485Mbe4001
09-24 06:44 PM
makes sense now.. EB3 I was 3576 in 2008 due to the spillover rule change. For 2006 and earlier Eb3 and EB2 were roughly the same?
2007 was an anomaly due to the June fiasco. On the other hand the 7% limit was not applied in 2007. It is pretty clear that they do whatever they want.
2008 data
China 5602 6964 1982
India 5327 14818 3576
Mexico 1457 1348 4020
Philip 310 2057 5625
All 36590 70135 42840
ROW 23894 44948 27637
2007 data
India 2855 6203 17795
China 2982 6797 3580
Mexico 1109 900 8941
Philip 271 1608 8038
All 26806 44400 72574
ROW 19589 28892 34220
(ROW is 5-7 times any other country usage)
2007 was an anomaly due to the June fiasco. On the other hand the 7% limit was not applied in 2007. It is pretty clear that they do whatever they want.
2008 data
China 5602 6964 1982
India 5327 14818 3576
Mexico 1457 1348 4020
Philip 310 2057 5625
All 36590 70135 42840
ROW 23894 44948 27637
2007 data
India 2855 6203 17795
China 2982 6797 3580
Mexico 1109 900 8941
Philip 271 1608 8038
All 26806 44400 72574
ROW 19589 28892 34220
(ROW is 5-7 times any other country usage)
wallpaper Fantail Goldfish Cut Outs by
akhilmahajan
11-12 01:02 PM
Seems like they are getting aware of the problem. Folks lets keep on sending letters. It for our betterment and goodwill. The harder we work on this, the more fruitful will it be for the community as a whole.
Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning AC21 processing at the Service Centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485 case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please forward us a copy of your denial notice or provide further detail as to the reasons for the immediate denial.
Please submit information via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial. In addition, for protection of privacy we ask that you please omit any personally identifiable information such as names, a-numbers, case numbers, etc.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
Now, i am waiting response to my letters.
GO IV GO.
Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
We greatly appreciate your comments regarding issues concerning AC21 processing at the Service Centers. As we have received several inquiries such as yours, we are currently discussing these issues with USCIS and reviewing their policies and procedures regarding these petitions.
If you have evidence of a specific I-485 case that you feel was erroneously denied due to USCIS not adhering to AC21 guidelines, we kindly ask that you please forward us a copy of your denial notice or provide further detail as to the reasons for the immediate denial.
Please submit information via email to cisombudsman@dhs.gov with the subject AC21 Evidence of Immediate Denial. In addition, for protection of privacy we ask that you please omit any personally identifiable information such as names, a-numbers, case numbers, etc.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
CIS Ombudsman
Now, i am waiting response to my letters.
GO IV GO.
santa123
06-14 05:46 PM
The OP is great. He has created a new id to discuss L1 fraud. Will he be creating one id per issue... recapture, H1B abuse, outsourcing, backlogs?? wow!!!
Not sure why he wants his/ her identity covered up. This shows how good some of us are in trying to make noises in the dark and not doing anything about issues in hand.
In all, I still don't understand why L1Bs cannot work at Client site. I am sure that the L1 petitions specifically ask for Client site / work location. If Client site address is mentioned, the USCIS does approve the petition. If it is against law, they will not approve the petition. I know this for a fact since some of my friends are on L1.
How many times in this thread I have mentioned that I am getting replaced by one of these L-1B resource, I am a poor Oracle/DB developer who fortunately cannot be replaced by L-1B visa resources (as my skills is a common technical one). So once these violations impact your day to day life you look around for ways to stop this fraud. Its true that if I was a Nuero Surgeon in Phily or a Astro Scientist in Houston I wouldn't be interested in this violation :-) .... tomorrow let this scenario happen to you ... you would be first one to raise the alert.
Regarding 'getting burnt', I don't think there is bigger burn than loosing our jobs (which already is happening) and hope you know that there is something called 'anonymity'... ya lets see whos going to get 'burnt' here. We'll definetly keep you updated regarding the outcome.
Not sure why he wants his/ her identity covered up. This shows how good some of us are in trying to make noises in the dark and not doing anything about issues in hand.
