nrmarrivada9
04-01 09:13 AM
Well, it makes perfect sense to change the status to F1. And as you said that she will be going to dental school ( 2yr International program), i assume that the expenses will be sky high. F1 status would be helpful in securing the student loan ( for the future semesters) if needed.
This is my advise.
1) You don't have to do the transfer urself or neither there is a need for a lawyer
2) The schools International Students Office will guide you on doing the transfer. They would give you the checklist of the documents to be submitted, the website links where u can download the documents, fee to be paid, etc.
3) It is a simple and hassle free process
-Regards
This is my advise.
1) You don't have to do the transfer urself or neither there is a need for a lawyer
2) The schools International Students Office will guide you on doing the transfer. They would give you the checklist of the documents to be submitted, the website links where u can download the documents, fee to be paid, etc.
3) It is a simple and hassle free process
-Regards
maddipati1
07-30 07:18 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/FinalFeeReminder30Jul07.pdf
They are just trying to justify both of their notifications,
1) Fee hike notification effective from today
2) July bulletin released on Jun13th
lets give them a break,
they are actually trying to straighten things out.
S
They are just trying to justify both of their notifications,
1) Fee hike notification effective from today
2) July bulletin released on Jun13th
lets give them a break,
they are actually trying to straighten things out.
S
sodh
07-11 09:38 PM
Try pizza that they won't reroute to Walter Reed.
PDOCT05
10-29 01:10 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
tabletpc
08-13 10:35 AM
very law is suffixed with "Its not crystal clear".
How to make a judgement out of this and risk ourself....???
How to make a judgement out of this and risk ourself....???
meghanap2000
11-04 02:02 PM
Hello gurus,
3 Years back, before applying my 485 and my labor was pending status, i came to know that the need of birth certificate at I485 stage and I asked the records from the local panchayat and they could not find out any records on my name. Then filed the complaint in the court by providing the my passport, mark statements. After many weeks, the court ordered to provide me the birth certificate with the delayed registration 3 years back that is only on 2007. Now i have the birth certificate with the delayed registration, Now in this situvation, is it possible to go to the municipality to ask them the non-availability certificate ?
Thanks
Devan
HI Devan,
I was in same situation as yours. I also got my birth registered just 3 years back and submitted to USCIS along with 3 affidavits from elders who presented at the time of birth. Basically noterized copies on indian stamp paper and submit to USCIS along with your latest birth certificate. No need to provide Non availability certificate. This is what I did. My GC got approved. Consult your attorney ..they will give more information.
3 Years back, before applying my 485 and my labor was pending status, i came to know that the need of birth certificate at I485 stage and I asked the records from the local panchayat and they could not find out any records on my name. Then filed the complaint in the court by providing the my passport, mark statements. After many weeks, the court ordered to provide me the birth certificate with the delayed registration 3 years back that is only on 2007. Now i have the birth certificate with the delayed registration, Now in this situvation, is it possible to go to the municipality to ask them the non-availability certificate ?
Thanks
Devan
HI Devan,
I was in same situation as yours. I also got my birth registered just 3 years back and submitted to USCIS along with 3 affidavits from elders who presented at the time of birth. Basically noterized copies on indian stamp paper and submit to USCIS along with your latest birth certificate. No need to provide Non availability certificate. This is what I did. My GC got approved. Consult your attorney ..they will give more information.
more...
rajpatelemail
02-12 12:37 PM
If you are running out of time to save Candian PR under 3 years out of country stay rule, then only we have to think this canda stay.
If you can stay here and still save candian PR for this 1.5 years, just get into the system and try out here in US. That is the best bet rather than not trying at all.
Who knows you may get Labor/I140 in this 1.5 years and may get everything well.
DOL procedures - We really do not know how serious that **Supervised Recruit** is, unless it is experienced by people.
If you loose candian PR in 6 months or so, unless you land there, then we have to think about it.
Now please give me green, as i do not have many; ;)
If you can stay here and still save candian PR for this 1.5 years, just get into the system and try out here in US. That is the best bet rather than not trying at all.
Who knows you may get Labor/I140 in this 1.5 years and may get everything well.
DOL procedures - We really do not know how serious that **Supervised Recruit** is, unless it is experienced by people.
If you loose candian PR in 6 months or so, unless you land there, then we have to think about it.
Now please give me green, as i do not have many; ;)
learning01
02-23 03:06 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202446_pf.html
Scientist's Visa Denial Sparks Outrage in India
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01
A decision two weeks ago by a U.S. consulate in India to refuse a visa to a prominent Indian scientist has triggered heated protests in that country and set off a major diplomatic flap on the eve of President Bush's first visit to India.
The incident has also caused embarrassment at the highest reaches of the American scientific establishment, which has worked to get the State Department to issue a visa to Goverdhan Mehta, who said the U.S. consulate in the south Indian city of Chennai told him that his expertise in chemistry was deemed a threat.
In the face of outrage in India, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi issued a highly unusual statement of regret, and yesterday the State Department said officials are reaching out to the scientist to resolve his case.
"It is very strange logic," said Mehta, reached at his home in Bangalore early this morning India time. "Someone is insulted and hurt and you ask him to come back a second round."
The consulate told Mehta "you have been denied a visa" and invited him to submit additional information, according to an official at the National Academy of Sciences who saw a copy of the document. Mehta said in a written account obtained by The Washington Post that he was humiliated, accused of "hiding things" and being dishonest, and told that his work is dangerous because of its potential applications in chemical warfare.
Mehta denied that his work has anything to do with weapons. He said that he would provide his passport if a visa were issued, but that he would do nothing further to obtain the document: "If they don't want to give me a visa, so be it."
The scientist told Indian newspapers that his dealing with the U.S. consulate was "the most degrading experience of my life." Mehta is president of the International Council for Science, a Paris-based organization comprising the national scientific academies of a number of countries. The council advocates that scientists should have free access to one another.
Visa rejections or delays for foreign academics after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have led to widespread complaints by U.S universities and scientific organizations, but the new incident comes when things are improving, said Wendy White, director of the Board of International Scientific Organizations. The board was set up by the National Academy of Sciences and has helped about 3,000 scientists affected by the new policies.
"This leaves a terrible impression of the United States," said White, who has seen a copy of the consulate's form letter to Mehta. In an interview yesterday, she added that top scientists had worked with senior State Department officials to reverse the decision before Bush's visit next week. "We want people to know the U.S. is an open and welcoming country."
Mehta's case has especially angered Indians because he was a director of the Indian Institute of Science and is a science adviser to India's prime minister. He has visited the United States "dozens of times," he said, and the University of Florida in Gainesville had invited him to lecture at an international conference.
State Department spokesman Justin Higgins denied yesterday that the United States had rejected Mehta's visa and said the consulate had merely followed standard procedure in dealing with applicants with certain kinds of scientific expertise.
In his written account, the scientist said that after traveling 200 miles, waiting three hours with his wife for an interview and being accused of deception, he was outraged when his accounts of his research were questioned and he was told he needed to fill out a detailed questionnaire.
"I indicated that I have no desire to subject myself to any further humiliation and asked that our passports be returned forthwith," he wrote. The consular official, Mehta added, "stamped the passports to indicate visa refusal and returned them."
Higgins declined to address why the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi had taken the unusual step of saying it "regrets" that Mehta was "upset by the visa interview process."
In its statement, the embassy said: "At the United States mission in India, and to varying degrees at every U.S. mission worldwide, certain cases involving high technology issues are among those that require review before consular officers in the field are authorized to issue a visa."
White said that issuing a visa would solve the immediate problem, but that it would be more difficult to undo the damage caused by the dispute. Mehta is a high-profile example of the hurdles imposed by the new visa procedures. They require all applicants to appear in person for interviews that are done in only a few locations in large countries such as India, White said.
