feedfront
10-07 12:27 PM
Received email about change in status to 'Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review'. USCIS should have received it yesterday and today it changed to response review.
RFE email: Sept 10, 2010
RFE received by attorney: Sept 21, 2010 [Civil Surgeon was not in current list of authorised civil surgeon + x-ray report was missing]
Reponse to RFE sent on : Oct 05, 2010 via USPS
Soft LUD/email: Oct 07, 2010 @10.30PM PST [Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review]
RFE email: Sept 10, 2010
RFE received by attorney: Sept 21, 2010 [Civil Surgeon was not in current list of authorised civil surgeon + x-ray report was missing]
Reponse to RFE sent on : Oct 05, 2010 via USPS
Soft LUD/email: Oct 07, 2010 @10.30PM PST [Your Case Status: Request for Evidence Response Review]
wallpaper Kim Kardashian#39;s Racy W
feedfront
09-20 12:06 PM
Does anyone know, how much attorney gonna charge to reply RFE?
Suva
08-10 02:06 PM
I am in.
2011 kim kardashian w cover photo.
virginian99
06-13 01:05 PM
Looks like Cirus is comming back. we should plan for our EB provisions...
Sens. McConnell & Lott on verge of passing amnesty -- unless you get in their way
THE U.S. HOUSE TODAY is dealing with many important immigration matters as it amends the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Your NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team is following this closely. You can follow all amendments and votes on our special VOTE DAY page. We update at least by the hour. If you see something you want to support or oppose, don't hesitate to call your U.S. Rep.
TO BEST FIGHT THE SENATE AMNESTY, read Rosemary Jenks' short summary of all the key elements of the S. 1348 Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill as introduced. Scroll down to BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Read short descriptions of all amendments the Senate has already passed to modify the bill. Scroll down to FINISHED VOTES.
Friends,
I regret to tell you that our victory of last Thursday night has eroded to almost nothing by this morning.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi have succeeded in twisting nearly enough GOP arms to assure Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) that they can deliver the votes to pass his S. 1348 amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
Here is the pitch that McConnell and Lott are said to be using -- and the pitch that only you can persuade Republican Senators to reject:
Lawmakers are being told that they must agree to vote for cloture on the amnesty in exchange for a chance to have some favorite amendments brought up OR they will lose a chance to "sit at the table" in final fashioning of this bill.
A senior GOP leadership aide confirmed that anti-amnesty Republicans are being told by Party leadership that they “need to get on board if they want to remain relevant.”
I have some actions related to Democratic Senators that I'll detail further in this email. But our most urgent work today is with GOP Senators.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE PHONED IN THE LAST MONTH, YOUR PHONE CALLS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED TODAY.
CALL SENATORS IN D.C.
202-224-3121
(If you live in Mississippi and Kentucky, I've already sent you your action opportunities. You have to take responsibility for the two Senators who at this moment are competing for the title of America's No. 1 and No. 2 Enemy. I am sending this alert to you so you have the additional information that is in it.)
TELL GOP SENATORS TO REFUSE 'A SEAT AT THE TABLE' AND TO REMAIN 'RELEVANT' BY PROTECTING THE WORKERS AND VOTERS OF THEIR STATE
Call their offices and tell them you have heard of the 'take-it-or-leave-it' deal they are being offered and that your advice is:
"Refuse a Seat at The Table If All They're Serving Is Rancid Mush."
Tell them that permanently legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens and giving them permanent access to our jobs is a dish not worth fussing over. No amount of seasoning or ingredient changing can make this dish palatable to the voters of your state.
Any amendment that would truly protect Americans would be killed by the Bush/Kennedy coalition.
No matter how many amendments are allowed for votes, the end result bill will be terrible -- maybe slightly less terrible than now, but still terrible. There is no point in trading away a YES vote on cloture for the chance to offer an amendment.
You must make it clear to every one of these Senators that they will be made to pay politically over and over the next year (maybe their whole careers) for a YES vote if this bill comes up again on cloture.
Remind them that Sen. McCain has seen his front-runner status in the Presidential primary race plummet because of his highly public support for this bill.
