prioritydate
12-20 07:03 PM
Please lookup 245(k).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001255----000-.html
So basically if you are applying for employment based immigration adjustment of status(meaning I-485) under EB1 EB2 or EB3, (that's what they mean by paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 1153 (b) in the above text), and if you have not voilated status for over 180 days after your last legal entry into USA, and if you were in legal status at the time of applying for 485, then you may adjust status.
Now, a really good idea would be that you disclose this whole thing at the time of filing 485 and also claim the benefit under section 245(k). Since its apparent that you have not done it, I would advise to leave it alone and dont dig up old graves.
Consult an attorney for further advise, but dont go overboard in being Raja Harishchandra (the chronic truth teller) because frankly USCIS may not care about this and you can always claim the benefit under section 245(k).
However, if USCIS finds out about this (which is very very unlikely) and if the officer is a very strict person, then they may create a case of wilful misrepresentation. That's because on form I-485, it says that "have you ever been out of status or illegal and if so, provide details". In that question, if you didnt disclose your past history of being out of status ( I am assuming you were out of status and not illegal) then basically, in theory, they can say that you wilfully misrepresented (basically lied to them) by hiding this.
One option is to file an amendment to your I-485 and disclose this fact. That way, atleast they cannot make a case of wilfull misrepresentation. Nonetheless, remember, for them to find this out (about you not working and sitting at home) is difficult. Unless they somehow ask for your W-2 and paystubs for past 6-7 years and in that case it will be very easy for them to see that you were not working for 1 year.
Consult an attorney and tell the attorney all the details. I am not a lawyer and you should always ask a lawyer for legal advise.
Thanks for the clarification, Logiclife. I enter U.S in the first week of Feb, 2001. The economy was bad and I didn't manage to get a job. In fact, I didn't managed to get a job for a year. My then employer didn't revoked my H1B and the I-94 was valid until Oct, 2002. I didn't know that I was out of status till now. I don't remember seeing any section in I-485 form, asking for information about out of status. I did attach my previous H1-B approval notice(2000 -2002) while filing I-485. One thing I want to know is, did anyone got a query(RFE), asking to provide all W2 forms since their entry into this country? I am interested to know that.
wallpaper phoebe tonkin 2009
nixstor
07-04 08:56 PM
Excellent analysis but it does have flaws
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
We all understand this and what you are saying, But What is in law is more important than OB's recommendations. First of all the office of OB might not have recommended to pass on any name checks. It might have advised to some how expedite them. More over, I dont think that they take the annual report seriously. We know how many times DOS officials and USCIS officials testify before congress. Why don't they tell congress that in order to clear backlogs
a) They need FBI to expedite name checks (they might have testified about this)
b) They need to recapture visa numbers (AFAIK, they never did this because your case is not pending unless you filed for AOS/485. We are not a part of the back log)
Their biggest problem now is if all of us file for 485, we will continue to be the back log for ever on the back of USCIS for ages to come unless recapture occurs. What ever be the number 200K or 700K, they simply dont want it.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
I am sure you might have read this from murthy's website (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_dosebn.html) or not, but DOS/CA/VO officials shared this piece with them. As per the above article, final quarter quota should not open until Jul 2nd. I understand that agencies can implement and interpret certain stuff, but you cannot interpret and implement one thing on Jun 13th and another on Jul 2nd. If its written into law, that the quarterly allocation is a must, USCIS is in violation and DOS/CA/VO as well for not policing them of visa number usage.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Understood, if they can clear 60K cases in 18 days, I doubt they will have any issues clearing them in 90 days. It goes back to the point of us becoming the biggest hump on USCIS
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories “current” for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories “current” ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of “current” there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making “current” for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as “current” in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
I think we all agree that there was no need to make every category current given that we know how many will become eligible for 485 filing. How ever, The OB's office will be pretty pissed if they use him as the trump card. Also, I got the annual report from OB's office in email on Jun 12th 07. VB came out on 14th? What you are saying is USCIS has worked over night to analyze OB's report or they had access to OB's report 15-20 days ahead. Everything points to me that there was a lack of communication between the two agencies on an issue with huge stakes.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
We need to do both as the success is not guaranteed in either situation. I do not know if AILF will win the law suit. On the other side, Senators like Kennedy who control immigration issues will not give a damn in the current situation. If the issue gets to a point where USCIS & DOS officials testify before congress, the root problem will be solved. If we just win the lawsuit and get in, USCIS is only going to sulk us for 10 years in the name of security check.In the end, We should be able to portray the whole situation as if USCIS has been put in a ugly predicament to utilize visa numbers under the arcane laws. Bashing DOS & USCIS left and right now is not of any use in the long run.