In all, I still don't understand why L1Bs cannot work at Client site. I am sure that the L1 petitions specifically ask for Client site / work location. If Client site address is mentioned, the USCIS does approve the petition. If it is against law, they will not approve the petition. I know this for a fact since some of my friends are on L1.
How many times in this thread I have mentioned that I am getting replaced by one of these L-1B resource, I am a poor Oracle/DB developer who fortunately cannot be replaced by L-1B visa resources (as my skills is a common technical one). So once these violations impact your day to day life you look around for ways to stop this fraud. Its true that if I was a Nuero Surgeon in Phily or a Astro Scientist in Houston I wouldn't be interested in this violation :-) .... tomorrow let this scenario happen to you ... you would be first one to raise the alert.
Regarding 'getting burnt', I don't think there is bigger burn than loosing our jobs (which already is happening) and hope you know that there is something called 'anonymity'... ya lets see whos going to get 'burnt' here. We'll definetly keep you updated regarding the outcome.
2011 Goldfish
satishku_2000
07-10 01:15 PM
Everyone knows that increasing green card numbers will be best solution. In that also if we ask too much we may not get anything. Double the number of annual Gc plus exclude dependents will be enough for reducing retrogession but that may not eliminate. But waiting period of 2 to 3 years can be reasonable for most people. I am sure one more chance will come for increasing H1b numbers. That time we can try for GC increase also.
But I am supporting the flower Campaign for protesting the VB mess up though it will not solve the problem
Everyone knows what solves the problem , I was asking about to how to acheive them . What are your suggestions to acheive those goals. You seem to have a problem with everything everyone suggests or does. What are your concrete ideas to acheive our goals.
The problem is not about waiting , Problem is unpredictability about waiting , Can you tell me when will my sep 2004 PD will become current? I think I will meet your threshhold of 3 years sooner rather than later ...
Did you send flowers by the way?
You said ". That time we can try for GC increase also. " , How do you want us to try?
But I am supporting the flower Campaign for protesting the VB mess up though it will not solve the problem
Everyone knows what solves the problem , I was asking about to how to acheive them . What are your suggestions to acheive those goals. You seem to have a problem with everything everyone suggests or does. What are your concrete ideas to acheive our goals.
The problem is not about waiting , Problem is unpredictability about waiting , Can you tell me when will my sep 2004 PD will become current? I think I will meet your threshhold of 3 years sooner rather than later ...
Did you send flowers by the way?
You said ". That time we can try for GC increase also. " , How do you want us to try?
more...
chanduv23
01-07 10:02 PM
No need to worry.
People write letters all the time to the president and first lady, FBI, USCIS, etc etc when they are stuck in namechecks.
The thing is why should be force ourselves to write letters when we are in deep sh** like namechecks ourselves.
Why can't we do it when we can do it as a large group of people and not being selfish for once. I think this is our chance to stop being a lone voice when nobody hears us. In this campaign we can show how important our issue is and how desperately we want it to be fixed.
BTW I am going to post a handwritten letter. I have heard it works better.
Very good idea. Hand written letter - way to go. Everyone can do this.
Maybe we can write with blood(just kidding)
People write letters all the time to the president and first lady, FBI, USCIS, etc etc when they are stuck in namechecks.
The thing is why should be force ourselves to write letters when we are in deep sh** like namechecks ourselves.
Why can't we do it when we can do it as a large group of people and not being selfish for once. I think this is our chance to stop being a lone voice when nobody hears us. In this campaign we can show how important our issue is and how desperately we want it to be fixed.
BTW I am going to post a handwritten letter. I have heard it works better.
Very good idea. Hand written letter - way to go. Everyone can do this.
Maybe we can write with blood(just kidding)
l1fraud
06-16 12:39 PM
Dear Desi,
I agree with you. Thanks for correcting me.
Thanks... I have send you a PM please reply back.
Thanks once again.
I agree with you. Thanks for correcting me.
Thanks... I have send you a PM please reply back.
Thanks once again.
more...
ashishgour
09-10 11:36 AM
I believe it will have an impact in the long run...so I guess we can continue calling even today...
2010 Goldfish Wallpaper at 800x600
DallasBlue
09-13 03:00 PM
Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 10 September 2007
Applicants seeking US citizenship languish for years as the FBI conducts cumbersome records checks. Lawsuits are a result.
Seeking to become a U.S. citizen, Biljana Petrovic filed her application, completed her interview and passed her civics test.
More than three years later, she is still waiting to be naturalized - held up by an FBI name-check process that has been criticized as slow, inefficient and a danger to national security.
Petrovic, a stay-at-home mother in Los Altos, Calif., who has no criminal record, has sued the federal government to try to speed up the process. She said it's as if her application has slipped into a "black hole."
"It's complete frustration," said Petrovic, who is originally from the former Yugoslavia and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. "It's not like I am applying to enter the country. I have been here for 19 years."
Nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of Aug. 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years.
Applicants for permanent residency or citizenship have lost jobs, missed out on student loans and in-state tuition, and been unable to vote or bring relatives into the country. The delays have prompted scores of lawsuits around the country.
Already this fiscal year, more than 4,100 suits have been filed against the citizenship and immigration agency, compared with 2,650 last year and about 680 in 2005. The mandamus suits ask federal judges to compel immigration officials to adjudicate the cases. The majority of the cases were prompted by delays in checking names, spokesman Chris Bentley said.
"There is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd," said Ranjana Natarajan, an ACLU staff attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in Southern California last year on behalf of applicants waiting for their names to be checked. "People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
In addition to the bureaucratic nightmare that the lengthy delays present, attorneys and government officials say there is a far more serious concern: They could be allowing potential terrorists to stay in the country.
Fallout From 9/11
The backlog began after 9/11, when Citizenship and Immigration Services officials reassessed their procedures and learned that the FBI checks were not as thorough as they had believed. So "out of an abundance of caution," the agency resubmitted 2.7 million names in 2002 to be checked further, Bentley said.
Rather than simply determining if the applicants were subjects of FBI investigations, the bureau checked to see if their names showed up in any FBI files, including being listed as witnesses or victims. About 90% of the names did not appear in the agency's records, FBI spokesman Bill Carter said.
But for the 10% who were listed, authorities carefully reviewed the files to look for any "derogatory" information, Carter said. Because many documents aren't electronic and are in the bureau's 265 offices nationwide, that process can take months, if not years.
"It is not a check of your name," said Chuck Roth, director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, which also filed a class-action suit. "It is a file review of anywhere your name happens to appear. It has just created a giant bureaucratic mess."
Although many of those stuck in the backlog are from predominantly Muslim countries, there are also people from Russia, China, India and elsewhere. They include government employees and Iraq war veterans. Many have been in the U.S. legally for decades.
In one case decided in Washington, D.C., recently, a federal judge wrote that a Chinese man's four-year wait for permanent residency was unreasonable and ordered the government to decide on the application within three months. Petrovic, who has two U.S.-born teenagers, doesn't know what delayed her application. The only explanation she can think of is that her name is common in her native country.
She and her husband, Ihab Abu-Hakima, also a Canadian citizen, applied for citizenship in April 2003 and had their interviews in February 2004. Her husband was sworn in that summer, while her application continued to languish. She checked the mail daily.
When she still didn't hear anything, Petrovic contacted immigration officials, who told her that the FBI had her file and that it was still active. She also contacted her representative and her senator, whose offices asked Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite the application. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her FBI file, which simply showed that she had never been arrested.
"I have a feeling that the system has broken down," she said.
Joining a Different Group
In August, Petrovic joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in Northern California against the federal government. She is waiting to become a U.S. citizen so she can sponsor her elderly parents, who live in Canada and visit often.
"Every time they leave, I feel bad," she said. "This is their life here, more than there."
The problem extends beyond the disruption of personal lives.
In his yearly report to Congress in June, immigration services ombudsman Prakash wrote that the policy on checking names "may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country." questioned the overall value of the process, writing that it was the "single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits."
The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged the threat, last month announcing plans to work with the FBI to address the backlog and reduce delays. Citizenship and Immigration Services will reassess the way name checks are done and earmark $6 million toward streamlining the process, Bentley said.
Though 99% of the agency's name checks are completed within six months, Bentley said, the lengthy delays for some applicants is "unacceptable."
"That requires a lot of patience on the part of an applicant because they have to wait sometimes multiple years," he said.
Nevertheless, he said, no benefit will be approved until that name check comes back clear. Security checks have produced information about sex crimes, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism, according to the agency.
