accompany the I-485 filings. (The USCIS had refused to waive this requirement even temporarily.) They hired lawyers to process their paperwork; they arranged to obtain documents from abroad on an expedited basis, involving foreign lawyers and foreign governments, all at a significant cost. They made employment and other strategic immigration related decisions to be able to process their I-485s for them and their families. Some canceled visa appointments at the consulates, or withdrew other immigration filings, all in reliance upon the USCIS accepting I-485 filings during July 2007.
The applicants and their employers lose the rights and privileges that accompany the filing of the I-485. These include eligibility for the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and Advanced Parole (AP), thus eliminating the need for the individuals and their employers to make the filings necessary to maintain a non-immigrant, temporary status. These same ancillary benefits also apply to dependant family members. Most importantly, those that have not filed I-485s are not eligible for "portability" benefits under the �American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act� of Oct. 2000 or �AC21� as it is sometimes referred to. This ineligibility for AC21 portability forces career stagnation. This is to the detriment of the individual as well as their sponsoring employer. Under AC21 portability, employers can promote and/or relocate employees to positions that are the same or similar job classifications as the positions for which they were initially sponsored. Individuals can utilize these provisions for career advancement, and for entrepreneurship. Given that the green card process often spans many years, AC21 portability allows the necessary flexibility to permit the case to continue, to accommodate changes in the sponsoring employer's needs as well as opportunities that are specific to the beneficiary.
The list of stories of individuals and families harmed by the USCIS decision is endless. We have for example, many spouses who will now be separated potentially for years on end, as one received a green card during the USCIS' June "rush," while the other is now ineligible to file.
The USCIS decision also created a burden on U.S. employers. Further delays in the green card process mean that, at best, U.S. employers have to continue to file temporary petitions to keep their workforce in the U.S. legally; at worst, it jeopardizes the availability of this needed highly educated and skilled workforce.
USCIS Motive is to Collect Millions of Additional Filing Fees
Many are baffled by the USCIS decision to reject I-485 filings in July, and its use of the �revised� Visa Bulletin as an excuse. The suspected motive is the collection of the substantially higher filing fees that will be generated after July 27, 2007. This entire incident sends the wrong message about our government, our policies and our legal system reeking of greed and inconsistency. Even the appearance of such impropriety undermines our system.
.................
continue
2011 Wallpapers 480x800 HTC Touch
krishmunn
05-23 02:35 PM
Definitely much better than a computer operators'. I have high regards for people who work at reputed companies such as MS, ORCL, Apple though. By computer operator i mean people who try to speak english but sound as if they are speaking telugu.
What about those who try to speak English but sound like Hinglish (North Indian including Punjabi, Jath et al), or Bonglish (Bengali ) or Inglish (Gujarati -- "In evening I had heavy 'snakes' ).... are all of them (including you) just some "computer operator" ?
What about those who try to speak English but sound like Hinglish (North Indian including Punjabi, Jath et al), or Bonglish (Bengali ) or Inglish (Gujarati -- "In evening I had heavy 'snakes' ).... are all of them (including you) just some "computer operator" ?
more...
neverbefore
07-29 02:27 AM
Please let me know how to close this thread?
Feeling the heat? Why not take a dip in a pail of your "Pale Beer"? :D
Feeling the heat? Why not take a dip in a pail of your "Pale Beer"? :D
optimist578
03-02 04:58 PM
NJ Fellows,
Has anybody contacted Congressman Albio Sires? Is anybody interested to join me? I am trying to schedule a meeting with him next week.
Thanks.
kamla345@yahoo.com
Has anybody contacted Congressman Albio Sires? Is anybody interested to join me? I am trying to schedule a meeting with him next week.
Thanks.
kamla345@yahoo.com
more...
venky321
08-22 09:36 AM
Seriously, why are you giving OP such a hard time? She only came here looking for help.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
I am not sure if she is illegal or not, but atleast you could have told her that politely instead of taunting her with it.
OP, just so you know, the majority of the posters here have to endure long long waits for their US green cards, greater than 10 years sometimes. Because of that they tend to become hyper sensitive when it comes to immigration matters, especially when they think someone is stepping out of line and trying to manipulate the system. Dont mean to imply at all , thats what you are doing.
