pani_6
08-25 10:36 AM
So after all this Is it flower, calls or Letter or all??..15 days counting for the next bullettin..:confused:
wallpaper North Korean leader Kim
cbpds
04-06 01:22 PM
Admin, please ban PoimibokInorn
nkavjs
09-25 12:35 PM
ok. did your attorney mark a copy of your I-485 application along with I-131 applications. They shd have Alien numbers on it.
Holdon. I am checking my copies to share details.
BRB
Holdon. I am checking my copies to share details.
BRB
2011 March 10, 2009 — North Korea
pappu
11-22 07:50 PM
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Tao%2011-7-07.pdf
Plaintiff suggests that the fact that her application
has been pending for nearly three years is patently
unreasonable. She argues that Congress intended
applications to be adjudicated within 180 days. See 8
U.S.C. � 1571(b) ("It is the sense of Congress that the
processing of an immigration benefit application should
be completed not later than 180 days after the initial
filing of the application . . .."). That [*10] 180-day
timetable may provide some guidance here, although the
"sense of Congress" expressed in INA Section 1571(b)
does not necessarily carry the force of law. See Yang v.
California Dep't of Social Servs., 183 F.3d 953, 958-59
(9th Cir. 1999).
Defendants argue that there is no statutory deadline
by which applications must be adjudicated and that, in
any event, the "first-in, first-out" protocol must be given
deference. True, Congress has not established a
mandatory timeframe for the USCIS to adjudicate
applications. Moreover, "'[t]he passage of time alone is
rarely enough to justify a court's intervention in the
administrative process, especially since administrative
efficiency is not a subject particularly suited to judicial
evaluation.'" Yu, 36 F. Supp.2d at 934 (quoting Singh v.
Ilchert, 784 F. Supp. 759, 764-65 (N.D. Cal. 1992)).
However, the court also recognizes that there is no
precise formula for determining whether there has been
an unreasonable delay. Instead, "[w]hat constitutes an
unreasonable delay in the context of immigration
applications depends to a great extent on the facts of the
particular case." Id.
Plaintiff suggests that the fact that her application
has been pending for nearly three years is patently
unreasonable. She argues that Congress intended
applications to be adjudicated within 180 days. See 8
U.S.C. � 1571(b) ("It is the sense of Congress that the
processing of an immigration benefit application should
be completed not later than 180 days after the initial
filing of the application . . .."). That [*10] 180-day
timetable may provide some guidance here, although the
"sense of Congress" expressed in INA Section 1571(b)
does not necessarily carry the force of law. See Yang v.
California Dep't of Social Servs., 183 F.3d 953, 958-59
(9th Cir. 1999).
Defendants argue that there is no statutory deadline
by which applications must be adjudicated and that, in
any event, the "first-in, first-out" protocol must be given
deference. True, Congress has not established a
mandatory timeframe for the USCIS to adjudicate
applications. Moreover, "'[t]he passage of time alone is
rarely enough to justify a court's intervention in the
administrative process, especially since administrative
efficiency is not a subject particularly suited to judicial
evaluation.'" Yu, 36 F. Supp.2d at 934 (quoting Singh v.
Ilchert, 784 F. Supp. 759, 764-65 (N.D. Cal. 1992)).
However, the court also recognizes that there is no
precise formula for determining whether there has been
an unreasonable delay. Instead, "[w]hat constitutes an
unreasonable delay in the context of immigration
applications depends to a great extent on the facts of the
particular case." Id.
more...
snathan
03-30 05:43 PM
If USCIS is providing spillover visas to EB2 in May, shouldn't the PDs of China and India (countries with most demand) have the same PDs in May VB? Doesn't this also mean that in the worst case the PD of EB2 India will be Jul 22 2006 (the current PD of China) in May VB?
-CinBoy
First they will move India to July 22 2006, if there are more visa numbers both I/C will move togather.
-CinBoy
First they will move India to July 22 2006, if there are more visa numbers both I/C will move togather.
theonlyron
01-05 10:56 PM
This is really good news.. Can you please provide more details of your case?
- was it first H1/H4 stamping or renewal?
