Printable View
Since he is a lawyer .... Why he doe not sue USCIS instead of always always crying about USCIS is not closing files fast enough... I am tried of hearing same over and over past 5 years but haven't see any single year since 2007 where USCIS + DOS wasted single visa.Quote:
Originally Posted by fedupwithgc
I do agee they wasted in past but not in recent history. So why to even talk about over and over again.
Guru's
i have a question....when Did DOS start using the spill over in horizontal(EB1 - EB2 -EB3) manner than vertical....i meant from which year....
i know before it was like EB3 ROW used to get spill overs also...
Tnx
not sure, somewhere in 2005/06, remember QBF mentioning in one of his trademark tirades against CO!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
I think from FY 2007, the famous fiasco year.Quote:
Originally Posted by GC-Utopic
I am not big predictor kind of person but i have done some research on their cut-off date pattern on visa bulletin date from 1992 and i can say that they will not retrogress this date until they will become current.
Retrogression happens in july 92, oct 97, oct 98, apr 00, oct 06 (july 07 looks exception) after cut-off dates were current.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentIndia.pdf
mesan,Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
It was first implemented in FY2008.
Not sure what you were looking at but what you posted is absolutely not true. Dates retrogressed in Dec 2007 by 2 years and then again in Jan 2008 (2002 from 2004) by another 2 years (2000 from 2002) before becoming U in Feb 2008. Dates again moved forward (2006) but retrogressed to 2003 in Sept 2008. Similarly in June 2009, rates retrogressed back to 2000 for a couple of months.Quote:
Originally Posted by h4togc
In none of these times were the dates current.
Can someone help me with these questions? If the derivative application is denied due to out of status issues and the primary is approved, are the following steps possible?
1. can we reapply for derivative again for consular processing?
2. Won't the same requirements for maintaining status apply for approval for CP?
3. If CP is also not successful, can I apply for family based F2A and whether this 180 out of status cause issues in family based application as well?
to vizcard
pandit
Yes you are right but now all this dates (from 2000 to 2006) covered by them at least two time. 1) When they are current, 2) again when dates were retrogress. Then they have started moving faster from 2007 and onwards. In the years 2008 to 2010 not much GC filling done, so chances of retrogression are very low or not.
Just prediction.
Answers in-line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reader
Reader
In my opinion, your wife was out of status for 150 days which is well within the range to invoke the 245 (k) rule.
May god help you with a very good , non-picky adjudicator who checks status only for primary . thathasthu
You guys will get your GCs verysoon .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reader
Our lawyer made a mistake. Can you please suggest how we should proceed?
I had 2 140 approvals from the same company, one for Eb3 (old one) and one for EB2 (new one) after moving to a new job with the same employer. We captured the old PD.
My EB2 PD is current. When filing our 485, the lawyer incorrectly sent the old EB3 140 approval copy instead of the newer EB2 140 approval and also referenced the eb3 approval notice number(src number) in the cover letter.
We were thinking the app will be returned from the mail room itself as the attached eb3 140 PD is not current. But the dependent checks were debited today, meaning they have accepted our applications.
How do we go about this now?
1. Should we withdraw the applications and file it again using correct 140?
2. Will USCIS lookup the newer 140 based on the A number and use that? Will this create any problems later?
3. Is there any way we can send the correct 140 to be added to our file?
Will there be any problems later with 2 and 3 that we filed our apps when the eb3 pd was not current?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Kanmani, Thanks for the kind words. I am praying everyday to avoid getting into 245k RFE. Coming back to your comment, I think that only unlawful presence will not be eligible for CP and status violations are not looked at for CP. Is it not correct? I was trying to find this information, but could not find any straight forward answers..Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
ReaderQuote:
Originally Posted by Reader
This is quite bit grey area . I'll try to find any other information in this context.
Kanmani,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanmani
It is not a grey area.
Only unlawful presence can trigger the 3 and 10 year bars.
Unlawful Presence requires Unlawful Status, but it is possible to be in Unlawful Status without being in Unlawful Presence. Unlawful Presence generally only accrues if the I-94 has expired or an Immigration Judge or USCIS tell you so.