Your case is too complicated and I haven't come across such a scenario; I'd suggest talking to an attorney; while it might be expensive, some attorneys might be willing to talk to you free for a few minutes, for a basic consultation. Atleast you may find out if you are legal or not.
2010 HTC Incredible wallpapers
bheemi
07-02 09:51 AM
mr/mrs himu73..
use your language properly..
use your language properly..
more...
sukhwinderd
03-18 08:42 AM
please PM vin13
I can donate about 30K Continental miles. Please let me know the procedure.
Thanks,
I can donate about 30K Continental miles. Please let me know the procedure.
Thanks,
hair Motorola Droid Incredible
ArunAntonio
04-23 12:17 AM
I was the first person in the QnA - disappointed at the intent of this meeting - they really care about illegal immigration - not once legal immigrants were discussed. It was a farce and IV was just used as an organization to show support to him - very disappointed.:mad:
gautamagg,
I was at the meeting and I was really taken aback by your question, it was totally out of context, I think I understand your position which is 'You wanted GC - you are not getting it - you decide to go back - but before that you decide to attend school - but cant get F1 coz you extablizhed Intent to Immigrate' -- This is a unique situation... atleast not something the larger IV community is affected by, but the accusing tone of your question to the Rep. was uncalled for .. I dont even know what you expected out of this meeting for your situation .. just try to get some perspective and place things incontext.. and again numbers matter.. if there were thousands of ppl in your situation your problem would have been addressed... anyways.. I beg to differ on your opinion about it being a farce.. There is effort being put to address the issues and IV has to maintain presence and make sure our issues are out there and are being noticed and not forgotten.. and thats what precisely happened yesterday.. IV members who are affected by Retrogression made their presence felt, the Core members were present on the dias rubbing shoulders with Congressman Gutierrez and representing the retrogressed community.
Your issue.. my friend .. unfortunately is not on the mandate of IV or the congressman..no doubt you were disappointed.. but good luck with you efforts and struggle.
gautamagg,
I was at the meeting and I was really taken aback by your question, it was totally out of context, I think I understand your position which is 'You wanted GC - you are not getting it - you decide to go back - but before that you decide to attend school - but cant get F1 coz you extablizhed Intent to Immigrate' -- This is a unique situation... atleast not something the larger IV community is affected by, but the accusing tone of your question to the Rep. was uncalled for .. I dont even know what you expected out of this meeting for your situation .. just try to get some perspective and place things incontext.. and again numbers matter.. if there were thousands of ppl in your situation your problem would have been addressed... anyways.. I beg to differ on your opinion about it being a farce.. There is effort being put to address the issues and IV has to maintain presence and make sure our issues are out there and are being noticed and not forgotten.. and thats what precisely happened yesterday.. IV members who are affected by Retrogression made their presence felt, the Core members were present on the dias rubbing shoulders with Congressman Gutierrez and representing the retrogressed community.
Your issue.. my friend .. unfortunately is not on the mandate of IV or the congressman..no doubt you were disappointed.. but good luck with you efforts and struggle.
more...
reddymjm
09-10 12:48 PM
I thinkThis year will be good for EB3.
With 700 per queter going to EB2I and EB2C, this means that EB2I will go only upto few months by Jul-2011 before the spill kicks IN.
Once the spill over kicks in EB2 will move by atmost Jul-2007 (as there are won't be any 485 filed for India / China post 2007. Even if they are it is unlikely that they will be processed in 1 or 2 months). So I expect EB3 to use most of the spill over this year.
CATCH: IF USCIS allows filing of 485 for POST 2007 FIASCO then the above doesn't hold true.
Thats what exactly I said
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/1984591-post28.html
With 700 per queter going to EB2I and EB2C, this means that EB2I will go only upto few months by Jul-2011 before the spill kicks IN.
Once the spill over kicks in EB2 will move by atmost Jul-2007 (as there are won't be any 485 filed for India / China post 2007. Even if they are it is unlikely that they will be processed in 1 or 2 months). So I expect EB3 to use most of the spill over this year.
CATCH: IF USCIS allows filing of 485 for POST 2007 FIASCO then the above doesn't hold true.
Thats what exactly I said
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/1984591-post28.html
hot Droid Vs HTC Incredible: Specs
bkarnik
07-25 06:46 PM
Thanks a lot, please keep us posted about the outcome, even if we have one percent of hope, there is no harm trying that.
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
Guys,
This argument is not new. I had started a thread a while back http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=556&highlight=bkarnik
which met with essentially the same reply from the IV moderators. My underlying issue is that the term "EAD" or anything remotely similar does not even appear in the INA unless I missed it and if so, I would really appreciate it if someone show me where it is.
Anyways, I sent the following email to my lawyer, the entire chain with names deleted is reproduced here for your reading pleasure. This exchange highlights the apathy with which the legal community (at least my lawyer) view the issue and their knowledge of the law.... enjoy.. :(
From: Attorney
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
I see your point. You should contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association with your question. If the issue has not already been addressed by this organization, I'm sure they will readily champion your cause.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:49 AM
To: attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
Thank you for your time and the quick turnaround. However, the question still remains. If you notice in the link sent by you below, the USCIS refers to the US 8 CFR 274a.12(a) and (c) According to the USCIS, the CFR is the interpretation made by the agencies of the INA as passed and amended by Congress. The INA itself does not seem to have any clause relating to EAD for employment based categories because I believe the Congress never foresaw a situation where it will take up to 5-6 years for the process to complete.
I know that the USCIS has on many occasions by using the Federal Register or by Memorandums modified the CFR or changed the regulations governing the validity of the EAD, and I am wondering if something similar can be achieved in this case, wherein an appeal is made to the USCIS to change the rules governing eligibility for issuing an EAD.
Thanks once again.
Bkarnik.
-----Original Message-----
From: AttorneySent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Bkarnik
Subject: RE: Question..
Hello BKarnik,
Your argument is sound, however, U.S. Immigration does indeed adjudicate
I-765 EAD applications based upon eligibility for filing. Please click this
link: http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/i-765.htm. It will take you to the USCIS web site where you can download form I-765. Included with the form is an instruction sheet. In the section entitled "Eligibility Categories", U.S. Immigration spells out the categories for which form I-765 may be filed. For example, under the "Foreign Students" title, you can see that an F-1 OPT student is eligible to obtain EAD work authorization pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(i). Your eligibility for EAD work authorization will fall under the "EAD Applicants Who Have Filed for Adjustment of Status" title under subsection (c)(9). Unfortunately, there is no eligibility category for I-140 IVP applicants or for IVP approval notice holders.
I hope this answers your questions.
Attorney
________________________________
From: Bkarnik
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:16 PM
To: Attorney
Subject: Question..
Dear Attorney:
I had a question for you (actually, it is a series of sub questions).
However, this has nothing to with my employer or my GC, so if you feel that replying to this question will take up an inordinate amount of time or of you think that this is something that is worthwhile in pursuing, please let me know what your charges will be and I will let you know if I can afford them :)) With that out of the way, here goes:
The question is about getting an EAD before filing the I-485. I was perusing the INA as posted on the USCIS website. I did not find any applicable law that directs the USCIS when it can issue EADs. It is quite likely that I missed the section as I am not a student of laws as you are.
If so, can you let me know where to find it? As you know, the EAD issue is mentioned in the US 8 CFR sec. 274a. Now, the USCIS website explains that the CFR thus: The general provisions of laws enacted by Congress are interpreted and implemented by regulations issued by various agencies.
These
regulations apply the law to daily situations. Thus, the CFR is the interpretation of the law by the USCIS for application in daily life.
If
that is the case, what prevents the USCIS from issuing EADs upon the approval of Form I-140? Especially, since as you very well know, the Form I-140 is an application made by the employer to the USCIS to petition for an alien worker to become a permanent resident in the United States.
Therefore,
the form requires the employer to fill in all the pertinent information about the alien and his dependents. An approval of the Form I-140 indicates (at least to me) that the USCIS has agreed with the employee that the labor certification is good and the alien is approvable as a permanent employee.
I guess that is one of the reasons, the USCIS allows concurrent filing of the I-140/I-485.
With the current retrogression concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 is not possible, if the USCIS were to be agreeable to issue EADs to persons with approved I-140 it would make life a lot easier for all while at the same time not impacting the green card process itself. All we are asking is that the EAD be issued after I-140 approval, because it does not make sense to tell an employer that the alien is approved for permanent employment, but at the same time asking the employer to keep the employee in a H1B (i.e.
temporary status) at no fault of the employer/employee. Can you let me know if my argument is flawed? If not, do you think we have a way by which we can ask the USCIS for its interpretation or opinion on the issue? If we can, and you are willing to take the matter, can you let me know your fees?