gsc999
04-20 02:44 PM
Maybe no banners or signs because this is a town-hall style meeting and not a rally. I'll let you know if its ok to do that.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
--
Ok, I will get a couple.
But surely, it would be good if you bring a sign/banner saying "www.immigrationvoice.org" which would help us get more coverage is its caught by the media.
--
Ok, I will get a couple.
2011 The Crowd
sanju_dba
08-11 11:02 AM
Mr Path of Joy
I am EB3 India working for a small company in construction design industry. I have enough experience, qualifications and degree for an EB2. But it is not as simple as you make it sound.
A major part- 8 out of my 15 year experience in this field has been with this employer and although my employer supports me, they are simply not hiring and have been having a difficult time since 2007. So, they cannot file for an EB2 Labor.
I cannot change jobs, since my qualifications and experience will put me in a different job-description and title which I cannot because of how AC21 interprets the laws.
So it is not as white and black as you make it sound. Most EB3 folks started their process way early in their careers and have moved on since. Some of us have been waiting for 10 years and have been in the country for 15 or more years.
Some started during the last recession in 2001-2002 when EB2 was in scrutiny and dates were current for all, most employers and lawyers were touting the EB3 route.
Anycase, I do not expect you to understand our situation. So continue speeding on your path of joy.
same boat here, i bet many others do so.
back in 2003 when my friend insisted to have my GC file in EB2, my attorney filed in eb3 convicing me saying all are current why bother. ( praying a cleaner route to hell for that attorney ).
I am EB3 India working for a small company in construction design industry. I have enough experience, qualifications and degree for an EB2. But it is not as simple as you make it sound.
A major part- 8 out of my 15 year experience in this field has been with this employer and although my employer supports me, they are simply not hiring and have been having a difficult time since 2007. So, they cannot file for an EB2 Labor.
I cannot change jobs, since my qualifications and experience will put me in a different job-description and title which I cannot because of how AC21 interprets the laws.
So it is not as white and black as you make it sound. Most EB3 folks started their process way early in their careers and have moved on since. Some of us have been waiting for 10 years and have been in the country for 15 or more years.
Some started during the last recession in 2001-2002 when EB2 was in scrutiny and dates were current for all, most employers and lawyers were touting the EB3 route.
Anycase, I do not expect you to understand our situation. So continue speeding on your path of joy.
same boat here, i bet many others do so.
back in 2003 when my friend insisted to have my GC file in EB2, my attorney filed in eb3 convicing me saying all are current why bother. ( praying a cleaner route to hell for that attorney ).
more...
nixstor
10-15 02:17 PM
Please explain, What is the space limitation issue on IV as login? In that case, I should have some :confused:
Nothing you should worry about. Its just that my upload along with postwas failing. Hence I uploaded it on megaupload. Click the word Megaupload or Google docs in my post above and download the template.
Nothing you should worry about. Its just that my upload along with postwas failing. Hence I uploaded it on megaupload. Click the word Megaupload or Google docs in my post above and download the template.
ramus
07-03 05:10 PM
Thank you.. Also please take part in media coverage thread...and also ask other members to contribute.
Contributed $100 for the lawsuit.