"If you tell an American, 'If you want a visa to go to India, you have to go to Dallas, Chicago, L.A. or New York, and while you are there, you are going to be fingerprinted, photographed and asked about everything you have done in your research for the last 40 years,' we would find this procedure untenable as Americans," she said.
Mehta said in his written account that he had been invited by the University of Florida, where he has previously been a distinguished visiting professor. White said she expected the International Council for Science, also known as the ICSU, to issue a statement today about the case involving its president.
White and William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, acknowledged that young American consular officers in foreign countries have been under tremendous pressure since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Making the wrong decision would be career-ending, so they play it safe, not really understanding the macroscopic implications of their decision," Wulf said. "Denying a visa to the president of ICSU is probably as dumb as you can get. This is not the way we can make friends."
�*2006*The Washington Post Company
Scientist's Visa Denial Sparks Outrage in India
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01
A decision two weeks ago by a U.S. consulate in India to refuse a visa to a prominent Indian scientist has triggered heated protests in that country and set off a major diplomatic flap on the eve of President Bush's first visit to India.
The incident has also caused embarrassment at the highest reaches of the American scientific establishment, which has worked to get the State Department to issue a visa to Goverdhan Mehta, who said the U.S. consulate in the south Indian city of Chennai told him that his expertise in chemistry was deemed a threat.
In the face of outrage in India, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi issued a highly unusual statement of regret, and yesterday the State Department said officials are reaching out to the scientist to resolve his case.
"It is very strange logic," said Mehta, reached at his home in Bangalore early this morning India time. "Someone is insulted and hurt and you ask him to come back a second round."
The consulate told Mehta "you have been denied a visa" and invited him to submit additional information, according to an official at the National Academy of Sciences who saw a copy of the document. Mehta said in a written account obtained by The Washington Post that he was humiliated, accused of "hiding things" and being dishonest, and told that his work is dangerous because of its potential applications in chemical warfare.
Mehta denied that his work has anything to do with weapons. He said that he would provide his passport if a visa were issued, but that he would do nothing further to obtain the document: "If they don't want to give me a visa, so be it."
The scientist told Indian newspapers that his dealing with the U.S. consulate was "the most degrading experience of my life." Mehta is president of the International Council for Science, a Paris-based organization comprising the national scientific academies of a number of countries. The council advocates that scientists should have free access to one another.
Visa rejections or delays for foreign academics after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have led to widespread complaints by U.S universities and scientific organizations, but the new incident comes when things are improving, said Wendy White, director of the Board of International Scientific Organizations. The board was set up by the National Academy of Sciences and has helped about 3,000 scientists affected by the new policies.
"This leaves a terrible impression of the United States," said White, who has seen a copy of the consulate's form letter to Mehta. In an interview yesterday, she added that top scientists had worked with senior State Department officials to reverse the decision before Bush's visit next week. "We want people to know the U.S. is an open and welcoming country."
Mehta's case has especially angered Indians because he was a director of the Indian Institute of Science and is a science adviser to India's prime minister. He has visited the United States "dozens of times," he said, and the University of Florida in Gainesville had invited him to lecture at an international conference.
State Department spokesman Justin Higgins denied yesterday that the United States had rejected Mehta's visa and said the consulate had merely followed standard procedure in dealing with applicants with certain kinds of scientific expertise.
In his written account, the scientist said that after traveling 200 miles, waiting three hours with his wife for an interview and being accused of deception, he was outraged when his accounts of his research were questioned and he was told he needed to fill out a detailed questionnaire.
"I indicated that I have no desire to subject myself to any further humiliation and asked that our passports be returned forthwith," he wrote. The consular official, Mehta added, "stamped the passports to indicate visa refusal and returned them."
Higgins declined to address why the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi had taken the unusual step of saying it "regrets" that Mehta was "upset by the visa interview process."
In its statement, the embassy said: "At the United States mission in India, and to varying degrees at every U.S. mission worldwide, certain cases involving high technology issues are among those that require review before consular officers in the field are authorized to issue a visa."
White said that issuing a visa would solve the immediate problem, but that it would be more difficult to undo the damage caused by the dispute. Mehta is a high-profile example of the hurdles imposed by the new visa procedures. They require all applicants to appear in person for interviews that are done in only a few locations in large countries such as India, White said.
"If you tell an American, 'If you want a visa to go to India, you have to go to Dallas, Chicago, L.A. or New York, and while you are there, you are going to be fingerprinted, photographed and asked about everything you have done in your research for the last 40 years,' we would find this procedure untenable as Americans," she said.
Mehta said in his written account that he had been invited by the University of Florida, where he has previously been a distinguished visiting professor. White said she expected the International Council for Science, also known as the ICSU, to issue a statement today about the case involving its president.
White and William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, acknowledged that young American consular officers in foreign countries have been under tremendous pressure since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Making the wrong decision would be career-ending, so they play it safe, not really understanding the macroscopic implications of their decision," Wulf said. "Denying a visa to the president of ICSU is probably as dumb as you can get. This is not the way we can make friends."
�*2006*The Washington Post Company
more...
Berkeleybee
02-09 07:36 PM
All,
I posted this text at some Immigration Portal threads today to address concerns that IV is only focused on retrogression. Please feel free to edit and post at other forums or other threads on Immig Portal.
I. IV MEMBERS AT EVERY STAGE
� We have members at each stage of the process: labor certification backlog, retrogression backlog, USCIS backlog. Some of our most active members have not got their labor certification.
� Members who are further along have not forgotten the length of delay and pain of the previous step. We are ALL really in the same boat.
II. WE EMPHASIZE THE EFFECT OF CUMULATIVE DELAYS
� The most devastating problem for EB green card applicants is the cumulative effect of delays at each stage. Each delay in isolation may even be bearable (only in theory) but when you pile one on top of the other it is unconscionable. We emphasize this in our new presentation (out shortly).
� When we meet with lawmakers or talk with other organizations in the coalition we give personal examples and it is this fact of delay piling on top of delay that most of them are shocked by.
III. DOL-BEC & USCIS BACKLOGS ARE ALREADY SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL & PRESIDENTIAL MANDATES
� DOL-BECs were created as a result of considerable protest and intervention by Congress.
� USCIS Backlog Processing is also subject to Presidential mandate � for 6 months processing by September 2006. Congressional hearing transcripts show that members of Congress are well aware of these issues, even the problems with repeat fingerprinting etc.
� So both DOL-BEC and USCIS Backlog Processing are at the stage of implementing bureaucratic changes, implementing Congressional and Presidential mandates.
� We *are* pressing for transparency and better implementation at both these stages, as well as for 3 year extensions of H-1Bs, EADs and Advance Paroles for those who are stuck in the Green Card process instead of the current one year.
IV. RETROGRESSION HAS BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED BY CONGRESS & THE PRESIDENT
� In contrast to DOL-BEC and USCIS Backlog Processing, Congress has never addressed the issue of Retrogression.
� So the Retrogression problem is a systemic, policy problem.
� It will affect all of us eventually, no matter what stage we are at. And it is only going to get worse, and the delay at this stage is the longest of all. Even if cutoff dates move forward, there is nothing to stop them from moving back again once USCIS starts processing visas faster (see posts on how visa cutoff dates are determined).
� It took a tremendous amount of effort to get Congressional and Presidential mandates to do something about DOL and USCIS backlogs and it will take a tremendous amount of effort to get Congressional action on Retrogression.
In summary, we urge you to get involved with Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) no matter at what stage of the green card process you are. We are all in the same boat. Immigration Voice is getting your issues heard wherever it goes. We are totally committed to getting the job done - this is not a half-hearted group of people. Look at what we have done in just 40 days.
With Comprehensive Immigration on the anvil and with PACE bringing the issue of American Competitiveness and the need for skilled and qualified immigrants, there can be no better time to highlight our problems. Legislative changes are necessary for us and the only way that can happen is if you get involved.