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memo...design_AFM.PDF
The general bars to AOS are in INA 245(c) of which (2), (7) and (8) are applicable in this context:
As we know, 245(k) forgives a combined period of 180 days violation of the above.Quote:
(2) subject to subsection (k), an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) or a special immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(H) , (I) , (J) , or (K) ) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status or who is in unlawful immigration status on the date of filing the application for adjustment of status or who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States;
(7) any alien who seeks adjustment of status to that of an immigrant under section 203(b) and is not in a lawful nonimmigrant status; or
(8) any alien who was employed while the alien was an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3) , or who has otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa.
Can someone help me on this please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathang
Thank You Spec, Nishanth, GC_hopefull for replies
just wanted to know .. so it was from 2008 when EB2 is getting spill overs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
nathang - i am a bit conflicted to answer you .... but still i will answer you.
You have absolutely nothing to worry. Since the porting was done when your 140 was approved, even if the lawyer sent old 140; the old and new 140 are totally linked with each other. I am absolutely confident that USCIS picked up your new 140 and categorized you to EB2. So sit back relax and GC should be yours in 3-5 months (assuming everything else is in order!). Good luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathangCan someone help me on this please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathang
hmmmm I had a question for Spec then. If they started doing this in FY 2008, and not FY 2007, why was the need to make EB2 current in July 2007. I am not saying it was not FY 2008, but just need some perspective if anyone knows, why they made everything current.Quote:
Originally Posted by mesan123
Nathang - wait till you get the receipt notice - that will mention your category. If they mention EB2 (like they should, it is only one A# behind both 140s) then you are good. Although, a copy of 1-140 approval is a required initial evidence and you don't have that in your packet so you may get an RFE for that. I wonder if there is a way to add documentation to a case after submission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qesehmk
Gurus,
Here is some Background:
One of my friend applied I-485/ I-140 concurrently and I-140 is pending for a while and he just received RFE alert on 1-140, so trying to understand what the rfe will be.
And i checked below doc:
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memo...ntrm122705.pdf
Need help here understanding this sentence from question 1:
If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than
post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a
response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.
what does it mean material issue? any idea?.
Nishant,Quote:
Originally Posted by nishant2200
July 2007 was about lack of "Documentarily Qualified Demand" and DOS not believing that USCIS could adjudicate sufficient numbers as far as I am aware.
Going back to when the "new interpretation" started, I would concede that it is possible that it started in FY2007, but EB2 didn't see significant benefit until FY2008.
If you look at FY2007, EB1 received 26,806 visas, EB4 4,794 and EB5 793.
The available numbers to EB were 147,148 visas plus 7,312 recaptured visas.
If we just use the 147k figure, that means the EB1 allocation was 43,084 and the EB4 & EB5 allocation was 10,448 each.
Theoretical Spillover visas from EB1/4/5 would have been (43,084-26,806) + (10,448-4,794) + (10,448-793) = 31,587
Extra numbers from EB2-non IC raised this to 35,379.
EB2-C received 6,797 total visas in FY2007
EB2-I received 6,204 total visas in FY2007
EB3 received 77,667 visas in FY2007. Of those, EB3-I received 17,985 visas. It is possible there simply weren't enough EB2 cases that could be adjudicated in FY2007. It is slightly puzzling to understand how EB3-I could receive so many visas, unless EB-non IC also ran out of cases that could be adjudicated as well.
In FY2008, theoretical Spillover was 27,602.
EB2-C received 3.7k Spillover
EB2-I received 11.5k Spillover
In addition EB2-ROW used 11.4k Spillover and some were wasted.
EB3 approvals were in line with the total visas allocated to EB3.
I imagine a material issue is stuff like the job changing, medical related issues, criminal background checks, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by neospeed
Spec, Thanks for the info. I am wondering whether it is possible to apply in CP even after the AOS denied...could not find any link or info specific to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectator
I posed this question a couple of pages back but didn't get a response. Hoping I'll get one this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizcard