PDA

View Full Version : USCIS New RULE Option


nomi
12-11-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??


Originally Posted by Nomi

I agree with you. Why we don`t explore this option ???? USCIS make so many rule by itself then why they don`t make this rule to file 485 while PD is not current without going in Senate. Like they start premium processing of I-140. They make this rule without any bill in US Senate. correct me if I am wrong

I think, core team should look this option or ask us to find more information about it. I think, core team can meet with high official from USCIS.

what do you guys think about it ??

thx.

nomi
12-11-2006, 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??


Yes, I was wondering the same thing.

The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.

We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.

nomi
12-11-2006, 03:32 PM
I think we should spend more time to explore this option too. If USCIS make this rule which alllow us to file I-485 with out PD current that will be big relief for us.

nomi
12-11-2006, 03:38 PM
[QUOTE=wildvoice]

Yes, I am definitely for this idea that we should petition/ask USCIS to change the rules to allow those with approved I-140 to be able to file I-485 while their PD is not yet current even if we would pay US$5,000.:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]

manderson
12-11-2006, 03:42 PM
reply from a previous thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2424&highlight=file+current)

The core team has alrady addressed this issue before : try doing a search. The summary goes something like this - First, EAD cards cannot be given out arbitrarily. Apparently, the law mandates very specific circumstances for which an work authorization (EAD) can be given out : for example, a student on OPT. We wouldn't meet this criteria before a visa number is available for adjustment of status to permanent resident - not unless the law is changed by congress. Secondly, EAD, as it stands now, is meant to be a strictly interim permit. The USCIS ombudsman's report has already objected strongly to the phenomenon of people who are ultimately found ineligible for permanent residence enjoying the benefits of an EAD for extended periods due to processing delays. In such circumstances, it is not realistic to expect that USCIS, on its own accord, will start doling out EADs like seasons' greetings cards.

Canadian_Dream
12-11-2006, 03:43 PM
Since this has always been pushed through legilative means (S.1932), there might be a hurdle involved in using "Rulemaking" approach to this solution, nevertheless this idea should atleast be explored. Here is how rulemaking procedures work in Govt Agency: (Adding Flexibility is something that can be done through Rulemaking).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking

Adding flexibility. More detailed regulations allow for more nuanced approaches to various conditions than a single legislative standard could. Moreover, regulations tend to be more easily changed as new data or technologies emerge.

nomi
12-11-2006, 03:48 PM
Since this has always been pushed through legilative means (S.1932), there might be a hurdle involved in using "Rulemaking" approach to this solution, nevertheless this idea should atleast be explored. Here is how rulemaking procedures work in Govt Agency: (Adding Flexibility is something that can be done through Rulemaking).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking

Adding flexibility. More detailed regulations allow for more nuanced approaches to various conditions than a single legislative standard could. Moreover, regulations tend to be more easily changed as new data or technologies emerge.


I think we should study that how does USCIS make new rule without going into Congress and then see how can we implement this rule or atleast ask them to consider this option.

Guest007
12-11-2006, 03:51 PM
In the worst case may be we can try to find out if filling 485 is hinderence, they can split the process of Filiing EAD and AP seperately from 485

nomi
12-11-2006, 03:54 PM
Does anybody know who do we need to contact in USCIS about this rule making policy or ask them to consider this option. I hope there should be some department or office in USCIS who make all these rules. I think we should contact them and ask them what are our options here.

thx.

iptel
12-11-2006, 03:59 PM
When we file I485 its with Department of States and not USCIS which is part of Department of Home Land Security. In my opinion it is DOS who has to agree filing I 485 even if visa number not available.

anilsal
12-11-2006, 04:00 PM
In my opinion, USCIS created this rule to disallow new applications such that they can deal with the countless backlogged apps for labor.

If the change of rule does not need congress action, then why not explore this option of allowing filing I485 during retrogression?

nomi
12-11-2006, 04:03 PM
When we file I485 its with Department of States and not USCIS which is part of Department of Home Land Security. In my opinion it is DOS who has to agree filing I 485 even if visa number not available.


How can we contact with Department of State about this rule. Can we meet with rule making department or its officers and see what they say about it ??
There should be someway or they are enough rights to change or make new rule. Like they decide everymonth visa numbers ?? what do you guys think ??

thx.

anilsal
12-11-2006, 04:06 PM
First someone from IV core has to confirm that this rule change does not need congress action. I am sure the core has explored this option before.

Until then, there is no point in having any discussion on this.

nomi
12-11-2006, 04:12 PM
First someone from IV core has to confirm that this rule change does not need congress action. I am sure the core has explored this option before.

Until then, there is no point in having any discussion on this.



Can someone from IV core team confirm this "this rule change does not need congress action." ???

If we don`t talk about here then how does core team know aobut it ??

Anyway i will wait from core team about it. I don`t know either this rule come under USCIS OR Department of State ??

thx.

go_gc_way
12-11-2006, 04:34 PM
First someone from IV core has to confirm that this rule change does not need congress action. I am sure the core has explored this option before.

Until then, there is no point in having any discussion on this.

I second all , who want to contact USCIS for this. We can take out this from our wish list for a bill.

xbohdpukc
12-11-2006, 04:44 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)

INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.

anilsal
12-11-2006, 04:44 PM
I think USCIS is under department of homeland security.

Department of State is mainly for travel.

nomi
12-11-2006, 04:58 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)

INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.


Thank xbohdukc. I think, this door is also close.

anilsal
12-11-2006, 05:04 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)

INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.

I think the act says that the alien should have filed an application, only after which does the question of available visa comes into picture.
http://www.americanlaw.com/aos.html

I think this act is not the applicable one.

So I think we are still green to discuss this. Do you interpret the same?

nomi
12-11-2006, 05:12 PM
I think the act says that the alien should have filed an application, only after which does the question of available visa comes into picture.
http://www.americanlaw.com/aos.html

I think this act is not the applicable one.

So I think we are still green to discuss this. Do you interpret the same?


so let`s see what does core team `s opinion about it ?? Core Team, please throw some light on it.

Thx.

neelu
12-11-2006, 06:09 PM
USCIS cannot do anything on the matter. INA is clear on the AOS conditions, one of which is "An immigrant visa is IMMEDIATELY available at time of filing for adjustment of status" (INA 245, 8 USC 1225)

INA should be changed which should be done through a legislative process, not through any rule making.


As I understand the above, the law only says when you can file for AOS (to change which a legislative process is required).

The above still does not throw any more light on the technicality which disallows concurrent filing. Does it?

Was concurrent processing facility removed through a congressional action (legislation)? If not, why is it required to reinstate it?

Is this a valid argument? If it is, then this particular request should be directed towards a body such as USCIS, etc and not the congress.

Any comments?

anilsal
12-12-2006, 10:37 AM
Nobody knows whether congressional action is needed to allow I-485 to be filed during retrogression?

nomi
12-12-2006, 11:19 AM
Nobody knows whether congressional action is needed to allow I-485 to be filed during retrogression?


Look, No body know about it. I think we should contact with some law firm in order to find it out from some reliable sources.

One more thing is what how does USCIS start retrogression. There is no law about it either. This is something USCIs start by it self using "New Rule" option.

I think Core team should look into it. Since we spend so much energy to calling all Senators and we all know the results.

USCIS can allow to file I-485 or they can make some rule without going congress.

Correct me if I am wrong but there is some light in this path for us if we seriously fellow it.

what do you guys think about it ??

thx.

logiclife
12-12-2006, 11:26 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.

The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.

nomi
12-12-2006, 11:38 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.

The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.


Well... then I should not drop my Candian Immigration.

neelu
12-12-2006, 11:48 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.

The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.


Hi Logiclife,

If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.

But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?

I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)

Thank you.

nomi
12-12-2006, 01:36 PM
Hi Logiclife,

If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.

But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?