Why would any of these Senators want to carry around that same kind of baggage?
And tell your Senators that they have all the "relevance" they need by being the representative or your state in the U.S. Senate. They don't need George Bush or Karl Rove to give them relevance, especially if relevance has to come at the expense of principle.
EXPOSE AND CHALLENGE THE LIES THAT POLLS SHOW AMERICANS SUPPORT THIS AMNESTY
Yet more news media polls are being released purporting to show that the majority of the public supports this Senate amnesty bill. The big use of these polls by reporters and open-borders advocates is to supposedly prove that all of your phone calls are just a loud-mouthed minority.
The fact is that nearly all the media polls fail to offer people the choice of Attrition Through Enforcement.
When Americans are offered a choice between legalization, attrition or mass deportations, most Americans choose attrition. And an overhwelming portion choose either attrition or mass deportation.
You can find great backing of what I just said by going to our web page on polls.
OUR ARMY IS GROWING -- Let's Hold Back Disaster While We Recruit Another Army of Reinforcements
I hope you feel encouraged to know that another 4,081 Americans registered with NumbersUSA and immediately began faxing and phoning -- that was just yesterday, one day.
Day after day, the word is getting out. More and more Americans understand that they must take real action if they are to save their American quality of life.
We started the year with around 250,000 activist members. Barely a month ago, we hit the big 300,000 milestone. It looks like we will hit the 400,000 mark tomorrow!
In addition, we have a total email list of more than 1.5 million now.
Unfortunately, not everybody who connects, becomes a direct activist with us (although we assume they are having some influence among their friends and colleagues). And not all who register as activist members respond regularly to our Alerts. We know we probably need to have 2 million activist members to ensure that 500,000 are acting at any point. This is true of any organization. But we appreciate every one of you for whatever you are able to do. It all adds up to something strong.
Numbers of faxes you ordered the last two days:
Tuesday -- 89,776 faxes
Monday -- 61,647 faxes
HOLD ONTO OUR DEMOCRATIC ANTI-AMNESTY VOTES
It is imperative that we hold onto at least 9 of the 12 Democratic and Independent NO votes we got last Thursday on the cloture vote.
Phone these offices and urge them not to be taken in by the Republican leadership's pandering to Big Business lobbyists who are demanding to keep employing their 7-million-plus illegal workers and are demanding an amnesty for all the lawbreaking by the outlaw companies in the past.
Tell these Democrats that they are standing with the American workers on this and should be proud of their principled stand against Pres. Bush's dream of globalizing the American labor force.
THE 12 NON-REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST AMNESTY LAST WEEK
(* Up for re-election in 2008)
* Baucus (D-Mont.)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
* Landrieu (D-La.)
McCaskill (D-Mo.)
* Pryor (D-Ark.)
* Rockefeller(D-WV)
Sanders (I-Vt.)
Tester (D-Mont.)
Webb (D-Va.)
THE BASIC MATH
Last week, 45 Senators voted for cloture. It takes 60 votes for cloture to pass, thus ending a filibuster and allowing a final vote, which at this time would require at most 50 votes to pass.
The pro-amnesty Bush/Kennedy coalition has to persuade 15 Senators who voted NO last week to switch to YES if the cloture vote comes up again.
The only thing that can keep that from happening is an even larger outpouring of phone calls, faxes and local demonstrations at Senate offices, etc.
Sens. McConnell & Lott on verge of passing amnesty -- unless you get in their way
THE U.S. HOUSE TODAY is dealing with many important immigration matters as it amends the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Your NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team is following this closely. You can follow all amendments and votes on our special VOTE DAY page. We update at least by the hour. If you see something you want to support or oppose, don't hesitate to call your U.S. Rep.
TO BEST FIGHT THE SENATE AMNESTY, read Rosemary Jenks' short summary of all the key elements of the S. 1348 Bush/Kennedy amnesty bill as introduced. Scroll down to BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Read short descriptions of all amendments the Senate has already passed to modify the bill. Scroll down to FINISHED VOTES.
