GCwaitforever
04-02 11:49 AM
I have not seen one single person getting so many red dots for playing a devils advocate and trying to defend USCIS. :D
All of us are passionate and sometimes this passion overtakes logic. If you are fed up with USCIS, suing them or putting pressure on them through Congress/Legislature/Press are the only options.
You have seen what happened to the Ombudsman and his reports. Year over year, same findings pile up in his reports and he finally left. If someone who has internal access to USCIS workings and has a mandate to change USCIS functions to benefit us - the paying customers, could not relieve inertia of USCIS, I suspect you and I do not have much of a chance.
Courts and judges are definitely going to punish USCIS for any quantifiable losses suffered by us. If you can find any, sue them.
All of us are passionate and sometimes this passion overtakes logic. If you are fed up with USCIS, suing them or putting pressure on them through Congress/Legislature/Press are the only options.
You have seen what happened to the Ombudsman and his reports. Year over year, same findings pile up in his reports and he finally left. If someone who has internal access to USCIS workings and has a mandate to change USCIS functions to benefit us - the paying customers, could not relieve inertia of USCIS, I suspect you and I do not have much of a chance.
Courts and judges are definitely going to punish USCIS for any quantifiable losses suffered by us. If you can find any, sue them.
wallpaper Dirk Nowitzki continued to get
CHHAYA
09-01 01:56 PM
Landed in Aug/2001 on H1B
Changed Employer in Apr 2002
Filed Labor May 03
Labor Approved in 06
Filed I-140 and approved in late 06
Filed I - 485 in 07
Surviving on EAD.
Changed Employer in Apr 2002
Filed Labor May 03
Labor Approved in 06
Filed I-140 and approved in late 06
Filed I - 485 in 07
Surviving on EAD.
jvordar
07-18 06:29 PM
guys, USCIS agreed to accept all the application but they do not have any visas to adjudicate the application... so they'll only enter the information in their database based on PD and when the date becomes current for the PD thats when they start processing the application... so nothing will be changed in terms of order of processing.. this change will only help us getting EAD/AP...
2011 Dirk Nowitzki, Mavericks Rally
sunny1000
04-30 04:18 PM
Yahi hai Umrika ke USCIS ke officer ka Tashan!
and in English that means what?
and in English that means what?
more...
Maverick1
11-09 01:49 PM
Thanks to the glorious service of the Atlanta center :mad: I missed the I-485 bus by 7 days( Labor cleared on Aug end ). Many people with later PD's got cleared from the Chicago PERM center . Now I just watch as all members get their EAD's and AP's while I wait with nothing but hope and watch legislation after legislation fail in the senate and house , and the letters flying all over the place .
Very SAD to know that you missed the opportunity to file AOS by 7 days. I know how painful it can be.
Do you know of any efforts to speed up the ATL PERM processing ? I see the graph at has a downward trend lately (less average time for approval).
Very SAD to know that you missed the opportunity to file AOS by 7 days. I know how painful it can be.
Do you know of any efforts to speed up the ATL PERM processing ? I see the graph at has a downward trend lately (less average time for approval).
gaz
09-12 12:01 PM
how about sending balloons with a message on it?
the balloon would represent our dreams and each passing day of inaction on the part of uscis lets the air out of them
inflated balloons would be visible also when the delivery arrives
the balloon would represent our dreams and each passing day of inaction on the part of uscis lets the air out of them
inflated balloons would be visible also when the delivery arrives
more...
ilwaiting
04-25 11:37 AM
H1B believe it or not is a "dual intent visa". F1 is NOT a dual intent visa. So what that means is even tho a person entered USA on H1B(which is Nonimmigrant visa) he can have a dual intent to "adjust status" and become a permanent resident.
So I would think it would very wise to be given a PD based on when a person started working on "H"
Coming in through H1 does'nt show your intention of becoming a permanent resident of this country. It only happens when the LC is applied. Although the entry date is an ingenious way, it will only create more issues. Now some one who comes in F1 can also ask for the same benefit when they move to H1, to take their entry date in F1 as their priority date. I believe the culprits are the labor substitution and the labor certification sales. Those are unfair. Stop labor substitutions, and if they need one, then use the 140 RD as the PD. That should solve most of the problems and people from using labor sub to jump the line.
So I would think it would very wise to be given a PD based on when a person started working on "H"
Coming in through H1 does'nt show your intention of becoming a permanent resident of this country. It only happens when the LC is applied. Although the entry date is an ingenious way, it will only create more issues. Now some one who comes in F1 can also ask for the same benefit when they move to H1, to take their entry date in F1 as their priority date. I believe the culprits are the labor substitution and the labor certification sales. Those are unfair. Stop labor substitutions, and if they need one, then use the 140 RD as the PD. That should solve most of the problems and people from using labor sub to jump the line.