I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)

Thank you.

I agree with you. There is not logic in any of immigration related laws. I think they should re-write all those immigration laws again and all lawmakers should be Immigrant who can understand all the pain we have coz of these immigration laws. I don`t think any law maker knows "what I-485 is"

Once they approve the 1-140 and that`s it it shuold be all done. AOS
(Change of Status) is all stupid and meaning less. It just money making games for all Attorneys and law makers. All attorneys supports law makers so they make laws where attorney can have maximum benefits from us. These attorneys don`t do anything either about immigration laws coz this is the only way for them to make money.

Guest007
12-12-2006, 01:48 PM
Guys I have a basic question if filing for 140 and 485 concurently is rule that uscis can change.. why cant they change a rule to file for EAD and AP after 140 is approved. Since these two are seperate all together from 485 anyway, all we need is filing these two. and 485 can filed when numbers are available.

ChainReaction
12-12-2006, 01:57 PM
Guys I have a basic question if filing for 140 and 485 concurently is rule that uscis can change.. why cant they change a rule to file for EAD and AP after 140 is approved. Since these two are seperate all together from 485 anyway, all we need is filing these two. and 485 can filed when numbers are available.

And also if the FBI name check can be done during or after the i-140 stage as the labor market is already tested and the employer has/had committed to hire the alien (One of the major factor contributing to this is the retrogression ,which can be reduced substantially at the name check stage) . At least the name check can be taken care of while people are waiting for their PD to become current?

anilsal
12-12-2006, 02:17 PM
If the attorneys have determined that there needs to be a INA change to allow I-485 filing during retrogression, has anybody bothered to find out what USCIS interpretation is?

USCIS interpretation can be binding!

harsh
12-12-2006, 03:05 PM
I agree. Who or which department of USCIS has the authority to decide they will disallow concurrent 140/485 filing? If that department has the authority to make such a decision they probably have the authority to
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start their name check process once 140 is cleared while everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.

There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? At the USCIS press release? May be the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them our auggestions.

nomi
12-12-2006, 03:25 PM
I agree. Who or which department of USCIS has the authority to decide they will disallow concurrent 140/485 filing? If that department has the authority to make such a decision they probably have the authority to
1. allow filing of 485 without visa number availability,
2. allow people to start thaie name check process once 140 is cleared and everyone is waiting for priority dates to become current.

There should be a way to find out who in USCIS comes up with these new rule suggestions. Where do all the proposed rule changes published? at the USCIS press release? May the actual press release has some information. There has got be to a way to find out from either press department or someone who or what part of USCIS makes these suggestions and then may be we can make send them out auggestions.


I totally agree with you. That`s what I am saying too. I am glad that you got my point instead of refering me to INT. There are ways and we have to find out. I think core team should guide us in right direction
thx.

neelu
12-12-2006, 04:38 PM
I totally agree with you. That`s what I am saying too. I am glad that you got my point instead of refering me to INT. There are ways and we have to find out. I think core team should guide us in right direction
thx.


While I kinda agree, I think we should do our own research instead of asking core team to direct us for everything.

anilsal
12-12-2006, 04:40 PM
Here is an article that has some info on the non-ability to file 485.
http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Articles/?a=327&z=63

But still, what rule says that until visa numbers are available, one cannot file 485. Most probably, we never realized this pattern because until retrogression hit, the visa numbers were always available.

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:02 PM
instead of sending emails and faxes which will likely get thrown out with yesterday's trash, how about a large group of us get together and schedule a meeting directly with DOL and USCIS officials?
In person gets more attention. maybe we can even generate some press for this if it is a large enogh group


I like you idea and I am with you. Would you please take a lead of this task or let me know what to do next ??

thx.

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:09 PM
I think, we should arrange meeting with DOS and USCIS and ask them about all possible solution of this problem.

We should find DOS and USCIS main offices first and then ask IV member who live in those States can contact them and arrange meeting and bring this issues on table with DOS and USCIS Official.