Confirmation Number: 40W931175C853351T.
Contributed $100 for the lawsuit.
Confirmation Number: 40W931175C853351T.
more...
reachinus
02-17 07:07 PM
I have 16000 us airways miles in 2 accounts.
2010 2011 Phoebe Tonkin phoebe
GCAmigo
01-31 03:27 PM
What if the H4 candidate recieves H1 but decides not to start a job at all. What will be his/her status in that case? H4 or H1?
H1-B without paystub...
H1-B without paystub...
more...
thakkarbhav
08-10 02:29 PM
I am in. I am EB2 but I support this because this makes sense.
hair phoebe tonkin 2010
diptam
06-30 06:57 PM
Sounds like a plan - let us know what's the next step.
I got little demoralized last evening but then worked from 11 thru 3 AM to double check everything and i mailed today by USPS Express Mail ( it should reach July 2nd )
Thanks again for your leadership.
Diptam
I got little demoralized last evening but then worked from 11 thru 3 AM to double check everything and i mailed today by USPS Express Mail ( it should reach July 2nd )
Thanks again for your leadership.
Diptam
more...
gc28262
06-11 09:36 AM
resent it !
hot Every worthwhile
velan
04-22 08:11 AM
Thanks for attending and updating us.
Overall, the turnout was good. And the audience was very involved. The thing that impressed me the most was the resolve I saw in the Congressman.
The Congressman's speech also covered both family and employment based immigration issues and this, in my opinion, justifies the association of the term "Comprehensive" with the STRIVE bill. This bill, being comprehensive in nature, deserves broad-based support. I am sure we all can do our part to ensure that this happens.
Overall, the turnout was good. And the audience was very involved. The thing that impressed me the most was the resolve I saw in the Congressman.
The Congressman's speech also covered both family and employment based immigration issues and this, in my opinion, justifies the association of the term "Comprehensive" with the STRIVE bill. This bill, being comprehensive in nature, deserves broad-based support. I am sure we all can do our part to ensure that this happens.
more...
house Tagged: Phoebe Tonkin ·
monkeyman
09-26 02:58 PM
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?).
Hmmmmm... I do not have any exposure to transportation industry - but the regulations are straight forward - you cannot transport hazardous materials on normal routes (there are designated routes depending on the HAZMAT code) - definitely, no tunnels / bridges. Declarations have to be obtained, MSDS (Material Safety Data sheets ) must be accessible and personnel involved need to be trained and understand the health risks. The type of material must be indicated on a HAZMAT chart and color coded!!!
And I see your point, but what do you know about the visa rules of your country? Let's say, I want to work in your country - what visa do I need - is there a CAP or quota system - validity, my rights etc. Its wrong to blame average American or any generic population because you are in deep shit. Just my thoughts - no hard feelings!!! Its more about educating people who are interested and IV (henceforth Legal IV) is the platform for doing just that.
Hmmmmm... I do not have any exposure to transportation industry - but the regulations are straight forward - you cannot transport hazardous materials on normal routes (there are designated routes depending on the HAZMAT code) - definitely, no tunnels / bridges. Declarations have to be obtained, MSDS (Material Safety Data sheets ) must be accessible and personnel involved need to be trained and understand the health risks. The type of material must be indicated on a HAZMAT chart and color coded!!!
And I see your point, but what do you know about the visa rules of your country? Let's say, I want to work in your country - what visa do I need - is there a CAP or quota system - validity, my rights etc. Its wrong to blame average American or any generic population because you are in deep shit. Just my thoughts - no hard feelings!!! Its more about educating people who are interested and IV (henceforth Legal IV) is the platform for doing just that.
tattoo phoebe tonkin 2009. pictures
Kodi
05-27 11:23 AM
This happened to me in 2006, we went on a road trip from NY to Texas and wanted to visit the mexican border. On our way back they were stopping every vehical. We were on H1 visa at the time and he only checked our IDs and let us go. He was quite nice. I guess they were only looking for mexicans, we said we're from New York and our vehical plates said NY and he didn't ask any other questions.