RECENT IMMIGRATION VOICE ACTIVITIES:
� Signing with Quinn Gillespie & Associates (http://www.quinngillespie.com/) who will work with us to (a) get corporate sponsorship
(b) get access to key policymakers
(c) craft an effective legislative strategy
(d) design a media strategy
� Meeting Lawmakers
� Coordinating with other groups like Compete America
� Getting the word out in the community
� Setting up of the organizational and resource infrastructure including the website and forums for discussion
� A tremendous amount of behind the scenes efforts to improve the quality of our materials and message.
Visit our website at www.immigrationvoice.org and get involved!
I posted this text at some Immigration Portal threads today to address concerns that IV is only focused on retrogression. Please feel free to edit and post at other forums or other threads on Immig Portal.
I. IV MEMBERS AT EVERY STAGE
� We have members at each stage of the process: labor certification backlog, retrogression backlog, USCIS backlog. Some of our most active members have not got their labor certification.
� Members who are further along have not forgotten the length of delay and pain of the previous step. We are ALL really in the same boat.
II. WE EMPHASIZE THE EFFECT OF CUMULATIVE DELAYS
� The most devastating problem for EB green card applicants is the cumulative effect of delays at each stage. Each delay in isolation may even be bearable (only in theory) but when you pile one on top of the other it is unconscionable. We emphasize this in our new presentation (out shortly).
� When we meet with lawmakers or talk with other organizations in the coalition we give personal examples and it is this fact of delay piling on top of delay that most of them are shocked by.
III. DOL-BEC & USCIS BACKLOGS ARE ALREADY SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL & PRESIDENTIAL MANDATES
� DOL-BECs were created as a result of considerable protest and intervention by Congress.
� USCIS Backlog Processing is also subject to Presidential mandate � for 6 months processing by September 2006. Congressional hearing transcripts show that members of Congress are well aware of these issues, even the problems with repeat fingerprinting etc.
� So both DOL-BEC and USCIS Backlog Processing are at the stage of implementing bureaucratic changes, implementing Congressional and Presidential mandates.
� We *are* pressing for transparency and better implementation at both these stages, as well as for 3 year extensions of H-1Bs, EADs and Advance Paroles for those who are stuck in the Green Card process instead of the current one year.
IV. RETROGRESSION HAS BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED BY CONGRESS & THE PRESIDENT
� In contrast to DOL-BEC and USCIS Backlog Processing, Congress has never addressed the issue of Retrogression.
� So the Retrogression problem is a systemic, policy problem.
� It will affect all of us eventually, no matter what stage we are at. And it is only going to get worse, and the delay at this stage is the longest of all. Even if cutoff dates move forward, there is nothing to stop them from moving back again once USCIS starts processing visas faster (see posts on how visa cutoff dates are determined).
� It took a tremendous amount of effort to get Congressional and Presidential mandates to do something about DOL and USCIS backlogs and it will take a tremendous amount of effort to get Congressional action on Retrogression.
In summary, we urge you to get involved with Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) no matter at what stage of the green card process you are. We are all in the same boat. Immigration Voice is getting your issues heard wherever it goes. We are totally committed to getting the job done - this is not a half-hearted group of people. Look at what we have done in just 40 days.
With Comprehensive Immigration on the anvil and with PACE bringing the issue of American Competitiveness and the need for skilled and qualified immigrants, there can be no better time to highlight our problems. Legislative changes are necessary for us and the only way that can happen is if you get involved.
RECENT IMMIGRATION VOICE ACTIVITIES:
� Signing with Quinn Gillespie & Associates (http://www.quinngillespie.com/) who will work with us to (a) get corporate sponsorship
(b) get access to key policymakers
(c) craft an effective legislative strategy
(d) design a media strategy
� Meeting Lawmakers
� Coordinating with other groups like Compete America
� Getting the word out in the community
� Setting up of the organizational and resource infrastructure including the website and forums for discussion
� A tremendous amount of behind the scenes efforts to improve the quality of our materials and message.
