gchope07
06-21 09:18 PM
In filing for I-485 no one has mentioned copy of I-140 or copy of Labor cert.
My question is how does USCIS tally an AOS application to an already approved I-140 or labor certifcation and find out the PD for the application?
My question is how does USCIS tally an AOS application to an already approved I-140 or labor certifcation and find out the PD for the application?
wallpaper hairstyles transformers dark
man-woman-and-gc
01-13 11:54 AM
Also, I have talked to atleast 3 more Colorado IV members who are going to write the letters in the next couple of days.
pappu
08-04 06:10 PM
more info
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/garrity071003.htm
Compare the times with the latest ombudsman report.
==========
FBI name checks blamed for immigration benefits delays
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
By Elizabeth Newell enewell@nationaljournal.com June 22, 2007
The ombudsman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in a report released last week, cited the untimely completion of FBI name checks as a primary cause of delays in granting immigration benefits to applicants.
"FBI name checks, one of the security screening tools used by USCIS, continue to significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reduction efforts and may not achieve their intended national security objectives," USCIS ombudsman Prakash said in his annual report, presented to the House and Senate Judiciary committees on June 11.
According to the report, 64 percent of the 329,160 FBI name check cases pending from USCIS have been waiting more than 90 days, and 32 percent are more than one year old. There are more than 31,000 cases that have been pending longer than 33 months.
In his report, said the name check delays are caused by the fact that some require manual review by the FBI and the agency does not have the resources to complete these reviews quickly.
In an e-mail to Government Executive, FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the National Name Check Program is doing a number of things to improve the process, including scanning documents to build an electronic records system and testing textual analysis software to reduce the need for manual review.
The FBI also is working to develop a Central Records Complex to house paperwork and files.
"Currently, paper files [and] information must be retrieved from over 265 locations throughout the FBI," Bresson said. "The CRC will expedite access to information contained in billions of documents that are currently manually accessed in locations around the U.S. and world."
To decrease the FBI workload, recommended that USCIS adopt a risk-based approach to name checks, allowing the FBI to focus its limited resources on applicants posing the greatest threat. Currently, all immigration and naturalization applicants go through the name-check process.
"Name checks do not differentiate whether the individual has been in the United States for many years or a few days, is from and/or has traveled frequently to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or is a member of the U.S. military," said in his report.
He said in an interview that while the safety of U.S. citizens is the primary concern of the Homeland Security Department, of which USCIS is a part, it is crucial to use a risk management model to ensure that resources are allocated logically.
"That has to be used as the filtration system to really look at any of our protective measures," said. "There are times when protection can come at such a cost that it's just not worth spending that much money in that area, that it's better to spend it where we can have more effect."
The process of applying for immigrant benefits includes a number of other background checks, and 's report questioned whether the FBI name checks are useful in their current form, especially given the delay they cause.
He said he agrees with USCIS case workers and field office supervisors that "the FBI name check process has limited value to public safety or national security, especially because in almost every case the applicant is in the United States during the name check process, living or working without restriction."
This is the fourth annual report from the ombudsman, whose position was established under the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The act requires the ombudsman to submit annual reports to Congress identifying serious and pervasive problems within USCIS and making recommendations to fix them. The agency is obligated to respond formally to the annual report within three months.
While says he received last year's response more than eight months late, USCIS acknowledged receipt of the report and an agency spokesperson said officials are in the process of reviewing the recommendations.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062207e1.htm
==============
2011 transformers dark of the moon
soni7007
08-07 12:54 PM
U are saying - The person's GC category should be same all through out the GC process, irrespective of the technical advancements the person make during the course of the GC process. A person is porting only because he is qualified for the category, U folks are talking as if there is an open slot and everyone is clamoring for it.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
U'r logic should be similar to the below scenario..
A person joins a company as a Jr. Engineer, then based on U'r logic he/she cannot become a Manager (which requires an MBA / equivalent) because he entered the workforce as a Jr. Engg. Even though the fellow would've acquired necessary skills and even MBA (going part-time to school), still he/she cannot become a Manager. U are vouching that an MBA who joined few months earlier can become the Manager but not the home groomed fellow. Wow, U'r logic seems to a ground breaking thought process, please extrapolate U'r lawsuit for the case mentioned above. If you win, this might be the most ground breaking decision in US.
Personally I've reported to folks who joined company as high-school grads and worked their way up to Managerial position ofcoz acquiring the necessary college education while working. They have shown up those experience to move ahead of other folks who joined later with higher degrees.
sunnysurya and rollingflood,
Rather than focusing on divisive efforts why can't you focus on real problem - retrogression. Why don't you work towards IV's goals? You folks joined the forum few months back and have already made great impact. Hope you would channel U'r energy into something positive for the entire community.
Ok, i will try to make it as simple as possible:
2 guys (names - JE and MBA respectively) graduate with BS in Engineering in 2001.
Both go to USA in 2002.
JE goes on H1B (as Junior Engineer) while MBA goes for an MBA on F1.
In 2003, JEs company files for his GC, PD 2003, EB3
In 2004, MBA graduates and joins a company as a manager.
In 2005, MBA's company applies for his GC in EB2, PD 2005.
So far so good.
Now, it is 2008. Both are still waiting for their GC.
Ideally, both are in same position (they should be, as both have same amount of exposure to professional world after undergrad - one replaced the work experience by higher degree and vice-versa).
Now, JE wants to port his PD and get into EB2 category with PD 2003. This will make him exactly 2 years ahead of MBA. If he doesn't port, they are approximately in the same situation, so the chances of them getting a GC in 2009 will be same.
What do you think is fair?
P.S. - I do not support this lawsuit.
more...
anilsal
06-21 02:05 PM
Got "No" from lawyers from both sides.
mariusp
06-29 07:23 PM
No you're not the first one. There are about 15,000 others that found out about this before you. Check out the front page. Stop reposting the same crap all over again.
more...
l1fraud
06-16 10:32 PM
PM me L1fraud i would like to help. Because of L1 misuse lot of people are loosing jobs.
Done check uer PM.
Done check uer PM.
2010 makeup Dark of the Moon
royus77
06-29 06:08 PM
To make it look politically correct, I guess the new revised buletin won't be out till the end of 1st week july. They will make it look natural and stop taking new applications from 9th. :D
let hope for that
let hope for that
more...
kumarc123
08-07 11:52 AM
Man...looks like you will turn anti-immigrant once you get US citizenship.
Whats your real problem?
HAHa:)
Good one
Whats your real problem?
HAHa:)
Good one
hair Transformers 3 Dark Of The
pat123
09-20 03:28 PM
NSC
RD: 7/20/2007
ND: 9/19/2007
So our NDs are very close to each other (9/17,18,19), perhaps it is pre-adjudication that is going on? Are y'all NSC as well?
I am not sure what is happening. When I went to USCIS during Infopass, the officer at the time told me that my case will be looked upon when the notice date comes up.
MY priority date is april25 2006 and the notice date was 09/18/2007. I didn't believe him. Even I raised the question in one of the forums and other guys shot me down saying the notice date is not important. But now I got an LUD on 09/19/2007 and that was the reason why I raised this question to you as well as HIINVIN66. I am assuming that the applications are looked upon based on the notice dates. If they under EB2, pre adjudcated and visa numbers availaible, MAY BE MAYBE we get green cards. IF not, We have to keep our fingers crossed. Let see what happens.....
RD: 7/20/2007
ND: 9/19/2007
So our NDs are very close to each other (9/17,18,19), perhaps it is pre-adjudication that is going on? Are y'all NSC as well?
I am not sure what is happening. When I went to USCIS during Infopass, the officer at the time told me that my case will be looked upon when the notice date comes up.
MY priority date is april25 2006 and the notice date was 09/18/2007. I didn't believe him. Even I raised the question in one of the forums and other guys shot me down saying the notice date is not important. But now I got an LUD on 09/19/2007 and that was the reason why I raised this question to you as well as HIINVIN66. I am assuming that the applications are looked upon based on the notice dates. If they under EB2, pre adjudcated and visa numbers availaible, MAY BE MAYBE we get green cards. IF not, We have to keep our fingers crossed. Let see what happens.....
more...
GCOP
08-20 01:17 PM
Can you please mention the source or any basis of 50 to 60 K applications pending before October 2003. I am interested to know this because my PD is also EB-3 (India), October 2003. Thanks.
hot The third “Transformers”
prinive
07-09 06:36 PM
The campaign already made the point. Guys this campaign is great sucess. we are able to get a massage from the lion from its den. :rolleyes:
more...
house TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON
Wendyzhu77
08-21 11:04 AM
I don't think it will do much good sueing uscis on this issue. The point is, they have the legal authority to be the one interporating the law. So, if there is "gray area" in the law, the law says it is their understanding that matters, not ours or any one else's. So, unless the law very specifically says it must be done in another way, you can not argue uscis did the wrong thing.
Now that we see the immigration law does not very specifically regulate how the flow should be like, so uscis have the authority to "understand the intention of the law" and act accordingly. You can't say you think the law means otherwise and thus sue uscis, because that argument makes no sense to the court. The court will only accept the argument when the government is apparently acting against the law.
Absolutely, I have seen misleading comments especially from EB2 guys. EB3 have to do something otherwise there is no future for us here. Now EB2 line will never end bcoz all new applications will come as EB2. Hoping for spillover after EB2-I becomes current is just a dream now that never comes true.
Now that we see the immigration law does not very specifically regulate how the flow should be like, so uscis have the authority to "understand the intention of the law" and act accordingly. You can't say you think the law means otherwise and thus sue uscis, because that argument makes no sense to the court. The court will only accept the argument when the government is apparently acting against the law.
Absolutely, I have seen misleading comments especially from EB2 guys. EB3 have to do something otherwise there is no future for us here. Now EB2 line will never end bcoz all new applications will come as EB2. Hoping for spillover after EB2-I becomes current is just a dream now that never comes true.
tattoo Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Lasantha
05-15 12:33 PM
Thanks for the reply..Sanju.
Would you know if you were to use AC21 after 180 days of filing 485, to change employer what you would need..?
Do you need to change H1-B ???
Thanks
Hey Buddy, as far as I know when you use AC21 you loose your non-immigrant status but start working leagally. So changing H1 to the new company is not needed.
And as far as I can think, if you change your H1 to a new company at that pont it might even affect negatively on your green card process. Please check that with a lawyer.
Would you know if you were to use AC21 after 180 days of filing 485, to change employer what you would need..?
Do you need to change H1-B ???
Thanks
Hey Buddy, as far as I know when you use AC21 you loose your non-immigrant status but start working leagally. So changing H1 to the new company is not needed.
And as far as I can think, if you change your H1 to a new company at that pont it might even affect negatively on your green card process. Please check that with a lawyer.
more...
pictures Dark of the Moon
Cheran
04-24 04:04 PM
This guy doesn't have a clue. He is deviating so much from the core US policy, I don't know where it might end. I wonder whether we are better off with the last one????
dresses Transformers Dark of
rodnyb
04-01 10:31 PM
If in Vegas, I will bet this total usage for EB2 I/C this year
EB1 20K (50% reduction from 40K)
EB2 ROW 10K (last year 9K, this year, some reduction)
EB5 8K (same as last year)
EB2 I/C 6K (5800 exact, regular supply)
Total 44K
Eb3 Porting 6K
New filing 2K (ppl who missed 07/2007 w/ PD before 07/2007, dependent)
Total usage 8K
EB2I/C demand before 07/31/2007
DOS, for having some buffer to counter (denial, RFEs, assuming little as most pre-adjudicated) will move PD for EB2/I
May 2011 12/2006
June 2011 2/2007
July 2011 6/2007
August 2011 8/2007
Remember, CIS can take in new applicants in August 2011 but don't have to approve it.
It will end between 06/2007 to 09/2007 almost 100%
Can we try and consolidate the predictions by Teddy, Rodnyb, GCwait2007 and others who did some major number crunching (not armchair predictors like me).
Teddy, based on what we know now especially the past few days, can you give your average, best, and worst case estimate for September 2011. Same for rodnyb and GCwait2007. Thanks!
Also importantly, if you could comment on the PD for EB3-I/C and EB-2 I/C in October 2011 once this year is over. Will we see it retrogress or current and what's your average case for the dates then.
EB1 20K (50% reduction from 40K)
EB2 ROW 10K (last year 9K, this year, some reduction)
EB5 8K (same as last year)
EB2 I/C 6K (5800 exact, regular supply)
Total 44K
Eb3 Porting 6K
New filing 2K (ppl who missed 07/2007 w/ PD before 07/2007, dependent)
Total usage 8K
EB2I/C demand before 07/31/2007
DOS, for having some buffer to counter (denial, RFEs, assuming little as most pre-adjudicated) will move PD for EB2/I
May 2011 12/2006
June 2011 2/2007
July 2011 6/2007
August 2011 8/2007
Remember, CIS can take in new applicants in August 2011 but don't have to approve it.
It will end between 06/2007 to 09/2007 almost 100%
Can we try and consolidate the predictions by Teddy, Rodnyb, GCwait2007 and others who did some major number crunching (not armchair predictors like me).
Teddy, based on what we know now especially the past few days, can you give your average, best, and worst case estimate for September 2011. Same for rodnyb and GCwait2007. Thanks!