On the other hand, I know some people who over stayed and they fly within US all the time. They don't have ID but they show their passport but was never asked for visa status. Weired I guess. They don't even check the visa in the passport.
On the other hand, I know some people who over stayed and they fly within US all the time. They don't have ID but they show their passport but was never asked for visa status. Weired I guess. They don't even check the visa in the passport.
more...
pictures and Phoebe Tonkin, 19
gc_on_demand
11-14 04:31 PM
bump
dresses In This Photo: Phoebe Tonkin,
BPforGC
03-10 04:16 PM
Until Economy is back on track and unemployment rate is back to below 5%, do not attempt anything that pisses of American public. It is not the public perse, but those anti-immigration idiots will cry foul and make GC process even harder.
Right now, sit tight and wither the financial storm. The best action is to unlink I-485 adjudication to priority date. So, I-485 is approved and status changed to "Approved, awaiting VISA number".
They should create a list where approved I-485s with VISA number pending will be placed in a queue based on original PD. They should get automatic VISA number as soon as one is available in that order. Then the system automatically orders a GC. This should be automated so that another IO shouldn't mess with it.
They can also link this database with FBI or crime database so that if anyone is convicted, it will automatically generate a flag and USCIS can decide what to do with that approved 485. So, this will keep bad guys out if they commit any crimes while 485 is awaiting VISA number.
IV core, think about this.
Right now, sit tight and wither the financial storm. The best action is to unlink I-485 adjudication to priority date. So, I-485 is approved and status changed to "Approved, awaiting VISA number".
They should create a list where approved I-485s with VISA number pending will be placed in a queue based on original PD. They should get automatic VISA number as soon as one is available in that order. Then the system automatically orders a GC. This should be automated so that another IO shouldn't mess with it.
They can also link this database with FBI or crime database so that if anyone is convicted, it will automatically generate a flag and USCIS can decide what to do with that approved 485. So, this will keep bad guys out if they commit any crimes while 485 is awaiting VISA number.
IV core, think about this.
more...
makeup Phoebe Tonkin - H2O: Just Add
GreenLantern
02-15 06:52 PM
Anybody want to post what they have so far? Please?
girlfriend phoebe tonkin 2009.
Norristown
09-11 08:41 AM
I am a great admirer of IV, because it is the only organization really working for legal immigrants.
Yesterday we are all watching TV,internet for Senate voting on HR5882. Nothing happened.
We are depending on other websites , to know about bill markup. All threads are filling up with all kind of guessing and speculation.
Don't we have any channel (lobbyists) to know whether it is marked up or not?
Yesterday we are all watching TV,internet for Senate voting on HR5882. Nothing happened.
We are depending on other websites , to know about bill markup. All threads are filling up with all kind of guessing and speculation.
Don't we have any channel (lobbyists) to know whether it is marked up or not?
hairstyles Filme cu Phoebe Tonkin
sugaur
05-28 09:44 PM
I Wish the border patrol was doing its job more efficiently and doing more searches not less. This way !@#$% illegals would be kicked out and our immigration process wouldnt be held hostage by them.
I live near the Mexican border. There are border check points everywhere when you leave the city. They will stop you, ask you your status. First time I didnt have my passport or anything. He checked my drivers license and politely reminded me about the requirement to carry immigration documents. Since then, I always carry a copy of passport and H1B and have never had any problems.
I hate it when people cry and feel like they are being persecuted when asked to follow the law.
I live near the Mexican border. There are border check points everywhere when you leave the city. They will stop you, ask you your status. First time I didnt have my passport or anything. He checked my drivers license and politely reminded me about the requirement to carry immigration documents. Since then, I always carry a copy of passport and H1B and have never had any problems.
I hate it when people cry and feel like they are being persecuted when asked to follow the law.
McGuffin
02-14 07:15 PM
I'm in.
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.