Carter, the FBI spokesman, said he understands that applicants waiting for answers are anxious, but he said the process is complicated and involves dozens of agencies and databases - and, in some cases, foreign governments.
"The FBI's No. 1 priority remains to protect the United States from terrorist attack," Carter said. "To that end, we must ensure the proper balance between security and efficiency."
In addition to clearing the backlog and processing the 27,000 new name checks it receives each week from immigration officials, the FBI is trying to accelerate the process by making more documents electronic. It is also adding more staff and moving resources to a new records facility in Virginia, Carter said.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, said the government needs to make sure that it carefully checks every application. And working with foreign governments is inevitably going to slow the process down, he said.
"We correctly have much more stringent standards for immigration," he said. "I am not really sure that there is any way to do this kind of deep background check efficiently."
But attorneys said that because of the inefficiency, the program isn't serving its purpose.
"Let's say this guy is a terrorist or a criminal," Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said. "Why wouldn't the FBI rush the case?"
Mervyn Sam, a South African native who got a green card in 1998, has been waiting more than four years for the FBI to complete his name check. Sam said his career has been affected by the delay. He lives in Anaheim and is a project manager at a software company but cannot work on certain government projects because he is not a U.S. citizen. He has sued the federal government.
"I am not sure what the hiccup is on my end," he said. "It is very, very frustrating."
Shusterman, whose office is representing Sam, said applicants waste their time by contacting the immigration services agency, the FBI or their legislators.
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court," he said.
--------
anna.gorman@latimes.com
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 10 September 2007
Applicants seeking US citizenship languish for years as the FBI conducts cumbersome records checks. Lawsuits are a result.
Seeking to become a U.S. citizen, Biljana Petrovic filed her application, completed her interview and passed her civics test.
More than three years later, she is still waiting to be naturalized - held up by an FBI name-check process that has been criticized as slow, inefficient and a danger to national security.
Petrovic, a stay-at-home mother in Los Altos, Calif., who has no criminal record, has sued the federal government to try to speed up the process. She said it's as if her application has slipped into a "black hole."
"It's complete frustration," said Petrovic, who is originally from the former Yugoslavia and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. "It's not like I am applying to enter the country. I have been here for 19 years."
Nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of Aug. 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years.
Applicants for permanent residency or citizenship have lost jobs, missed out on student loans and in-state tuition, and been unable to vote or bring relatives into the country. The delays have prompted scores of lawsuits around the country.
Already this fiscal year, more than 4,100 suits have been filed against the citizenship and immigration agency, compared with 2,650 last year and about 680 in 2005. The mandamus suits ask federal judges to compel immigration officials to adjudicate the cases. The majority of the cases were prompted by delays in checking names, spokesman Chris Bentley said.
"There is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd," said Ranjana Natarajan, an ACLU staff attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in Southern California last year on behalf of applicants waiting for their names to be checked. "People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
In addition to the bureaucratic nightmare that the lengthy delays present, attorneys and government officials say there is a far more serious concern: They could be allowing potential terrorists to stay in the country.
Fallout From 9/11
The backlog began after 9/11, when Citizenship and Immigration Services officials reassessed their procedures and learned that the FBI checks were not as thorough as they had believed. So "out of an abundance of caution," the agency resubmitted 2.7 million names in 2002 to be checked further, Bentley said.
Rather than simply determining if the applicants were subjects of FBI investigations, the bureau checked to see if their names showed up in any FBI files, including being listed as witnesses or victims. About 90% of the names did not appear in the agency's records, FBI spokesman Bill Carter said.
But for the 10% who were listed, authorities carefully reviewed the files to look for any "derogatory" information, Carter said. Because many documents aren't electronic and are in the bureau's 265 offices nationwide, that process can take months, if not years.
"It is not a check of your name," said Chuck Roth, director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, which also filed a class-action suit. "It is a file review of anywhere your name happens to appear. It has just created a giant bureaucratic mess."
Although many of those stuck in the backlog are from predominantly Muslim countries, there are also people from Russia, China, India and elsewhere. They include government employees and Iraq war veterans. Many have been in the U.S. legally for decades.