Visit our website at www.immigrationvoice.org and get involved!
sodh
07-18 06:36 PM
greencardvow you rock.
more...
coopheal
12-28 07:34 AM
Currently EB3 is on May 01
What are the chances of EB3 also getting stuck around Jan 03.
Does any one know reason why so many EB2 were filed before Jan 03. Was there Apr 01 type of deadline??
What are the chances of EB3 also getting stuck around Jan 03.
Does any one know reason why so many EB2 were filed before Jan 03. Was there Apr 01 type of deadline??
go_guy123
03-01 04:23 PM
Friends,
I have Canada PR since October 2006. In October this year I will complete 3 years since landing in Canada. The rule to maintain PR is that one should live in Canada for at least 2 years in a 5 year period. Since I have not lived in Canada more that a couple of weeks since landing, will I be allowed to move to Canada after completing 3 years outside Canada or will I be sent back from the border? Has anyone moved to Canada after living outside for more than 3 years since landing? Please advise.
Thanks.
At the end of expiry of the PR card that you get, you will need to renew it. At that time you need to show that you stayed for 2 years in Canada and when you cant show you lose the
PR and cannot renew the PR card.
I have Canada PR since October 2006. In October this year I will complete 3 years since landing in Canada. The rule to maintain PR is that one should live in Canada for at least 2 years in a 5 year period. Since I have not lived in Canada more that a couple of weeks since landing, will I be allowed to move to Canada after completing 3 years outside Canada or will I be sent back from the border? Has anyone moved to Canada after living outside for more than 3 years since landing? Please advise.
Thanks.
At the end of expiry of the PR card that you get, you will need to renew it. At that time you need to show that you stayed for 2 years in Canada and when you cant show you lose the
PR and cannot renew the PR card.
more...
whiteStallion
06-02 07:03 PM
Yes, the return ticket have to be *within* 6 months rather than after 6 months.
$eeGrEeN
08-02 01:38 PM
Can you please explain further - what you mean by "So, the person intended to cash it cannot. " Does it mean that if you make a request to track the MO thru' PO then USCIS will not be able to encash it.
Your's is thru' a Bank . My response was regarding a MO thru' USPS.
I guess that is what the person intended to ask >>>
"I sent money orders for 485. is there a way to track if money orders were cashed by USCIS..the money already left my bank once the money order was issued by my bank"
Your's is thru' a Bank . My response was regarding a MO thru' USPS.
I guess that is what the person intended to ask >>>
"I sent money orders for 485. is there a way to track if money orders were cashed by USCIS..the money already left my bank once the money order was issued by my bank"
more...
arnet
09-20 11:54 PM
now they are saying it as "Priority Appointment" and the link is available when you create the application. so get HDFC receipt which is valid for 1yr and create an application, fill DS-156/157, add your dependents if any and then you will see a page which has link "priority appointment".
so now you can see this only after creating the application, vfs changed it. you can email vfs site for details.
Disclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so please consult one for your situations as laws/procedures are changing constantly.
Interesting..If I visit VFS in person when I'm in Chennai, How soon will I get the appointment. My visa expires in Feb'07 and I'm going to Chennai for 3 weeks in Nov. So If I don't get appt I can always try for the next trip..
so now you can see this only after creating the application, vfs changed it. you can email vfs site for details.
Disclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so please consult one for your situations as laws/procedures are changing constantly.
Interesting..If I visit VFS in person when I'm in Chennai, How soon will I get the appointment. My visa expires in Feb'07 and I'm going to Chennai for 3 weeks in Nov. So If I don't get appt I can always try for the next trip..
immigrationvoice1
04-03 06:56 PM
I am a 2nd july ead filer and my ead expires in month of october 08 i have heard that we have to file 4 months before ,do i have to file 4 months before 2nd july or 4 months before expiry of my 1st EAd which is october 08.
please advice
thanks
gcwant
120 days (maximum) from the date of expiry of your EAD. The same applies for AP, if I am not wrong.
please advice
thanks
gcwant
120 days (maximum) from the date of expiry of your EAD. The same applies for AP, if I am not wrong.
more...
nish2006
04-27 02:19 PM
Hi Raj,
Thanks for your advice, it definitely helps.
I'm currently working with my lawyers on an appeal. If that works (fingers crossed) all well and good, but I'm also renewing my H1B immediately, to protect myself. This is not the time to be selling my house & committing financial suicide, as well as moving my family around.
My attorney also feels the EAD/AP might continue (under certain circumstances - he's not sure, but is checking) to remain valid until their expiry date. If so, I have until Oct 2010 on my EAD, but its still better to be safe with an H1B.
My I-140 denial is for a somewhat obscure reason - I used to be in the merchant navy, then worked in various management positions ashore until coming to the US in 2005. My professional certification was considered to be equivalent to a BSc degree by WES, but USCIS now want details of college attendance, etc. When I tried to explain in the RFE that it is only equivalent to a degree, and my job is based on 23 years of work experience at sea and in shipmanagement companies, plus a professional Master's license , they ignored those details. All very frustrating, but there is nothing I can do. Hopefully, someone more reasonable will read the appeal and set things right. My category remains unchanged at EB3.
I hope your own issues have all been solved by now.
All the best
NK
Thanks for your advice, it definitely helps.
I'm currently working with my lawyers on an appeal. If that works (fingers crossed) all well and good, but I'm also renewing my H1B immediately, to protect myself. This is not the time to be selling my house & committing financial suicide, as well as moving my family around.
My attorney also feels the EAD/AP might continue (under certain circumstances - he's not sure, but is checking) to remain valid until their expiry date. If so, I have until Oct 2010 on my EAD, but its still better to be safe with an H1B.
My I-140 denial is for a somewhat obscure reason - I used to be in the merchant navy, then worked in various management positions ashore until coming to the US in 2005. My professional certification was considered to be equivalent to a BSc degree by WES, but USCIS now want details of college attendance, etc. When I tried to explain in the RFE that it is only equivalent to a degree, and my job is based on 23 years of work experience at sea and in shipmanagement companies, plus a professional Master's license , they ignored those details. All very frustrating, but there is nothing I can do. Hopefully, someone more reasonable will read the appeal and set things right. My category remains unchanged at EB3.
I hope your own issues have all been solved by now.
All the best
NK
hiralal
10-08 04:40 PM
Visa Bulletin for November 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5172.html)
dontcareanymore
10-21 05:20 PM
According to one website http://www.immigration-law.com the USCIS is working on trying to streamline processing I-140 petitions to four months by April 2009. I quote the following from the website
--------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2008: I-140 Processing in Four Months by April 2009?
* This is a five-month old information which has just been released. This source of information indicates that the USCIS was hiring and training new employees and by April 2009, I-140 petitions might be processed in four months. It is a good news in a way.
--------------------------------------------------------
Going by the previous track record of the USCIS though, I do have reasons to be skeptical about that. We will find out in April eventually, unless our invididual petitions get approved before that. The only issue is that in the interim we still have the threat to jobs in this bad economy. The other concern of mine is that older petitions might get dumped into another Backlog Elimination Center and they only work efficiently on newer I-140 petitions. That solution would be hell for people with older I-140 applications
Same source, but latest bulletin :
10/17/2008: I-140 Delays and USCIS Answers to Discrepancy in Processing Times Between Stand-alone I-140 and Concurrent Filing Cases
"
We will see what and when "significant" decrease in reduction will take place. We still feel that the reinstatement of premium processing services should hold an answer to part of the problems. However, the USCIS answer to this question is as follows: "USCIS expects that adding other classifications to Premium Processing Service at this time would exceed USCIS� capacity to provide timely Premium Process Service. USCIS will continue to evaluate whether it is able to process other groups of cases beyond this limited classification of petitions and will provide notification of any further availability of Premium Processing Service for Form I-140."
--------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2008: I-140 Processing in Four Months by April 2009?