2010 Dirk Nowitzki has been a
vinabath
07-20 12:36 PM
Guys,
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
I will cut no of EAD applications to 600,000.
USCIS can always use contractors with our revenue to complete the work.
But you are absolutely right. If they dont add temp resources with this extra revenue, we will be waiting for atleast an year to get EAD and AP.
The calculations below is not to scare anyone but it may very well a reality. Based on the assumptions below, some people may have to wait up to 20 months to get a EAD card: Ouch!
A Total I-485 Applicants: 750000 Applicants
B Each EAD processing time: 5 Minutes
C Total processing hrs: 62500 Hours
(Calculations: AxB/60)
D Daily productive Hours: 5 Hours
(It is a government body!)
E Total Man Days (Business Days): 12500 Man Days
(Calculations: C/D)
F EAD Workforce: 30 People
G Total Business Days: 417 Days
(Calculations: E/F)
H Average Business Days in a month: 21 Days
I Total Clearing Time : 20 Months
(Calculations: G/I)
I will cut no of EAD applications to 600,000.
USCIS can always use contractors with our revenue to complete the work.
But you are absolutely right. If they dont add temp resources with this extra revenue, we will be waiting for atleast an year to get EAD and AP.
more...
MDix
08-22 09:32 PM
Simple English : EB2 will be more tough. They do have same strict guideline for EB1 also. If implemented then it will be tough to get EB2.
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
E21(EB2):
5. Paragraph (2)(A) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
(A) Evaluation of Evidence Submitted in Support of a Petition for an Alien of Exceptional Ability. 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) provides that, in order to show the requisite exceptional ability, the petition must be accompanied by at least three of six criteria (set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)). ISOs should use a two-part analysis where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of a final merits determination.
Part One: Evaluate Whether the Evidence Provided Meets at Least Three E21 Alien of Exceptional Ability Criteria. You must make a determination regarding whether the evidence submitted in the petition meets at least three criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Note: While ISOs must consider the quality and caliber of the evidence to determine whether a particular regulatory criterion has been met, the ISO should not make a determination relative to the alien�s claimed exceptional ability in Part One of the case analysis.
(i) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability;
(ii) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought;
(iii) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation;
(iv) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which demonstrates exceptional ability;
Note: To satisfy this criterion, the evidence must show that the alien has commanded a salary or remuneration for services that is indicative of his or her claimed exceptional ability relative to others working in the field.
(v) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or
(vi) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 16
(vii) If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility.
8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii) provides that petitioners may submit �comparable evidence� to establish an alien�s eligibility in cases where the standards set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) do not apply. In cases where such comparable evidence is submitted, it is reasonable to require the petitioner to explain why 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not apply.
Part One: Evaluative Determination. The determination in Part One of the analysis is limited whether the evidence submitted satisfies at least three of the criteria at 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii) or the comparable evidence criterion in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(iii). After determining that, by a preponderance of the evidence, those criteria have been met, the ISO should move on to Part Two of the analysis to make a separate merits-based determination of eligibility based on the totality of evidence presented.
Part Two: Final Merits Determination. Meeting the minimum requirement by providing evidence three of the regulatory criteria does not, in itself, establish that the alien in fact meets the requirements for classification as an alien of exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the INA. In Part Two of the analysis, you must consider all of the evidence to make a final merit determination of whether or not the petitioner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, shown that the beneficiary is at a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. Therefore, evidence submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the criteria; qualifications possessed by most members of a given field cannot demonstrate a degree of expertise "significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Note that section 203(b)(2)(C) of INA provides that mere possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. To meet the criterion set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), formal recognition in the form of certificates and other documentation that are contemporaneous with the alien�s claimed contributions and achievements may have more weight than letters prepared for the petition "recognizing" the alien's achievements.
6. The existing text of paragraph (2)(B) of Chapter 22.2(j) of the AFM is removed and the paragraph is reserved.
7. Technical Correction: The thirteenth paragraph in Chapter 22.2(b)(5)(B) of the AFM is revised to read as follows:
For successor-in-interest purposes, the transfer of ownership may occur at any time after the filing of the original labor certification with DOL.
Evaluation of Evidentiary Criteria in Certain Form I-140 Petitions (AFM Update AD 10-41)
Page 17
8. Technical Correction: The DOL email address to use to request duplicate approved labor certifications from DOL in paragraphs (9) and (10) of Chapter 22.2(b) of the AFM is revised (in both paragraphs) to read as follows:
The duplicate
hair LA Lakers VS Dallas Mavericks
NNReddy
04-12 10:53 AM
Can someone on EAD start a S-Corp or LLC? IF SO WHICH ONE IS BETTER S-CORP OR LLC? PLEASE ADVISE
more...
bskrishna
07-11 12:16 PM
Try your best to find a job. The market is picking up. At least try to join one of those desi companies even if they are offering a low salary. Just get past this time without making your situation a whole lot more complex.