In one case decided in Washington, D.C., recently, a federal judge wrote that a Chinese man's four-year wait for permanent residency was unreasonable and ordered the government to decide on the application within three months. Petrovic, who has two U.S.-born teenagers, doesn't know what delayed her application. The only explanation she can think of is that her name is common in her native country.
She and her husband, Ihab Abu-Hakima, also a Canadian citizen, applied for citizenship in April 2003 and had their interviews in February 2004. Her husband was sworn in that summer, while her application continued to languish. She checked the mail daily.
When she still didn't hear anything, Petrovic contacted immigration officials, who told her that the FBI had her file and that it was still active. She also contacted her representative and her senator, whose offices asked Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite the application. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her FBI file, which simply showed that she had never been arrested.
"I have a feeling that the system has broken down," she said.
Joining a Different Group
In August, Petrovic joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in Northern California against the federal government. She is waiting to become a U.S. citizen so she can sponsor her elderly parents, who live in Canada and visit often.
"Every time they leave, I feel bad," she said. "This is their life here, more than there."
The problem extends beyond the disruption of personal lives.
In his yearly report to Congress in June, immigration services ombudsman Prakash wrote that the policy on checking names "may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country." questioned the overall value of the process, writing that it was the "single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits."
The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged the threat, last month announcing plans to work with the FBI to address the backlog and reduce delays. Citizenship and Immigration Services will reassess the way name checks are done and earmark $6 million toward streamlining the process, Bentley said.
Though 99% of the agency's name checks are completed within six months, Bentley said, the lengthy delays for some applicants is "unacceptable."
"That requires a lot of patience on the part of an applicant because they have to wait sometimes multiple years," he said.
Nevertheless, he said, no benefit will be approved until that name check comes back clear. Security checks have produced information about sex crimes, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism, according to the agency.
Carter, the FBI spokesman, said he understands that applicants waiting for answers are anxious, but he said the process is complicated and involves dozens of agencies and databases - and, in some cases, foreign governments.
"The FBI's No. 1 priority remains to protect the United States from terrorist attack," Carter said. "To that end, we must ensure the proper balance between security and efficiency."
In addition to clearing the backlog and processing the 27,000 new name checks it receives each week from immigration officials, the FBI is trying to accelerate the process by making more documents electronic. It is also adding more staff and moving resources to a new records facility in Virginia, Carter said.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, said the government needs to make sure that it carefully checks every application. And working with foreign governments is inevitably going to slow the process down, he said.
"We correctly have much more stringent standards for immigration," he said. "I am not really sure that there is any way to do this kind of deep background check efficiently."
But attorneys said that because of the inefficiency, the program isn't serving its purpose.
"Let's say this guy is a terrorist or a criminal," Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said. "Why wouldn't the FBI rush the case?"
Mervyn Sam, a South African native who got a green card in 1998, has been waiting more than four years for the FBI to complete his name check. Sam said his career has been affected by the delay. He lives in Anaheim and is a project manager at a software company but cannot work on certain government projects because he is not a U.S. citizen. He has sued the federal government.
"I am not sure what the hiccup is on my end," he said. "It is very, very frustrating."
Shusterman, whose office is representing Sam, said applicants waste their time by contacting the immigration services agency, the FBI or their legislators.
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court," he said.
--------
anna.gorman@latimes.com
more...
BharatPremi
03-18 08:50 AM
Hi Guys,
I have a concurrent filed application (140 still pending) dated back to Oct 2004 and another I-485 application from July, 2007 from different labor but a recently approved 140. My current EAD & AP is based on the first 485 (Oct 2004) which are due for renewal in next 4 months. Now I want my EAD/AP to be based on July 2007 I-485 (second one) since underlying 140 is approved. Here is my dilema:
1. When I renew EAD/AP should I check that its renewal or initial application option.
2. How can I make sure (atleast try) the new EAD/AP will not be tied to old 485 but the new one (will send the new 485 receipt & 140 approval notice).
Thanks for any suggestions/thoughts you might have.
Thanks
There is no concept of "multiple EAD and AP" assigned to single person as far as I know. So it does not matter what " you want" what matter is "what USCIS wants". And so far what I have heard (From professional and wellknown lawyers), multiple 485 filings is the last thing you want to even think about because USCIS does not like it and at the end of the day what matters is "What USCIS wants" so talk about that to lawyers as well so down the road you would not end up any delay or problem by USCIS due to multiple filings.
I have a concurrent filed application (140 still pending) dated back to Oct 2004 and another I-485 application from July, 2007 from different labor but a recently approved 140. My current EAD & AP is based on the first 485 (Oct 2004) which are due for renewal in next 4 months. Now I want my EAD/AP to be based on July 2007 I-485 (second one) since underlying 140 is approved. Here is my dilema:
1. When I renew EAD/AP should I check that its renewal or initial application option.
2. How can I make sure (atleast try) the new EAD/AP will not be tied to old 485 but the new one (will send the new 485 receipt & 140 approval notice).
Thanks for any suggestions/thoughts you might have.
Thanks
There is no concept of "multiple EAD and AP" assigned to single person as far as I know. So it does not matter what " you want" what matter is "what USCIS wants". And so far what I have heard (From professional and wellknown lawyers), multiple 485 filings is the last thing you want to even think about because USCIS does not like it and at the end of the day what matters is "What USCIS wants" so talk about that to lawyers as well so down the road you would not end up any delay or problem by USCIS due to multiple filings.
hair Bubble-eyed Goldfish
Bpositive
03-25 03:30 PM
Either employers think EAD is the student EAD which needs to be converted to H1 or they are ignorant.
My suggestion would be to not bring it up....and if it does come up tell the employer that you have work authorization and that the employer doesn't need to do anything. If that doesn't work, then someone is actively discriminating...
My suggestion would be to not bring it up....and if it does come up tell the employer that you have work authorization and that the employer doesn't need to do anything. If that doesn't work, then someone is actively discriminating...
more...
amsgc
06-27 10:44 PM
Great!
This is useful for those who want to send their packet using private service providers such as FedEx.
Ams
I think this what uscis says
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label
Sorry, Editing my post:
This doesn't seem all that useful since you don't have the post box number in there.
Hey, quit playing games with me this time of the night :)
This is useful for those who want to send their packet using private service providers such as FedEx.
Ams
I think this what uscis says
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label
Sorry, Editing my post:
This doesn't seem all that useful since you don't have the post box number in there.
Hey, quit playing games with me this time of the night :)
hot Tattooed goldfish
CADude
09-24 09:30 PM
Dear Mr. XXX,
Pursuant to our conversation today, I am forwarding the reply from the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding our inquiry into your application for Adjustment of Status (I-485).
Our office initiated an inquiry into your case as a result of your correspondence dated September 12, 2007 sent to Congresswoman Maxine Waters. If you receive or do not receive a notice of action from CIS within the next 30 days please notify our Immigration Caseworker, Blanca Jimenez at ext. 18.
Thank you for contacting the office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters to assist you in this matter.
Sincerely,
Blanca Jimenez
Constituent Services Supervisor
Office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-35)
323.757.8900 ext. 18
323.757.9506 fax
Good Morning Ms. Jimenez,
I do not show that we have data-entered Mr. XXX�s I-485 yet. The I-485 must be in line to be data-entered because we receipted an I-765 (LIN-07-245-XXXX).
The I485 application is still pending at this office. Although the Department of State Visa Bulletin indicated visas were available for most employment categories USCIS still has to adjudicate every application. NSC has approximately 26,000 I485 applications that may have a visa available and we are reviewing them as expeditiously as possible. This application is in line to be worked but it will take time. Please allow an additional 45 days for NSC to adjudicate the application. If you have not received a notice from NSC after 45 days you may submit another inquiry.
Thank you,
Congressional Liaison
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Nebraska Service Center
Respected Ms Waters,
Sub: USCIS inefficiency for Legal Immigration
I send my I-485 AOS application to USCIS and received on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE.
It's almost approx 75 days since the application received at USCIS and have not received the Receipt Notice or any notification from USCIS.
I tried to contact Customer Service at USCIS. They don't provided any information. USCIS website updates show they are processing 08/01 or later for AOS application. They are not following the First In First Out(FIFO) order.
I need help of your good to know the status of my I-485 application.
Thank you,
Pursuant to our conversation today, I am forwarding the reply from the Nebraska Service Center of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) regarding our inquiry into your application for Adjustment of Status (I-485).
Our office initiated an inquiry into your case as a result of your correspondence dated September 12, 2007 sent to Congresswoman Maxine Waters. If you receive or do not receive a notice of action from CIS within the next 30 days please notify our Immigration Caseworker, Blanca Jimenez at ext. 18.
Thank you for contacting the office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters to assist you in this matter.
Sincerely,
Blanca Jimenez
Constituent Services Supervisor
Office of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-35)
323.757.8900 ext. 18
323.757.9506 fax
Good Morning Ms. Jimenez,
I do not show that we have data-entered Mr. XXX�s I-485 yet. The I-485 must be in line to be data-entered because we receipted an I-765 (LIN-07-245-XXXX).
The I485 application is still pending at this office. Although the Department of State Visa Bulletin indicated visas were available for most employment categories USCIS still has to adjudicate every application. NSC has approximately 26,000 I485 applications that may have a visa available and we are reviewing them as expeditiously as possible. This application is in line to be worked but it will take time. Please allow an additional 45 days for NSC to adjudicate the application. If you have not received a notice from NSC after 45 days you may submit another inquiry.
Thank you,
Congressional Liaison
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
Nebraska Service Center
Respected Ms Waters,
Sub: USCIS inefficiency for Legal Immigration
I send my I-485 AOS application to USCIS and received on July 2nd 2007 at Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE.
It's almost approx 75 days since the application received at USCIS and have not received the Receipt Notice or any notification from USCIS.
I tried to contact Customer Service at USCIS. They don't provided any information. USCIS website updates show they are processing 08/01 or later for AOS application. They are not following the First In First Out(FIFO) order.
I need help of your good to know the status of my I-485 application.
Thank you,
more...
house Goldfish scooping (金魚すくい,
meridiani.planum
12-06 06:40 PM
I am a multiple filer too, my I-485 application filed in early June was approved last week. I hope this gives some reason for optimism for us multiple filers. Good luck to everyone. BTW: I am still a contributing member and will continue to hang out at IV.
congratulations! So you had the second I-485 still pending when teh first one got approved? Did you get any RFE about it from USCIS or were you asked to withdraw one of the petitions?
congratulations! So you had the second I-485 still pending when teh first one got approved? Did you get any RFE about it from USCIS or were you asked to withdraw one of the petitions?
tattoo Goldfish
snathan
03-31 10:06 PM
I'm not able to access that thread. It says insufficient previleges. Is it because I haven't donated anything? :-(
Yes....
Yes....
more...
pictures Live Goldfish-Fantail
abhijitp
06-29 04:13 PM
my lawyer's office just called me saying they would want to file ASAP, for which they want my signatures tomorrow. I met her an hour ago, when she was saying things like "hopefully by next week".
So whether or not this is a rumour, it sure has clicked the panic button for lawyers too!
If this is true, it is unimaginably bad. (Personally I still think it won't happen till end of July.)
So whether or not this is a rumour, it sure has clicked the panic button for lawyers too!
If this is true, it is unimaginably bad. (Personally I still think it won't happen till end of July.)
dresses Goldfish Types
garika
07-10 12:00 AM
Don't know if anyone noticed but Mr. Emilio's statement nowhere indicates any acknowledgement of the hardships caused by the fiasco. If he (and USCIS) knows about "flowers", I am sure USCIS knows about the scramble, hardships and frustration caused by the fiasco. A simple acknowledgement through something like " ....while we regret unintended consequences of following our internal procedures, we have made arrangements to forward the flowers to ..." would have demonstrated leadership or honesty of intent which I guess is in short supply
I think he is trying to say if anybody needs flowers its our men in uniform and not us (USCIS). I hope I am wrong but thats my perspective. Have sent the flowers anyway ;)
I think he is trying to say if anybody needs flowers its our men in uniform and not us (USCIS). I hope I am wrong but thats my perspective. Have sent the flowers anyway ;)
more...
makeup Goldfish Common Carp,
Kalpen
06-20 09:31 AM
Hi,
I am filing up form 485 and on Part 3 Section - Processing Information, there is a question asking for Nonimmigrant Visa Number.
Any clue about this?
Thanks in advance,
Kalpen
I am filing up form 485 and on Part 3 Section - Processing Information, there is a question asking for Nonimmigrant Visa Number.
Any clue about this?