* This is a five-month old information which has just been released. This source of information indicates that the USCIS was hiring and training new employees and by April 2009, I-140 petitions might be processed in four months. It is a good news in a way.
--------------------------------------------------------
Going by the previous track record of the USCIS though, I do have reasons to be skeptical about that. We will find out in April eventually, unless our invididual petitions get approved before that. The only issue is that in the interim we still have the threat to jobs in this bad economy. The other concern of mine is that older petitions might get dumped into another Backlog Elimination Center and they only work efficiently on newer I-140 petitions. That solution would be hell for people with older I-140 applications
Same source, but latest bulletin :
10/17/2008: I-140 Delays and USCIS Answers to Discrepancy in Processing Times Between Stand-alone I-140 and Concurrent Filing Cases
"
We will see what and when "significant" decrease in reduction will take place. We still feel that the reinstatement of premium processing services should hold an answer to part of the problems. However, the USCIS answer to this question is as follows: "USCIS expects that adding other classifications to Premium Processing Service at this time would exceed USCIS� capacity to provide timely Premium Process Service. USCIS will continue to evaluate whether it is able to process other groups of cases beyond this limited classification of petitions and will provide notification of any further availability of Premium Processing Service for Form I-140."
Ramba
03-28 10:49 AM
Ramba,
We're definitely working on this issue and I am sorry that I am not able to go into further details.
202(a)(3) clubs the excess quota for EB and FB together and hence excess EB numbers flow over to FB and vice Versa, which is different from 202(a)(5) which asks for applying the excess quota within a EB cateogry itself.
Thanks admin. I understand diffence between a3 and a5 in 202 section. The flow of EB visas to FB (or FB to EB) make the total numarical limit invalid in EB and FB catagries (480K in FB and 140K in EB). If the flow happens accorss the catagory, the law is broken, then there is no meaning of numarical limit in FB or EB visas. Though A3 and A5 has theoriticallyy same meaning(to remove per couthry quota, if excess visas available) DOS have to keep FB and EB seperate track to control the visa numbers in each catagory seperatly. Before 1999, (ie before A5 was introduced thro AC21) all the FB catagories have been backlogged. But EB was current in most catagories. We do not know how DOS handled the situation. we need to understand that in US immigration history, was there any flow of EB numbers to FB numbers when there was a huge demand for EB numbers. It is better to counsult with AILA to understand the historical reasons and how A3 was handled by DOS in previous years ie before 1999.
Why I am writing this is, we may be still safe by the section A3, though section A5 was deleted in both the bills. Unfortunally no attonnies has reported/found this untill IV discussed it.
We're definitely working on this issue and I am sorry that I am not able to go into further details.
202(a)(3) clubs the excess quota for EB and FB together and hence excess EB numbers flow over to FB and vice Versa, which is different from 202(a)(5) which asks for applying the excess quota within a EB cateogry itself.
Thanks admin. I understand diffence between a3 and a5 in 202 section. The flow of EB visas to FB (or FB to EB) make the total numarical limit invalid in EB and FB catagries (480K in FB and 140K in EB). If the flow happens accorss the catagory, the law is broken, then there is no meaning of numarical limit in FB or EB visas. Though A3 and A5 has theoriticallyy same meaning(to remove per couthry quota, if excess visas available) DOS have to keep FB and EB seperate track to control the visa numbers in each catagory seperatly. Before 1999, (ie before A5 was introduced thro AC21) all the FB catagories have been backlogged. But EB was current in most catagories. We do not know how DOS handled the situation. we need to understand that in US immigration history, was there any flow of EB numbers to FB numbers when there was a huge demand for EB numbers. It is better to counsult with AILA to understand the historical reasons and how A3 was handled by DOS in previous years ie before 1999.
Why I am writing this is, we may be still safe by the section A3, though section A5 was deleted in both the bills. Unfortunally no attonnies has reported/found this untill IV discussed it.
LOL123
07-30 11:47 AM
Bump >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No comments:
Post a Comment