I know that you are very busy, and may not be able to take on the matter even if you find merit in it. In that case, would know of a competent person willing to take it up?
Thank you for your time and patience,
Sincerely,
Bkarnik
more...
house htc Incredible - Themes
abhijitp
03-05 02:34 PM
Many of them during the letters campaign, and most are ready to buy a home within a year of getting their green cards!
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
On ther other hand I personally know a very highly educated guy (IITBombay, MS then PhD in Electrical Eng- with a specialization in wireless tech) who got his EB GC 2-3 years too late... by that time the tech boom was over but the housing boom had already begun... so he decided to wait a few more years. Now he feels bad about the whole thing, and wonders if he should have bought a home when he was on H1B-- even if it would be frought with risk! That way, he would have been a millionaire today-- just like his friends who got their GCs and bought homes well in time.
8 years later, the history is repeating itself.
500,000+ people are patiently waiting in the EB GC queue... and chances are they will helplessly watch as home prices hit the bottom, and then rebound a few years later.
Some of them might decide to take the plunge and buy a home to take advantage of the low prices. However, many of them may be simply denied this chance becasuse their future is tied to a plastic card that has to be renewed every year!
Singhsa, sorry cannot help you right now with the media... maybe you can try getting help from the IV-media team?
tattoo with HTC Hero wallpapers
hydboy77
06-08 06:38 PM
There is going to be no spillover to EB2 India at all because according to the thread "Employment-Based Visa Number Movement and Predictions - from current Murthy Bulletin" thread Mr. Oppenheim (the guy from the DOS who sets the visa bulletin) said that EB1, EB4 and Eb5 might also retrogress (that is have to a cut off date which means they will not be current). If EB1, EB2 and EB5 retrogress and there is no spillover from EB2 ROW and there is no spillover from Family based visas there will not be any spillover to Eb2 India at all. There is absoluetely no difference between Eb3 India and Eb2 India except that EB3 India will be stuck in 2001 and Eb2 India might be stuck either in 2002 or early 2003. We are screwed for ages to come. Dont give me red for bringing this harsh reality, I myself am depressed
That "small change" of EB2 China PD is very important. It suggests that there is going to be "Spill over" so EB2 India and China will have to move together to use the unused numbers. A good sign; at least EB1 retrogression does not seem to be likely and there will be some spill over numbers to EB2 India (EB2 china may not benefit much as it had a PD later than that for the rest of the year.
Scorpion: how can you say "no spill over". EB2ROW is current and so spill over is likely (more likely from EB1 and even to some extent from EB2 ROW)
Moreover, EB2 ROW remained current meaning that they have not used all their quota; they will not use any spillover numbers and they may even provide spill over numbers to EB2 India and China.
That "small change" of EB2 China PD is very important. It suggests that there is going to be "Spill over" so EB2 India and China will have to move together to use the unused numbers. A good sign; at least EB1 retrogression does not seem to be likely and there will be some spill over numbers to EB2 India (EB2 china may not benefit much as it had a PD later than that for the rest of the year.
Scorpion: how can you say "no spill over". EB2ROW is current and so spill over is likely (more likely from EB1 and even to some extent from EB2 ROW)
Moreover, EB2 ROW remained current meaning that they have not used all their quota; they will not use any spillover numbers and they may even provide spill over numbers to EB2 India and China.
more...
pictures HTC Incredible Wallpaper
sundevil
06-12 11:51 AM
Cantwell is a Democrat though. If Republicans only get a limited number of amendments would they not try to push this over to Democrat side and ask that it become one of the Democrat's amendment? If they do that it will pretty much be shoved under the table, seeing how democrats feel about High-Skilled immigrants.
Kyl: CIR can be finished in a few days
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
Kyl: CIR can be finished in a few days
Sen. Kyl (R-Az), one of the architects of the Senate�s CIR announced today that the Senate CIR can be finished in a few days. On CNN this morning he mentioned that the Senate Republican leadership is crafting a few necessary amendments and will take them to the Majority Leader. It is expected that the Cantwell amendment, albeit in a revised form, will be one of the amendments. The NY Times has a similar report.
dresses HTC Incredible - Droid
pappu
03-10 04:11 PM
I think we should take visa re-capture as high priority once we clear FOIA issue. Whats your opinion?
We have already made it a priority. This funding drive is happening after many months. I do not recollect having an IV drive in a long time. Thanks for leading the thread and making members active.
We have already made it a priority. This funding drive is happening after many months. I do not recollect having an IV drive in a long time. Thanks for leading the thread and making members active.
more...
makeup the HTC Droid Incredible
kutra
03-04 10:29 AM
Post Deleted by Kutra.
Singhsa3, I applaud you for your efforts so I would not want any post in here to mar your objective.
I think everyone should delete their posts from this thread that you don't want WSJ or other outlets to see.
Singhsa3, I applaud you for your efforts so I would not want any post in here to mar your objective.
I think everyone should delete their posts from this thread that you don't want WSJ or other outlets to see.
girlfriend HTC-Incredible-Wallpaper
tawlibann
03-18 06:00 PM
Sorry if this is offtopic but can someone explain to me who banned me and why? I didn't write anything offensive or abusive, and I didn't insult anybody. I was just discussing the issues I read in another forum.
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
If it is my handle, you don't like, well my name is Tawlibann Foggs (it is Celtic name, and quite rare but I like it). My friends call me Taliban jokingly (I know it may not be funny to all of you, and I didn't like it at first, but I can't stop people), so that's why the handle was 'taliban'. I hope that answers your questions, and I mean no harm to anyone.
I thought this forum was open to everybody to express their opinions and discuss relevant issues without insulting others. If you're going to keep banning me, please just let me know that I'm not welcome, and I'll leave. I thought Immigration Voice and its forum was open to all EB immigrants. I was even intending to become a contributing member, but now I'm kind of lost. Am I not supposed to post here? Is there something I missed?
hairstyles wallpaper the HTC Droid
485InDreams
09-26 09:47 AM
Guys,
Choke the CNN editorial site with the mail stating tht its for Green card...Green card.
Also, send the link to other editorial site like NYTimes, Washingtonpost, Businessweek to them...so that they will learn wht to right correctly....
For the people who Attended /(didn't attend) the rally...Please do this...
Choke the CNN editorial site with the mail stating tht its for Green card...Green card.
Also, send the link to other editorial site like NYTimes, Washingtonpost, Businessweek to them...so that they will learn wht to right correctly....
For the people who Attended /(didn't attend) the rally...Please do this...
ajay
12-25 02:12 PM
Nrc2008068051
roseball
08-02 10:13 PM
Mayhemt,
Please dont talk without knowing the truth.
I joined the company only for green card, I was a consultant for them before I became full time. They told me this 'We will sponsor green card, will you become full time' I said if you do green card I will join. But they did not keep their promise. Thatis give and take. They already gained from their investment, Thats y they dont want to sponsor anymore. They do green card for what we do for 6 years not for sticking with them for 20+ years.
if I was in my company shoes , I would not take the documents, drag for 2.5 years and say 'We found candidates' . I would have either said in 6 months sorry we cant do or file green card.One need to have honesty. If I am that smart likemy employer I would ve started a company already and firing H1 guys left n right
If you only joined the company for a green card, then what were you doing all these years when your employer kept your documents and did not file. Why didn't you quit the job....If not more, you are to be equally blamed for the situation you are currently in....I understand your frustration, take a deep breath and move on.....Good luck....
Please dont talk without knowing the truth.
I joined the company only for green card, I was a consultant for them before I became full time. They told me this 'We will sponsor green card, will you become full time' I said if you do green card I will join. But they did not keep their promise. Thatis give and take. They already gained from their investment, Thats y they dont want to sponsor anymore. They do green card for what we do for 6 years not for sticking with them for 20+ years.
if I was in my company shoes , I would not take the documents, drag for 2.5 years and say 'We found candidates' . I would have either said in 6 months sorry we cant do or file green card.One need to have honesty. If I am that smart likemy employer I would ve started a company already and firing H1 guys left n right
If you only joined the company for a green card, then what were you doing all these years when your employer kept your documents and did not file. Why didn't you quit the job....If not more, you are to be equally blamed for the situation you are currently in....I understand your frustration, take a deep breath and move on.....Good luck....
Post a Comment