Dont worry about lawyers, your ex employer revoking I140 - all that stuff doesn't matter now - just go find a job.
can they even withdraw 140 after more then a year now?
Dont worry about lawyers, your ex employer revoking I140 - all that stuff doesn't matter now - just go find a job.
can they even withdraw 140 after more then a year now?
hot What do the Los Angeles Lakers
Milind123
09-13 07:55 PM
milind123...
U r doing a great job... I am sure we will have many first time contributors get inspired by your fabulous initiative!
GO IV!!!
Thank you vandanaverdia. People who have never contributed please take this chance to contribute. Just need two more people to help me equal my yesterday's personal contribution.
BTW why is the third person the most difficult to get? If my memory serves me correct, it is easy to start a round and also close it. Where are you 'the elusive third'?
U r doing a great job... I am sure we will have many first time contributors get inspired by your fabulous initiative!
GO IV!!!
Thank you vandanaverdia. People who have never contributed please take this chance to contribute. Just need two more people to help me equal my yesterday's personal contribution.
BTW why is the third person the most difficult to get? If my memory serves me correct, it is easy to start a round and also close it. Where are you 'the elusive third'?
more...
house Mavericks defeated the Lakers
dipmay2002
09-07 01:37 PM
Today I completed 10 years in USA and still waiting for GC, PD Dec. 2004 EB3...:confused:
tattoo Los Angeles Lakers#39; Pau Gasol
psaxena
08-12 01:21 PM
Pappu, I agree what you are saying. But the bigger issue here is the awareness.. I talk to so many friends and friend's friend. The only thing that I find is they are not aware of IV or its effort.
Lack of awareness is another issue for IV community to form a lobby group like others.
IV has too many contacts in the media, would that not be a great idea to leverage them to advertise at prime time on Indian channels , or just the google ads on Dishnetwork screen for cheap or work out something.
Just to get the people an awareness of what IV is and get them a feeling that its BIG enough to help them. Support some candidates in the election, just to get the name floating. Leave aside the American, Indians or chinese(mostly the legal immigrants) I sometime work with don't know anything about IV. I go to SFO meet my parents almost every month and my brother's circle (all citizens) have no idea of what I am talking about. All they know there was problem is Labor clearance in their time which is no more now.
What is IV , who is IV........ no idea at all. NADA.
A planned campaign to make th awareness can help our cause.
Just my 1 cent.
To answer your question: Indian companies in India or Indian politicians complaining will not do much impact. After passing this bill politicians will cosy up and say good things to rebuild relations. The real impact can happen if Indians in New York state who can vote stand up against such laws. Same goes for the Desi companies who have tried to raise the voice against USCIS memo. They lack grassroots advocacy and support. Their Indian US citizen friends are busy organizing Diwali melas and Shahrukh Khan stage shows. Immigration voice can be extremely successful if politicians see us as an immigrant lobby. Just like they see Jewish lobby or Hispanic lobby. This is why participation of IV greencard members and citizen friends is important to advocate for changes that helps the immigrant community. I this case too, IV community should not turn a blind eye to what happens around us. Just because we do not work for such companies or we already have EAD does not mean we do not see beyond the headline of this issue. We spend more time analyzing , over analyzing, predicting and tracking rather than actively understanding the politics of issues that are causing all the problems we are facing. To some extent this law passed because Indians in USA did not care due to their narrow outlook and priorities in politics.
Lack of awareness is another issue for IV community to form a lobby group like others.
IV has too many contacts in the media, would that not be a great idea to leverage them to advertise at prime time on Indian channels , or just the google ads on Dishnetwork screen for cheap or work out something.
Just to get the people an awareness of what IV is and get them a feeling that its BIG enough to help them. Support some candidates in the election, just to get the name floating. Leave aside the American, Indians or chinese(mostly the legal immigrants) I sometime work with don't know anything about IV. I go to SFO meet my parents almost every month and my brother's circle (all citizens) have no idea of what I am talking about. All they know there was problem is Labor clearance in their time which is no more now.
What is IV , who is IV........ no idea at all. NADA.
A planned campaign to make th awareness can help our cause.
Just my 1 cent.