Also importantly, if you could comment on the PD for EB3-I/C and EB-2 I/C in October 2011 once this year is over. Will we see it retrogress or current and what's your average case for the dates then.
more...
makeup These CGI creations exist only
kamdard
01-03 05:09 AM
I also had my visa interview on 27-DEC-2007 @Mumbai (h1-b/h-4 renewal) and was told that I will receive an email in 2 business days, subsequent to which I will have to go to VSF office for getting my visa stamped.
Its been 6 business days and am yet to receive an email..I contacted VSF in Mumbai and they told me that all the H1-B applicants are in the same boat and they could not predict any time line...Planning to call the US-consulate tomorrow to see if they can provide some timeline..I already have rescheduled my return flight to US...If things continue this bad, am planning to use my AP to travel back to the US.
Regards,
DK.
Its been 6 business days and am yet to receive an email..I contacted VSF in Mumbai and they told me that all the H1-B applicants are in the same boat and they could not predict any time line...Planning to call the US-consulate tomorrow to see if they can provide some timeline..I already have rescheduled my return flight to US...If things continue this bad, am planning to use my AP to travel back to the US.
Regards,
DK.
girlfriend YouTube - amp;#x202a;Transformers
english_august
07-11 01:27 AM
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Skilled%2C_legal_immigrants_send_Protest_Blooms
hairstyles transformers dark of the moon
akred
07-15 03:20 PM
I was able to find a good source of H1B data.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedoc...cteristics.pdf (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf)
Some nuggets for FY 2005:
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment: 117,536
H1B petitions for intial employment where the alien was in the US: 62,292 (53%)
This is a good proxy number for H1B for applications filed by students who have studied in the US.
54% of applicants have a master's, doctorate or professional degree. 45% of applicants have a bachelor's degree
43% (a minority) of applications are from Computer Related Occupations
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations: $60,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for initial employment: $50,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for continuing employment: $68,000
This proves that H1B employees have the power to negotiate raises and secure better working conditions as the median compensation for continuing employment is 36% higher than that for initial employment.
After seeing this data and considering the definition of median compensation, I think a good way to approach the problem of fraud is to audit all employers paying 5% below the median for the occupation.
For e.g. if the employer happened to fall into the low compensation bucket for FY 2005, then all applications from that employer for FY 2006 would face greater scrutiny.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedoc...cteristics.pdf (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/H1B_FY05_Characteristics.pdf)
Some nuggets for FY 2005:
Number of H1B petitions approved for initial employment: 117,536
H1B petitions for intial employment where the alien was in the US: 62,292 (53%)
This is a good proxy number for H1B for applications filed by students who have studied in the US.
54% of applicants have a master's, doctorate or professional degree. 45% of applicants have a bachelor's degree
43% (a minority) of applications are from Computer Related Occupations
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations: $60,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for initial employment: $50,000
Median salary for H1B in computer related occupations for continuing employment: $68,000
This proves that H1B employees have the power to negotiate raises and secure better working conditions as the median compensation for continuing employment is 36% higher than that for initial employment.
After seeing this data and considering the definition of median compensation, I think a good way to approach the problem of fraud is to audit all employers paying 5% below the median for the occupation.
For e.g. if the employer happened to fall into the low compensation bucket for FY 2005, then all applications from that employer for FY 2006 would face greater scrutiny.
english_august
07-09 07:08 PM
Of course the flower campaign worked.
How many times have we been able to elicit a response from USCIS? Or queries from so many different news organizations. The idea was to take a collective action and get media attention and that's exactly what we got, didn't we?
How many times have we been able to elicit a response from USCIS? Or queries from so many different news organizations. The idea was to take a collective action and get media attention and that's exactly what we got, didn't we?
mallu
01-26 01:25 PM
It really is amazing how much hot air has been generated on this thread over a well established transit visa requirement.
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
If one doesn't like transit policy of a country, just avoid that transit point, rather than putting curse on that country ( or try changing the policy of that country through democratic means, if one can ).
The reason transit visas are required in the UK is that many passengers with an intention to transit the UK have stayed. The transit visa was introduced as a way of making sure (as much as possible) that the passenger has the intention and the ability to transit the UK and to enter a third country.
The list of nationals that are required to have a visa to transit the UK represents a list of countries where there has been a particular problem with over stayers. It is not race based, but merely an effort to target the problem.
It really does not matter what anyone thinks about the transit visa requirement because it is UK law. Everyone has a choice whether or not to transit the UK. Going back to the original post, to book a ticket without researching visa requirements and then trying to deflect personal responsibility by blaming the visa requirement is ridiculous.
If one doesn't like transit policy of a country, just avoid that transit point, rather than putting curse on that country ( or try changing the policy of that country through democratic means, if one can ).