Friends,
I regret to tell you that our victory of last Thursday night has eroded to almost nothing by this morning.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi have succeeded in twisting nearly enough GOP arms to assure Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) that they can deliver the votes to pass his S. 1348 amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
Here is the pitch that McConnell and Lott are said to be using -- and the pitch that only you can persuade Republican Senators to reject:
Lawmakers are being told that they must agree to vote for cloture on the amnesty in exchange for a chance to have some favorite amendments brought up OR they will lose a chance to "sit at the table" in final fashioning of this bill.
A senior GOP leadership aide confirmed that anti-amnesty Republicans are being told by Party leadership that they “need to get on board if they want to remain relevant.”
I have some actions related to Democratic Senators that I'll detail further in this email. But our most urgent work today is with GOP Senators.
NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE PHONED IN THE LAST MONTH, YOUR PHONE CALLS ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED TODAY.
CALL SENATORS IN D.C.
202-224-3121
(If you live in Mississippi and Kentucky, I've already sent you your action opportunities. You have to take responsibility for the two Senators who at this moment are competing for the title of America's No. 1 and No. 2 Enemy. I am sending this alert to you so you have the additional information that is in it.)
TELL GOP SENATORS TO REFUSE 'A SEAT AT THE TABLE' AND TO REMAIN 'RELEVANT' BY PROTECTING THE WORKERS AND VOTERS OF THEIR STATE
Call their offices and tell them you have heard of the 'take-it-or-leave-it' deal they are being offered and that your advice is:
"Refuse a Seat at The Table If All They're Serving Is Rancid Mush."
Tell them that permanently legalizing 12-20 million illegal aliens and giving them permanent access to our jobs is a dish not worth fussing over. No amount of seasoning or ingredient changing can make this dish palatable to the voters of your state.
Any amendment that would truly protect Americans would be killed by the Bush/Kennedy coalition.
No matter how many amendments are allowed for votes, the end result bill will be terrible -- maybe slightly less terrible than now, but still terrible. There is no point in trading away a YES vote on cloture for the chance to offer an amendment.
You must make it clear to every one of these Senators that they will be made to pay politically over and over the next year (maybe their whole careers) for a YES vote if this bill comes up again on cloture.
Remind them that Sen. McCain has seen his front-runner status in the Presidential primary race plummet because of his highly public support for this bill.
Why would any of these Senators want to carry around that same kind of baggage?
And tell your Senators that they have all the "relevance" they need by being the representative or your state in the U.S. Senate. They don't need George Bush or Karl Rove to give them relevance, especially if relevance has to come at the expense of principle.
EXPOSE AND CHALLENGE THE LIES THAT POLLS SHOW AMERICANS SUPPORT THIS AMNESTY
Yet more news media polls are being released purporting to show that the majority of the public supports this Senate amnesty bill. The big use of these polls by reporters and open-borders advocates is to supposedly prove that all of your phone calls are just a loud-mouthed minority.
The fact is that nearly all the media polls fail to offer people the choice of Attrition Through Enforcement.
When Americans are offered a choice between legalization, attrition or mass deportations, most Americans choose attrition. And an overhwelming portion choose either attrition or mass deportation.
You can find great backing of what I just said by going to our web page on polls.
OUR ARMY IS GROWING -- Let's Hold Back Disaster While We Recruit Another Army of Reinforcements
I hope you feel encouraged to know that another 4,081 Americans registered with NumbersUSA and immediately began faxing and phoning -- that was just yesterday, one day.
Day after day, the word is getting out. More and more Americans understand that they must take real action if they are to save their American quality of life.
We started the year with around 250,000 activist members. Barely a month ago, we hit the big 300,000 milestone. It looks like we will hit the 400,000 mark tomorrow!
In addition, we have a total email list of more than 1.5 million now.
Unfortunately, not everybody who connects, becomes a direct activist with us (although we assume they are having some influence among their friends and colleagues). And not all who register as activist members respond regularly to our Alerts. We know we probably need to have 2 million activist members to ensure that 500,000 are acting at any point. This is true of any organization. But we appreciate every one of you for whatever you are able to do. It all adds up to something strong.
Numbers of faxes you ordered the last two days:
Tuesday -- 89,776 faxes
Monday -- 61,647 faxes
HOLD ONTO OUR DEMOCRATIC ANTI-AMNESTY VOTES
It is imperative that we hold onto at least 9 of the 12 Democratic and Independent NO votes we got last Thursday on the cloture vote.
Phone these offices and urge them not to be taken in by the Republican leadership's pandering to Big Business lobbyists who are demanding to keep employing their 7-million-plus illegal workers and are demanding an amnesty for all the lawbreaking by the outlaw companies in the past.
Tell these Democrats that they are standing with the American workers on this and should be proud of their principled stand against Pres. Bush's dream of globalizing the American labor force.
THE 12 NON-REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST AMNESTY LAST WEEK
(* Up for re-election in 2008)
* Baucus (D-Mont.)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
* Landrieu (D-La.)
McCaskill (D-Mo.)
* Pryor (D-Ark.)
* Rockefeller(D-WV)
Sanders (I-Vt.)
Tester (D-Mont.)
Webb (D-Va.)
THE BASIC MATH
Last week, 45 Senators voted for cloture. It takes 60 votes for cloture to pass, thus ending a filibuster and allowing a final vote, which at this time would require at most 50 votes to pass.
The pro-amnesty Bush/Kennedy coalition has to persuade 15 Senators who voted NO last week to switch to YES if the cloture vote comes up again.
The only thing that can keep that from happening is an even larger outpouring of phone calls, faxes and local demonstrations at Senate offices, etc.
more...
pappu
02-11 08:44 PM
141,020 visa numbers used in FY2009
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Good to see your post. :) Your posts are very helpful and educational to IV members Thank you.
If someone thinks visas are being wasted please send us the proof and IV will take action.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY09AnnualReport_TableV.pdf
Look at the last page.
The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is 140,000. So the usage was actually more.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
Good to see your post. :) Your posts are very helpful and educational to IV members Thank you.
If someone thinks visas are being wasted please send us the proof and IV will take action.
Gravitation
02-20 05:18 PM
Ok guys before you shoot it down heres my calc for EB2 pending apps from 2000 to Dec 2003. Obviously its a rough estimate, who knows how many eb3s switched, labor subs etc etc etc.
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
I had done some calculations long ago, it guestimated that 5~6% of people are registered with traciitt.
From pending apps from 2000 to 2003 dec are about 96. Assume represents 1% of total population so it would be 9600. Each app has about 1.5 dependents so about 15,000? If you assume as lower say 0.5% then number would obviously increase to 29,000.
Ok now shoot me down.
I had done some calculations long ago, it guestimated that 5~6% of people are registered with traciitt.
more...
Jaime
09-10 12:54 PM
There are thousands
2010 kim kardashian w magazine cover 2011. kim kardashian w cover photo.
imh1b
11-19 10:34 AM
why cant they spell out the damn rule.. instead of leaving it out for speculations...
insane!
Did you file the lawsuit yet?
Someone please update on the lawsuit to enforce visa spill over
insane!
Did you file the lawsuit yet?
Someone please update on the lawsuit to enforce visa spill over
more...
vicsthedude
09-17 03:14 PM
I changed employer and location. So I was asked to clarify the location change if I am still with the sponsoring employer or submit a letter from a current employer stating duties salary etc. Replied to them and they are evaluating the response.
hair kim kardashian w cover silver.
eager_immi
07-05 12:59 PM
This poll is useless. Majority people on this website don'y pay a dime, for obvious reasons they want this to to be an unpaid site. Not that I care either way since I have done what I think is right.
No need to conduct this poll. What's your point? go by the
majority if they say no?
Make it 20$ per month and be done with it. Those who couldn't do this
are unlikely to be helpful anyway.
No need to conduct this poll. What's your point? go by the
majority if they say no?
Make it 20$ per month and be done with it. Those who couldn't do this
are unlikely to be helpful anyway.
more...
rockstart
03-13 09:44 AM
Has any one working on EAD experienced delays in renewals and how does HR department react to such delay's. Least on H1 it is clear that you can work for 8 months on receipt.
hot kim kardashian w cover silver
BharatPremi
09-26 10:08 AM
It is not about politics, it is about ignorance of the people (including reporters). It is explainable, though - what do you know about... I don't know, laws around transporting hazardous materials, something you have never been exposed or subject to? Next to nothing. That's what an average American knows about immigration - their closest brush with that law was when their co-worker adopted a child from abroad. Of course, they do not know the difference between worker visas, and employment based immigrant visas (don't they even sound alike?).
Hermione,
How confident are you to call them "Ignorant".... It could be very planned and calculative agenda. Writer writes in CNN. Never ever be ignorant about their tactful agenda, capacity and wilful application of the polity.
I belive, IV MUST talk to CNN and force them to accept the "error" in that article publicly by publishing at earliest.
Hermione,
How confident are you to call them "Ignorant".... It could be very planned and calculative agenda. Writer writes in CNN. Never ever be ignorant about their tactful agenda, capacity and wilful application of the polity.
I belive, IV MUST talk to CNN and force them to accept the "error" in that article publicly by publishing at earliest.
more...
house kim kardashian w cover photo.
pappu
12-13 01:12 PM
Pappu has doused the fire..:(
Thanks for understanding. sorry though for disappointing you.
I must say that the motivation and drive in members is great these days. Last week's effort has had positive effect on all of us and united us. Let us all use this energy sphere we have created to help make this organization strong and take part in the current action items.
Thanks for understanding. sorry though for disappointing you.
I must say that the motivation and drive in members is great these days. Last week's effort has had positive effect on all of us and united us. Let us all use this energy sphere we have created to help make this organization strong and take part in the current action items.
tattoo kim kardashian w cover
Madhuri
04-02 03:41 PM
You are absolutely right about rippling effect. I personally know someone, yet to graduate, yet to get OPT also, but got trained in ETL/Datawarehousing before graduation, got a job thr' desi shop as a H1 consultant with 6 years experience. I was really shocked to see the level to which people can lie. I am sure their lies won't stand in critical work situations when REAL exp. is warrented. But the damage is already done.
[QUOTE=imv116]
Nothing wrong, but just the fact that hiring becomes difficult and and people with genuine experience will also have to go through stringent hiring procedures. Say someone really has 8 years experience and someone is faking 8 years experience, both are competing for the same job and as a hiring manager, if the job is filled with someone with fake exp and this person does not perform, it will have a rippling effect. I have seen this happen.
[QUOTE=imv116]
Nothing wrong, but just the fact that hiring becomes difficult and and people with genuine experience will also have to go through stringent hiring procedures. Say someone really has 8 years experience and someone is faking 8 years experience, both are competing for the same job and as a hiring manager, if the job is filled with someone with fake exp and this person does not perform, it will have a rippling effect. I have seen this happen.
more...
pictures kim kardashian w cover photo.
sparky_jones
03-12 08:30 AM
This once again proves that most of the popular immigration attorneys and other parties claiming to have "inside" information really don't have much more access to information than the rest of us.
dresses Kim Kardashian#39;s W Cover Is
crazyghoda
01-16 04:27 PM
My layoff was much less traumatizing at the instant.
I was in India on vacation and one fine day I check my work email to see an email that I was let go a day earlier with 2 weeks of severance.
Luckily I had my AP with me which is what I used to return back instead of the H1. Needless to add my entire remainder of the vacation was ruined in between obsessing about how to come back (try using the H1 even though laid off or use the AP and face secondary inspections) and applying to new jobs.
Well I am back now and looking everywhere. Hopefully something should click soon.
All the best guys!
I was in India on vacation and one fine day I check my work email to see an email that I was let go a day earlier with 2 weeks of severance.
Luckily I had my AP with me which is what I used to return back instead of the H1. Needless to add my entire remainder of the vacation was ruined in between obsessing about how to come back (try using the H1 even though laid off or use the AP and face secondary inspections) and applying to new jobs.
Well I am back now and looking everywhere. Hopefully something should click soon.
All the best guys!
more...
makeup hairstyles kim kardashian w
amitjoey
11-11 01:49 PM
YES! We can, we should go to court. But time and again, IV Core (I am not one) has evaluated individual issues and told us that we dont have a strong enough case to justify the money involved. If and only IF we have a strong case, we can get media attention, we should spend the money. Otherwise the money is well spent lobbying. We are talking 50k and more.
Do you know how effort intensive taking USCIS to court is. We are talking about complete dedication of our time and resources. We are talking about 10-15 committed IV members spending a minimum of 15 hours every week researching, doing paper work with the lawyers. Also, we would need volunteers to come forward give interviews, appear in court (if need be), travel and stay out of home.
We have trouble getting members go to their local lawmakers office to petition and lobby. Should we not first prove to IV Core that we can come up with 15 committed members and atleast $10k.
I do not want to discourage anyone in going this route, infact I want us to sue USCIS, BUT before we do that we should all first go and meet our lawmakers. Get some attention to the issue, maybe we submit this letter to their offices while we are there.
Do you know how effort intensive taking USCIS to court is. We are talking about complete dedication of our time and resources. We are talking about 10-15 committed IV members spending a minimum of 15 hours every week researching, doing paper work with the lawyers. Also, we would need volunteers to come forward give interviews, appear in court (if need be), travel and stay out of home.
We have trouble getting members go to their local lawmakers office to petition and lobby. Should we not first prove to IV Core that we can come up with 15 committed members and atleast $10k.
I do not want to discourage anyone in going this route, infact I want us to sue USCIS, BUT before we do that we should all first go and meet our lawmakers. Get some attention to the issue, maybe we submit this letter to their offices while we are there.
girlfriend Image: Kim Kardashian
return_to_india
10-10 05:42 PM
It is unreasonable to carry a passport at all times when you are living here. What happens if you leave it behind in the grocery store by mistake or leave it in the cab or something? I think the issue reported by the OP is more relevant close to the border. Nobody asks for your passport in Vegas or Denver.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
I would advise US govt. to build a system where officers can verify legality by checking the biometrics ( some handheld devices that connect to a DB ) , which should free up one to carry documents while on domestic travel. If biometrics cannot be found then proceed to grill on docs.
hairstyles Kim Kardashian Covers W
Eternal_Hope
12-10 01:56 PM
Another reason for the slow movement is people getting married.. a spouse potentially accounts for yet another visa number and this adds to the unpredictability of the system. It gets even worse with non-US born kids.
The solution to all our visa backlog issues is:
1. Stop marrying.......
2. Dont have children ...or atleast not in your home country
Brilliant!
The solution to all our visa backlog issues is:
1. Stop marrying.......
2. Dont have children ...or atleast not in your home country
Brilliant!
CADude
02-21 11:19 AM
Your friends lawyer is stupid. I know many who are GC holder by converting. File new EB2 LCA and Port the EB3 date in I140 filing. Nothing wrong with it. My company (F 500) don't do it by some crap policy. I am still waiting since PD 2001 to see light. Why? Because EB2 India is always current but EB3 India PD is May 2001 or before from last 3 years. So if possible take advantage or I am living example. Waiting from 8+ years. Sorry for venting.. :)
My co-worker tried that and now has 3 RFE's to respond to.
Don't know the details but mostly it looks like a scam since why did one file Eb3 in first place and how can he add more exp. while Eb3 is pending as a factor for EB2? He is respondign since OCT. but they just keep asking for more details and they have first question for 140/PERM asking - DID YOU EVER HAD ANOTHER LABOR certification besides this one?
Be very careful-
My co-worker tried that and now has 3 RFE's to respond to.
Don't know the details but mostly it looks like a scam since why did one file Eb3 in first place and how can he add more exp. while Eb3 is pending as a factor for EB2? He is respondign since OCT. but they just keep asking for more details and they have first question for 140/PERM asking - DID YOU EVER HAD ANOTHER LABOR certification besides this one?
Be very careful-
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============