To answer your question: Indian companies in India or Indian politicians complaining will not do much impact. After passing this bill politicians will cosy up and say good things to rebuild relations. The real impact can happen if Indians in New York state who can vote stand up against such laws. Same goes for the Desi companies who have tried to raise the voice against USCIS memo. They lack grassroots advocacy and support. Their Indian US citizen friends are busy organizing Diwali melas and Shahrukh Khan stage shows. Immigration voice can be extremely successful if politicians see us as an immigrant lobby. Just like they see Jewish lobby or Hispanic lobby. This is why participation of IV greencard members and citizen friends is important to advocate for changes that helps the immigrant community. I this case too, IV community should not turn a blind eye to what happens around us. Just because we do not work for such companies or we already have EAD does not mean we do not see beyond the headline of this issue. We spend more time analyzing , over analyzing, predicting and tracking rather than actively understanding the politics of issues that are causing all the problems we are facing. To some extent this law passed because Indians in USA did not care due to their narrow outlook and priorities in politics.
more...
pictures And through January they
immm
07-24 02:00 PM
That gives me some hope..My PD is EB3 India Oct 2004...I am filing 485 now..hope I get GC in 2 years from now!!!!
Haha, me too! My PD is EB3 India mid-march 2002!! And I just filed I-485 thanks to BEC.
Talk about some people getting just so lucky!!
Haha, me too! My PD is EB3 India mid-march 2002!! And I just filed I-485 thanks to BEC.
Talk about some people getting just so lucky!!
dresses Dirk Nowitzki scored a
Ann Ruben
05-14 04:53 PM
I believe so. I assume that USCIS eventually sends a letter acknowledging the revocation, but I don't know for sure.
more...
makeup Dirk Nowitzki of the Dallas
Kodi
06-21 11:00 AM
I checked with my lawyer today. They only received 2 approvals since January.:eek: This is pathetic.
girlfriend gets the slight nod over a
Milind123
09-12 11:18 AM
Thankyou satyachowdary and sameold.
All, please remember my intention is to motivate the people who never contributed and who start
a $50 monthly contribution at least for six months. Also don't forget to PM me when you
start your monthly contibution.
Anyway good start. satyachowdary and sameold please consider monthly contributions.
Here are my details
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:34 AM EDT
Google Order #365470411117583
Sorry forgot to mention the amount of $100.
All, please remember my intention is to motivate the people who never contributed and who start
a $50 monthly contribution at least for six months. Also don't forget to PM me when you
start your monthly contibution.
Anyway good start. satyachowdary and sameold please consider monthly contributions.
Here are my details
Order Details - Sep 12, 2007 11:34 AM EDT
Google Order #365470411117583
Sorry forgot to mention the amount of $100.
hairstyles Los Angeles Lakers#39; Pau Gasol
gchope07
07-18 03:14 PM
I am confused about receipt date?
Notice date is when the receipt notice is generated- That's simple
Is receipt date the date when they do data entry into the system or is it the date when they receive the package even though they may do data entry a month later?
In other words people who filed there application on July 2nd,3rd etc ... and lets say USCIS takes 2 months to receipt those cases.. then after 2 months when the notice is generated won't it have a July 2nd receipt date? for July 2 filers?
Notice date is when the receipt notice is generated- That's simple
Is receipt date the date when they do data entry into the system or is it the date when they receive the package even though they may do data entry a month later?
In other words people who filed there application on July 2nd,3rd etc ... and lets say USCIS takes 2 months to receipt those cases.. then after 2 months when the notice is generated won't it have a July 2nd receipt date? for July 2 filers?
gangster
07-18 01:44 PM
Contributed $100 and will sign up for monthly contrbution.
Thanks again IV and all members.
Thanks again IV and all members.
Ramba
10-21 06:18 PM
Thanks Ramba for your insights.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
Whatever the reasons - its apparent USCIS is not following the AC21 regulations and it is not fair. I believe, AC21 regulations are made with an objective of improving immigration rules for 21st century (and thus the name American Competetiveness for 21st century) and provide some mobility for the applicants while their GC applications are pending. The delay in application processing is still relevant (actually its more severe) - irrespective of whether its caused by processing or because of lack of visa numbers. AC21 regulations never mentioned about the origin of delay or the longivity of applicant with original company. Changing interpretation of a rule they made, that too without notice is unfair and maybe even unlawful.
So far I was thinking that its a case of misinformed IO rejecting I485 once they see a I140 revocation. But rejecting MTR on the grounds that employee has left the company on his/her own and so does not have intent of continuing in the job is just plain twisting of their own rules. And we need a much bigger effort - if its a case of a few misinformed USCIS employees incorrectly rejecting I485 - then it could have been fixed with a low key effort that we are doing. We are seeing more rejections based on unknown "interpretations" - and even MTR getting rejected - it kind of gives a feeling that they have a bigger agenda here and we need to fight on a bigger scale.
If a guy lawfully changed the job after 180 days of 485 filing, it is remain valid even if employer revokes already approved 140. Only solution to overcome this MTR, is taking this to court. In the case of dispute between employee and employer regarding "intent", the employee will have more leverage if he had a considerable period of employment relationship sponsor.
No comments:
Post a Comment