- do you have I140/I-485 application filed?
- did your employer do anything to inform the US consulate in advance about visa stamping?
thanks in advance,
H1 Visa renewal (with a new employer)...earlier H1 visa was stamped in Toronto.
I-140 pending at NSC since March 07
Category is Schedule A (now EB3)
I-485 pending at TSC, EAD and AP approved.
There was no communication between the consulate and my employer. I guess it was just luck.
- was it first H1/H4 stamping or renewal?
- do you have I140/I-485 application filed?
- did your employer do anything to inform the US consulate in advance about visa stamping?
thanks in advance,
H1 Visa renewal (with a new employer)...earlier H1 visa was stamped in Toronto.
I-140 pending at NSC since March 07
Category is Schedule A (now EB3)
I-485 pending at TSC, EAD and AP approved.
There was no communication between the consulate and my employer. I guess it was just luck.
more...
gcgreen
08-07 02:09 PM
actually it does matter, right. what happens if the dates retrogress significantly for EB2 again, because of the influx of EB3 to EB2 ports? Then EB2 folks with later priority dates will miss the boat.
But the question is whether the EB2 folks who are missing out are getting an "unfair" deal. That is debatable.
Let us assume that EB2 is going to be current in a year or even sooner than that. Given that situation, and arguing that about 500 people jumped ahead into line over you in to EB2 from EB3, still I do not foresee that their GC's will be approved before the people who are already in line, because
1) as FIFO is not being followed by USCIS, probably they are processing cases based on RD,
2) PD porting is effectively done at the time the second I-140 IS APPROVED. At I-485 stage you can only hope to PD recapture and cross your fingers after sending a no fee letter. This will surely would need additional scrutiny, hence is not a so called 'Low hanging fruit'. Even if an EB3 person wants to start his process right now, it will not be probably before a year and half to two years before he/she is ready to port, and by that time you are past the gate or significantly nearer.
so my point of view is if you look at this thing negatively, you would have a Heartburn and related health issues, but if you are positive and an optimist you would deserve what you get.
stay healthy! that is more important than stressing yourself on issues which in the long term do not matter really. (You will get GC on or two rears later in the worst case scenario). cheer up folks:D:D:D
But the question is whether the EB2 folks who are missing out are getting an "unfair" deal. That is debatable.
Let us assume that EB2 is going to be current in a year or even sooner than that. Given that situation, and arguing that about 500 people jumped ahead into line over you in to EB2 from EB3, still I do not foresee that their GC's will be approved before the people who are already in line, because
1) as FIFO is not being followed by USCIS, probably they are processing cases based on RD,
2) PD porting is effectively done at the time the second I-140 IS APPROVED. At I-485 stage you can only hope to PD recapture and cross your fingers after sending a no fee letter. This will surely would need additional scrutiny, hence is not a so called 'Low hanging fruit'. Even if an EB3 person wants to start his process right now, it will not be probably before a year and half to two years before he/she is ready to port, and by that time you are past the gate or significantly nearer.
so my point of view is if you look at this thing negatively, you would have a Heartburn and related health issues, but if you are positive and an optimist you would deserve what you get.
stay healthy! that is more important than stressing yourself on issues which in the long term do not matter really. (You will get GC on or two rears later in the worst case scenario). cheer up folks:D:D:D
2010 North Korean military post
chanduv23
11-04 02:21 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
gc_buddy
11-12 02:55 PM
Guys,
Please don't be afraid to share your denial info. At this time, OMB is asking to remove all personally identifiable information from reciept notices. So, we don't have to worry. We will get much attention only with specific evidances. Please do not hesitate..
I have recieved Omb response since I partificipated in the campaign. But, I have not used AC21 yet. Will be contacting PD_Recap for further direction.
Please don't be afraid to share your denial info. At this time, OMB is asking to remove all personally identifiable information from reciept notices. So, we don't have to worry. We will get much attention only with specific evidances. Please do not hesitate..