Thanks in advance,
Kalpen
girlfriend of Red Goldfish - Animals
chandrajp
04-20 02:12 PM
I am getting ready to file I-485. Is it mandatory to apply I-131(EAD) and I-765 (AP)? I got 3yr extension which is valid till 2009 and i am not planning to use EAD anytime soon.
What if i just apply for I-485 in the beginning and apply for EAD or AP whenever there's need? Please let me know.
Thanks
You can apply EAD/AP whenever you want to, provided you have filed I485. It need not be exactly at the time the I485 is filed.
What if i just apply for I-485 in the beginning and apply for EAD or AP whenever there's need? Please let me know.
Thanks
You can apply EAD/AP whenever you want to, provided you have filed I485. It need not be exactly at the time the I485 is filed.
hairstyles Gold Fish Gallery
chanduv23
12-01 03:17 PM
And you did not understand that this is a way for the lawyer to advertise himself.
He may have seen many people worried about this issue on IV and he wrote on his site . Now you are becoming his agent and posting on this site. This is not a news. It is only a comment. It can be true/partially true or partially false.
To me this issue is a non issue for which IV is working and this lawyer is blowing out of proportion. Only handful of people got denials and that too because their Desi employer acted in revenge for them leaving the company.
Revoking 140 does not neccessarily have to come from desi employers. In most cases, the 140s are revoked because the immigration attorneys suggest the employers to do so, so that they need not carry paperwork and also make it easy to respond to rfe for ability to pay.
For Immigration Attorneys, this is bread and butter and they will get into all avenues to do business and make money and keep their business running and booming.
He may have seen many people worried about this issue on IV and he wrote on his site . Now you are becoming his agent and posting on this site. This is not a news. It is only a comment. It can be true/partially true or partially false.
To me this issue is a non issue for which IV is working and this lawyer is blowing out of proportion. Only handful of people got denials and that too because their Desi employer acted in revenge for them leaving the company.
Revoking 140 does not neccessarily have to come from desi employers. In most cases, the 140s are revoked because the immigration attorneys suggest the employers to do so, so that they need not carry paperwork and also make it easy to respond to rfe for ability to pay.
For Immigration Attorneys, this is bread and butter and they will get into all avenues to do business and make money and keep their business running and booming.
Madhuri
03-26 01:23 PM
Guys,
I am tired of short term projects and I started my FT job search in March first week, got 2 offers, both companies are fine with EAD. Only question HR asked me is, "your EAD expires in Sept,when are you starting the renewal process?" I told her that I can apply for renewal only within 90-120 days time frame. She was fine with my answer and also mentioned that she is aware of the fact there is some time line for EAD renewal.
I'll be starting my new FT job from Monday.
So bottom line is there are some HR people who are well aware of EAD and the strings attached to it. You are definitely going to meet them sooner or later, don't loose hope.
BTW why am I using AC21? - my PD is March 2006 (EB3 India), so I decided to use AC-21/EAD, as nobody knows how long this GC journey is? I am already in my 8th year of H1.
I am tired of short term projects and I started my FT job search in March first week, got 2 offers, both companies are fine with EAD. Only question HR asked me is, "your EAD expires in Sept,when are you starting the renewal process?" I told her that I can apply for renewal only within 90-120 days time frame. She was fine with my answer and also mentioned that she is aware of the fact there is some time line for EAD renewal.
I'll be starting my new FT job from Monday.
So bottom line is there are some HR people who are well aware of EAD and the strings attached to it. You are definitely going to meet them sooner or later, don't loose hope.
BTW why am I using AC21? - my PD is March 2006 (EB3 India), so I decided to use AC-21/EAD, as nobody knows how long this GC journey is? I am already in my 8th year of H1.
fatjoe
10-05 01:58 PM
Some of us with 2004 are still waiting.
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?
Hi vikki76, bpositive, dipika, caliguy, leoindiano:
If I am correct, your PDs are current, right? Do you guys know if your case was pre-adjudicated and/or assigned to an IO? I keep reading from the forums that some apps with PDs as late as Dec 2004 and a couple of Jan 2005 got approved. Wondering why the earlier (eg. mine is July 04) not approved yet. Could we all join togther and write a letter to Napolitino(Thanks to SoP for the idea) and ask her to take some action on our cases?