There is nothing to lose by doing this but lot ot gain if we came with some solution. May be there are some ways or something under their control where they can allow us to file for EAD and AP if I-140 approved.

If this doesn`t happend then we have nothing to lose.

what do you guys think about it ??

thx.

jonty_11
12-12-2006, 05:13 PM
USCIS is not a legislative body, they cannot pass a law. The Congress does. In order to change any existing laws Congress has to pass it and USCIS just implements it. So I do not think meeting USCIS will help. BTW what is DOS ?

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:15 PM
USCIS is not a legislative body, they cannot pass a law. The Congress does. In order to change any existing laws Congress has to pass it and USCIS just implements it. So I do not think meeting USCIS will help. BTW what is DOS ?

DOS is Department of State who controls all visa numbers.

guy03062
12-12-2006, 05:18 PM
I read news on oh law firm few days back that USCIS is planning to abandon concurrent filing (I140 + I-485). So when USCIS has power to disallow that, then they may have power to allow file I-485 when visa not available. This is just my thought. Anyway it does not hurt to find it out from USCIS officials, rather than asking some lawyer or interpret our own.

Also when we ask lawyer about this, we may not get positive response as they may fear of loosing fees of countless H1B visa transfers.

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:19 PM
USCIS is not a legislative body, they cannot pass a law. The Congress does. In order to change any existing laws Congress has to pass it and USCIS just implements it. So I do not think meeting USCIS will help. BTW what is DOS ?


I know USCIS is not legislative body and they can`t pass law either. But we need to know what USCIS can do for us to give us temp. relief. We need to know what are under their control. They do lot of rules with out going into Congress. So its nothing to lose to ask them what they can do for us without any bill. We will not lose if they say "They can`t do anything" but this will give us some hope that we did our best and also contact to USCIS too.

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:25 PM
I read news on oh law firm few days back that USCIS is planning to abandon concurrent filing (I140 + I-485). So when USCIS has power to disallow that, then they may have power to allow file I-485 when visa not available. This is just my thought. Anyway it does not hurt to find it out from USCIS officials, rather than asking some lawyer or interpret our own.

Also when we ask lawyer about this, we may not get positive response as they may fear of loosing fees of countless H1B visa transfers.


I agree with you. Lawyer and Attorneys are not our friends. where will they make money once we get our green cards. We should direct meet with head of the USCIS. We are all legal here and pays our tax and playing important role in this country.

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:28 PM
Please tell me how can USCIS making all these changes without any Bill in Congress or Senate.


http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:31 PM
Yes, we do listen - Fixes based on your comments

While we will not respond individually to your e-mails to us, we do read - and act - on them. This page will show some of the issues you have raised and solutions that we have instituted in response.



November 15, 2006
Administrative Appeals Decisions

These decisions are currently unavailable on the USCIS web portal. We expect to have them re-published by November 30.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 8, 2006
I-LINK Materials/INA/8 CFR/etc.
While these legal materials are available (including the redacted Adjudicator's Field Manual). They may experience intermittent problems. If you try to access this material and see a blank page, refresh your browser. The page should appear. Please note: the redacted Adjudicator's Field Manual is a very large document, and may load more slowly than other legal materials.

Policy and Procedural Memoranda
These are being republished now, and should be complete no later than November 9.

Broken Forms
We are receiving a number of comments from you that a particular form is corrupt or somehow not working. If this happens to you, please let us know the following details:

The form you are attempting to download
What version of Adobe Reader or Acrobat you are using
What browser and operating system you are using (e.g., Firefox 1.x and Windows XP)
This will hopefully help us nail down the problem. Thank you




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 7, 2006
Missing I-600A Form
Replaced the form Nov. 6

Immigration Statistics
If you are looking for the immigration statistical reports we published on USCIS.gov, they can now be found at www.dhs.gov/immigrationstatistics. Or click the related link "Immigration Statistics" on this page.

Case Processing Times
If you are looking for the listing of processing times for particular application or petition types at our regional and district offices, you may find it at the related link "Case Processing Times" on this page.



http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f55cc2e9bb6be010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7220c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:37 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD

harsh
12-12-2006, 05:54 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD

All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"

I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.

Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:57 PM
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"

I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.

Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?



12/11/2006: USCIS Considers Termination of Concurrent Filing (140/485)

According to the USCIS rule-making agenda, the USCIS is to propose to terminate current concurrent I-140 and I-485 filing. The proposed rule is scheduled to be published in March 2007 with 60-day comment period. It is thus not imminent, but in the later part of next year(Oops!), the immigrant community may see a totally different filing procedure including electronic registration and filing just like current PERM labor certificaiton application procedure. Once the concurrent filing is terminated, the immigrants may experience a terrible pain as related to maintenance of nonimmigrant status pending I-140 petition, eligibility for 245K benefit, plus unavailability of EAD and AP pending I-140 petition, AC-21 180-day portability, etc. etc. Should the I-140 petition processing be dragged, the pain will be extremely unbearable

http://www.immigration-law.com/

nomi
12-12-2006, 05:59 PM
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"

I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.

Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?


what about if we write a letter to USCIS and ask for some relief and all IV member fax that letter to USCIS same day. USICS will take notice about that many faxes same day and may be throw some light on this issue.

What do you guys think ??

GCard_Dream
12-12-2006, 06:48 PM
nomi,

I am very surprised that there is not as much interest in this thread as I had expected but you are doing great in trying to explore this avenue. I wish I had some of the answers. Keep up the good work.

nomi
12-12-2006, 08:13 PM
nomi,

I am very surprised that there is not as much interest in this thread as I had expected but you are doing great in trying to explore this avenue. I wish I had some of the answers. Keep up the good work.



I will look into it. I think everyone should look into it and try to find some solution. All IV member sends so many fax to US Senate and called all Senators which was good effort from all of us. Now if we send six thousands fax to USCIS same day...Don`t you guy think that USCIS will notice our problems and discuss them in their enternal meeting and ask US Senate or Congress to discuss this issue as early as possible. I know IV is doing great job and I am with IV but all I am saying we should put some pressure on USCIS too so they can see we are in pain and they do their job to get us some relief.

If we do this then , USCIS will also support us too since we are right and we are asking some relief about green card.

Guys come on ...Think about it too. We can do it if IV approve it and everyone help. We should bother USCIS too about our issue so they can contact lawmakers and tell them about our pain. No body care if we don`t speak up.

Please tell me if we send 6000 fax same day don`t you think we will be in IV will be in headline and if we keeping doing same thing then some one will listen our issues and give us some temp. relief.

Please come and Take the lead in this regard and Request USCIS to give us some temp relief because there are lot of people and families suffering coz of this.

Please stop predicting Visa number everyone and deal with reality and stand up and speak about ou issue.

Tell me what don`t you guys think ??

thx.

neelu
12-13-2006, 01:17 AM
I'm with you - less talk and more action.
Also, members should all show support for all goals.
I am not in the I-485 stage but would certainly fax USCIS.
In the same way, members should fax DOL to clear up their backlogs.

the whole point of this forum is united action, so lets show support

Add one more member to this effort. I will support any effort to call/fax for both fixes to LC backlogs as well as provision to allow 485 filing without visa number availability.

At the same time, I do want to caution that we need to take measured steps, because USCIS and DOL though they are public service departments are unlike the congress which is a representative body of the people and so by definition there to 'hear' our problems and address them. In summary, DOL and USCIS might not be as receptive or even be irritated (might hurt our cause).

I would suggest that a group of say around 10-15 with a couple of core members (am not volunteering them here!) who have had both media exposure and well versed with the issues, meet these people at the top and seek explanations. But even as I write this, I doubt how much effect that kind of thing would have, unless we do this on a regular basis.

I know many of these suggestions are easier said than done, but better something said than none! :)

anilsal
12-13-2006, 01:44 AM
I still cannot understand why they do not allow one to file I-485 when the visa numbers are not current. Atleast 485 will give the person an opportunity to obtain a EAD card.

If not, the person is in a limbo.

Lucky7
12-13-2006, 06:59 AM
I sent a letter earlier this year to one of my Senators here in CA regarding my 2001 LC and the result i got was that the senators secretary checked my case with USICS and sent a letter stating that my green card was approved 2003.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.

god_bless_you
12-13-2006, 08:40 AM
Whats the advice on this from core group?
can we start mass web faxing USCIS for rule change?

nomi
12-13-2006, 09:38 AM
Whats the advice on this from core group?
can we start mass web faxing USCIS for rule change?



Now we are talking....first we need green signal from Core Team and request them to make fax for USCIS. Once we have fax, then we will fax this latter to USCIS same day. I hope once 6000 member fax this letter to USCIS same day then we will see some action from them too and we will be in media.

I will also say that Core Team should sell this fax to its member for $10. If everymember pay $10 for this letter and if we are 6000 then it will be $ 60,000 for IV which will be very nice funds for IV.

All we want from USCIS that allow us to file I-485 or allow us to file EAD or AP so we can have some freedom of travel and job change and it will also help USCIS to start name check ahead of time and that will also cut their processing time to process I-485.

what do you guys think ??


thx.

Nomi

ckichannagari
12-13-2006, 09:49 AM
That's a good idea. A good way of generating funds for IV also. This way it would seem less burden for all of the members and they will be willing to come forward.

nomi
12-13-2006, 10:02 AM
No responses yet ...Oh come on guys ...YOU want to pay $10 now or want to wait for 10 years to get your GREEN CARD ???

va_jan_03
12-13-2006, 10:44 AM
I am sure the IV core would have thought about this option of contacting USCIS and let them know the problems because of retrogression.

But I like the idea of collecting 10$ for the fax and creating awareness. Lets move.

nomi
12-13-2006, 10:54 AM
I am sure the IV core would have thought about this option of contacting USCIS and let them know the problems because of retrogression.

But I like the idea of collecting 10$ for the fax and creating awareness. Lets move.



so let find out who is dead of department of homeland Security and get addresses , phone number and fax. USCIS is branch of DHS. That`s where we need to contact them and ask them what we THEY can do for us and what are our legal options

please someone work with core team to get that fax letter ready. I can do that if core team allow me

thx.

GCard_Dream
12-13-2006, 11:06 AM
I am all for making contribution as well as sending faxes or personal letters. Count me in.

No responses yet ...Oh come on guys ...YOU want to pay $10 now or want to wait for 10 years to get your GREEN CARD ???

GCAmigo
12-13-2006, 11:11 AM
for contacting/fax etc..

jonty_11
12-13-2006, 11:13 AM
Count me and 2 more members with me....lets have a plan..and execute it.

nomi
12-13-2006, 11:25 AM
Count me and 2 more members with me....lets have a plan..and execute it.


Would some one will take control to make letter ready which we need to send to USCIS and I will work to get info about USCIS office and fax number ??

Please let me know who will make this fax letter ready ??

thx.

jonty_11
12-13-2006, 11:39 AM
It would work even great if IV could post this on the homepage, and send emails to all members to send faxes to USCIS on say Dec 18th, at 12 noon EST.
Or are we on our own for this effort, which would mean the only way people will know about this effort is via this thread....At least we should open a new thread with a specific name so that it becomes obvious waht the purpose of that thread is.

dish
12-13-2006, 11:44 AM
I sent a letter earlier this year to one of my Senators here in CA regarding my 2001 LC and the result i got was that the senators secretary checked my case with USICS and sent a letter stating that my green card was approved 2003.
For somebody who is still waiting for LC recruitment instructions this was a total waste of time and money ( donated $5000. to Senator).
Next week my attorney and i and his other LC DBEC clients are going to try and make an appointment with DOL and see if they will comply.
Number 1 point we shall pursue is to make a $5000.00 premium processing for all DBEC pending LC and have guranteed adjudication in 120 days for all LC with current PD.
This way all clients with current PD will obvouisly pay $5000.00 and DBEC can use the extra funds for remaining cases.


Can you please write in detail what happened with your LC and hou you recieved your green card in 2003. Your experience with DOL, and sentor will make a good story for IV.

god_bless_you
12-13-2006, 11:57 AM
I know , More than 50% of IV members who can not file I 485 due to retrogression will be happy to pay this nominal amount of $10 to fax letter to USCIS for rule change
but What is the stand of Core group on this?
No update from any one!!

nomi
12-13-2006, 12:01 PM
I needed a few days to digest the argument I had last week with some members. I've been reading this entire thread since yesterday and it all make sense to me; it seems a very logic and smart thing to do, so count on me.


my Friend,

don`t worry about any arguments you had in past. I say sorry if some member say something wrong or unlogical. Please don`t waste your energy in negative thinking and come and help all of us and be our hero in this hard time. we are all here for same cause and we should be united as team and focus like a laser beam.

We need you and every member is most valueable part of IV and consider him or her right hand of core team.

I hope you got my point and let`s come and join us along with IV core team with this new option.

thx.

nomi
12-13-2006, 12:03 PM
I know , More than 50% of IV members who can not file I 485 due to retrogression will be happy to pay this nominal amount of $10 to fax letter to USCIS for rule change
but What is the stand of Core group on this?
No update from any one!!

Please Core Team ,

Help us in this option and show us right way. We will generate $60,000 for IV and if nothing happen but we will make Headline in Media which will help us in future efforts in US Senate.

Please throw some light in this regard.

thx.

nomi

GCard_Dream
12-13-2006, 12:37 PM
We should be able to submit this question to the lawyer's conference call organized by IV and see what's their take is on this. I wonder what the procedure is to submit the question. I have never done that before.

Jimi_Hendrix
12-13-2006, 12:38 PM
We should be able to submit this question to the lawyer's conference call organized by IV and see what's their take is on this. I wonder what the procedure is to submit the question. I have never done that before.
Great idea. Validation from the lawyers would give us validation to go after this idea.

Jimi_Hendrix
12-13-2006, 12:40 PM
I think you should write an e-mail to the core team to get their attention on this idea.

GCard_Dream
12-13-2006, 12:46 PM
I should have known this. The procedure is right on the IV home page. Does anyone know when the next conference call is?

How to submit your questions:

Please read the disclaimer below before submitting your questions via email.Please provide us with the following information, preferably in the following format, and keep it consise and crisp:

Email with Subject Line saying : Seeking Legal Opinion.
Email Address: legal_advise@immigrationvoice.org
Your Info: Please mention your first Name, City and State, so that we can use it to announce your question in the call. That way, your question would be distinguished from similar sounding questions.
Your Country of Citizenship: If your spouse is from a country other than yours, please specify both your countries of citizenship
Your Questions: Provide some clear background. Avoid questions with long and complicated case-specific situations that are like "Can I do X? If yes then is option A or option B better? If option A then can I file this? IF option B then can I file this? If B fails then can I refile A?". Such flow-chart and if-then-else type questions would be taken up only if time is left and attorney is comfortable in answering questions with limited information of your situation.

god_bless_you
12-13-2006, 12:46 PM
I think you should write an e-mail to the core team to get their attention on this idea.

Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??

GCard_Dream
12-13-2006, 12:58 PM
Well ... that's the sad part. Everyone in core team is probably reading this but no significant feedback or suggestion has come from them. May be they are all too busy or this topic doesn't have any merit or has been discussed in depth already before. I am not sure what's going on.

Nomi my friend, looks like we are on our own on this one. ;)

Do you think no one from core team reading this thread??

anilsal
12-13-2006, 01:04 PM
As far as I know Pappu is in IN attending a conference which ends tonight. So he may have limited connectivity. I do not know about the other core members (I am not one)

An action to contact USCIS/DeptOfState to explore options to file 485 during retrogression, certainly does hold merit. I am sure you can say that you represent IV.

anilsal
12-13-2006, 01:09 PM
Let's give them some time. It may be a topic that require some research, information-gathering. This is an entirely new strategy we are discussing, no surprise if they don't get back with an immediate answer. I'm sure they are analyzing the idea.

I am sure that the IV core has already explored this option. We need some kind of feedback from them.

===============
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi

Slogan of the Linux community

nomi
12-13-2006, 01:21 PM
I am sure that the IV core has already explored this option. We need some kind of feedback from them.

===============
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi

Slogan of the Linux community


Sure... we will wiat for IV Core Team and their approval. I am writing letter to USCIS and then I will paste it here so you guys can also see and we can fix it and add or remove stuff from it and once we make it final then we will give it to core team so they can look and approve it or change it if they want. I will paste it here once i am done. Let keep it moving untill we get some feedback from core team .

thx.

nomi

pappu
12-13-2006, 01:50 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.

- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.

Hope this explains this topic. Thanks

neelu
12-13-2006, 02:01 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.

- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.

Hope this explains this topic. Thanks

Our dear Pappu,

I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.

So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).

But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.

Thank you.
Neelu

jonty_11
12-13-2006, 02:04 PM
Pappu has doused the fire..:(

pappu
12-13-2006, 02:12 PM
Pappu has doused the fire..:(
Thanks for understanding. sorry though for disappointing you.
I must say that the motivation and drive in members is great these days. Last week's effort has had positive effect on all of us and united us. Let us all use this energy sphere we have created to help make this organization strong and take part in the current action items.

GCard_Dream
12-13-2006, 02:18 PM
I am sure this topic will come up again and again when new members join. We recently had quite a few (over a thousand) new members join IV and as the word gets around, there will be even more interest in IV and new members/non-members will visit the site and ask questions. I don't think we should expect everyone (new or old members) to know everything that was discussed in this forum from day one. That's not practical.

Every few days I see a new thread that is asking for information on how to change from EB3 to EB2. There are literally hundred or so threads that talks about this issue yet still new threads pop up regularly asking the same info. This is bound to happen and can't be stopped.

If you know that a topic has been covered somewhere, making a link available would be very helpful. If you think that a certain topic is brought up on a regular basis, may be we should make that thread sticky or have that information on homepage or somewhere where it's easily accessible.

We can always argue that members can do their own search on the forum. While that's true, if we know the answer and can quickly make that available to members, I think we'll be doing a service to our members. Just a thought.



All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.

- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.

Hope this explains this topic. Thanks

anilsal
12-13-2006, 02:22 PM
Having a FAQ with links to discussions held in the forums may be the answer.

nomi
12-13-2006, 02:24 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.

- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.

Hope this explains this topic. Thanks


Thanks Pappu for explaination. Look like this door is already close. Well let me know if I can do anything to help.

pappu
12-13-2006, 02:58 PM
Thanks Pappu for explaination. Look like this door is already close. Well let me know if I can do anything to help.
Thanks. I appreciate your enthusiasm and seveal other members on this thread. Pls help us in the action items listed by IV so that we can be well prepared to undertake any campaign early next year. Let me tell you, the campaign like last week will happen again because IV will keep pushing through every crack in the door until our goal is achieved. At such times we need to have enough membership muscle, financial capability to sustain and execute the effort. All this is not built in one day but during times like this when DC is quiet.

nomi
12-13-2006, 03:00 PM
Thanks. I appreciate your enthusiasm and seveal other members on this thread. Pls help us in the action items listed by IV so that we can be well prepared to undertake any campaign early next year. Let me tell you, the campaign like last week will happen again because IV will keep pushing through every crack in the door until our goal is achieved. At such times we need to have enough membership muscle, financial capability to sustain and execute the effort. All this is not built in one day but during times like this when DC is quiet.


Sure . Agree with you and Stand next to you and IV with full of my energy and resources.