I have recieved Omb response since I partificipated in the campaign. But, I have not used AC21 yet. Will be contacting PD_Recap for further direction.
hair North Korean Military Marching
SunnySurya
08-07 04:05 PM
The point was about abusing the system to get ahead in the line. In that way labor sub shares similarity with PD porting. If a person who landed yesterday fits the job profile and the law allowed it , then what's wrong.
On the other hand if those labor are sold for a price then it is serious problem. And thats why Lab Sub was eleminated. Now thats what is going to happen (and happening) in PD porting case.
Your Logic is Illogical in the first place...
In Labor substitution, a person who lands in US last friday, could substitute a labor and get ahead in line of a 2002 guy.
In Porting case he/she is the original beneficiary. So you comparing Porting to Labor Substitution is totally illogical...
On the other hand if those labor are sold for a price then it is serious problem. And thats why Lab Sub was eleminated. Now thats what is going to happen (and happening) in PD porting case.
Your Logic is Illogical in the first place...
In Labor substitution, a person who lands in US last friday, could substitute a labor and get ahead in line of a 2002 guy.
In Porting case he/she is the original beneficiary. So you comparing Porting to Labor Substitution is totally illogical...
more...
amsgc
08-20 11:55 PM
You got it absolutely right.
The only way out is legislation. Even this eb2 trend of approvals will end come october.
With the earlier method or the current method, EB3-I will always end up last. Vertically EB3-ROW gets the excess visas (old method), horizontally EB2-I gets the excess visas (new method). So, either way EB3-I won't benefit, the only solace being that with the current system atleast our EB2-I friends are getting their freedom faster.
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
The only way out is legislation. Even this eb2 trend of approvals will end come october.
With the earlier method or the current method, EB3-I will always end up last. Vertically EB3-ROW gets the excess visas (old method), horizontally EB2-I gets the excess visas (new method). So, either way EB3-I won't benefit, the only solace being that with the current system atleast our EB2-I friends are getting their freedom faster.
For us, visa recapture or other legislative changes are the only relief.
BTW, my PD is June 2003, EB3-I
hot Rescued North Korean Soldier
claudia255
07-14 07:01 AM
I only caught part of a report on Lou Dobbs regarding Beckham's visa. He received an O-visa. The Department of State (http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1271.html) does not give the number of these visas issued every year. However, the reporter on Lou Dobbs (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/13/ldt.01.html) claimed there were over 12,000 of those given out last year . Where did they get that number?
more...
house 2009 – North Korea#39;s army
mojito_blender
06-21 03:18 PM
Go to USCIS and read the instructions; these 2 are also supposed to be self filed by the immigrant himself. So instructions are clear.
So, ask him why he needs these. Most likely, he will demur and say OK.
They don't know what they are doing, just packing the file for the money sucked ILs
thanks factoryman! I read through the requirement on I-485 pages, and only thing found for this purpose is just employment verification. I was just not sure if I missed anything. so, thank you very much, which really made me feel much easy now.
So, ask him why he needs these. Most likely, he will demur and say OK.
They don't know what they are doing, just packing the file for the money sucked ILs
thanks factoryman! I read through the requirement on I-485 pages, and only thing found for this purpose is just employment verification. I was just not sure if I missed anything. so, thank you very much, which really made me feel much easy now.
tattoo North Korea threatens new
fatjoe
10-27 09:57 AM
Merely congratulating you may not be enough, I guess. However, congratulations from the bottom of my heart.
Your numbers seem to be record breaking. Very well written post too.
Your numbers seem to be record breaking. Very well written post too.
more...
pictures North Korean military
gapala
09-03 01:55 PM
Hi,
If any one is interested in signing and needs referral, Ping Me. I will send the referal link so that both of us will get 2 months free of service.
thanks
WOW! First post to solicit the referals from members??? :confused:
Well, Thank you for your offer.... Do we know you??;)
Are you also waiting for your GC like most of us here?
By the way, Welcome to IV.:)
If any one is interested in signing and needs referral, Ping Me. I will send the referal link so that both of us will get 2 months free of service.
thanks
WOW! First post to solicit the referals from members??? :confused:
Well, Thank you for your offer.... Do we know you??;)
Are you also waiting for your GC like most of us here?
By the way, Welcome to IV.:)
dresses South Korea#39;s army: That
bajrangbali
06-10 10:23 PM
You are doing the right thing. Fraud should be stopped. On top of that, it is directly affecting you and you have even more compelling reasons to take action against it. Good luck and keep us posted.
Posting the follow-up process you went through would help most other members who have been giving you overwhelming greens :rolleyes: take some action as well...
Posting the follow-up process you went through would help most other members who have been giving you overwhelming greens :rolleyes: take some action as well...
more...
makeup Military parade North Korea
karthiknv143
06-29 06:43 PM
http://aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22799
Can anyone having access post what is there?
Can anyone having access post what is there?
girlfriend imagery from North Korea
RDB
11-26 01:22 AM
Yup, you got it buddy......my point is more from a general perspective than any individual scenarios........and sledge_hammer.....I am well aware of the risk associated with every investment - I do own a house and am paying monthly mortgage installments even when knowing that my investment is at least 100k under water :)......so I perfectly understand the risk that comes with any investment AND i am not blaming my lender for giving me money - as I said before, I could afford it then and I can afford it now!
I am against this 'nobody saw it coming' and 'too big to fail' business - banks very well knew what was coming and what would it's effect be; they still went ahead and irresponsibly gave out money to people who can't even afford an eat out at Mcdonalds!!!! Nobody should give any bail out to these guys - let them suffer for what they have done; if I am acting responsibly for my deeds (paying monthly installment because I signed up for it) the same should apply to these banks - they should be allowed to fail simply on the fact that they didn't make good business decisions!
From the punjabi's perspective, it is entirely punjabi's fault. Because he knew what he is getting into when he signed the contract. From the public perspective, the banks were stupid to loan money to everthing that moves and later asking for bailout money from tax payers. I think this is what RDB is trying to say.
I am against this 'nobody saw it coming' and 'too big to fail' business - banks very well knew what was coming and what would it's effect be; they still went ahead and irresponsibly gave out money to people who can't even afford an eat out at Mcdonalds!!!! Nobody should give any bail out to these guys - let them suffer for what they have done; if I am acting responsibly for my deeds (paying monthly installment because I signed up for it) the same should apply to these banks - they should be allowed to fail simply on the fact that they didn't make good business decisions!
From the punjabi's perspective, it is entirely punjabi's fault. Because he knew what he is getting into when he signed the contract. From the public perspective, the banks were stupid to loan money to everthing that moves and later asking for bailout money from tax payers. I think this is what RDB is trying to say.
hairstyles STRANGE NORTH KOREAN ARMY
shirish
08-14 03:35 PM
Thankx fo rthe response.
Does this mean i will surly get a RFE, and if it is say 1 year later, will i have to go for the medical exam again?
You should be fine, one of the latest FAQs says you can file without medical report.
Does this mean i will surly get a RFE, and if it is say 1 year later, will i have to go for the medical exam again?
You should be fine, one of the latest FAQs says you can file without medical report.
lazycis
11-23 08:39 AM
Amicus brief filed in the 1st Circuit appeal by AILF.
The brief discusses in details three major questions:
1) why the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate any application properly filed with them
2) why 8 USC 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar jurisdiction in AOS mandamus cases
3) why the duty to adjudicate does not depend on a specific statutory or regulatory timeframe.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17149&d=1195639525
Amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit appeal by AILF. Discusses the same questions, a good reading.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17018&d=1190059659
The brief discusses in details three major questions:
1) why the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate any application properly filed with them
2) why 8 USC 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar jurisdiction in AOS mandamus cases
3) why the duty to adjudicate does not depend on a specific statutory or regulatory timeframe.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17149&d=1195639525
Amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit appeal by AILF. Discusses the same questions, a good reading.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17018&d=1190059659
drona
07-10 10:44 AM
Matthew Oh mentions Immigration Voice on his website and links to our site. He reports the response of Emilio Gonzalez to the flower campaign. Matthew writes "Salute to the members of this group for the job well done". :)
http://www.immigration-law.com/
http://www.immigration-law.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment