Immigration Voice - Forums
Register Get Involved Contact Lawmakers Advocacy Discussion Image Image Image Image

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Immigration Voice Issues and Congressional updates > IV Agenda and Legislative Updates
Click to log in with Facebook
IV Agenda and Legislative Updates Immigration Voice's Agenda and Legislative Updates

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 05:45 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jun-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Compare
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 481
royus77 is infamous around these parts royus77 is infamous around these parts royus77 is infamous around these parts royus77 is infamous around these parts royus77 is infamous around these parts royus77 is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keshtwo
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.

what made you think so ?Do you think they are violating the law and allocating more than 7% to other countries?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #32 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 05:46 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Aug-04
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
10/30/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 51
keshtwo is a jewel in the rough keshtwo is a jewel in the rough keshtwo is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by royus77
what made you think so ?Do you think they are violating the law and allocating more than 7% to other countries?

Spillover means India, china and mexico get more than 7% for one year, dont it?
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #33 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 05:47 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Jan-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
06/06/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
06/29/2007
Compare
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 151
same_old_guy has a spectacular aura about same_old_guy has a spectacular aura about
Default

And we are not in deep shit right now ???? Where have you been all the time ?

Why are you so scared ? Is it because you think USCIS wil do harm to you and others ? Well, what the hell it was doing while allocating all the quota in 15 days to avoid the rush ?

I wish USCIS would get down on it's knee and issue an apologies to all those people it's screwed over !
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #34 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 05:47 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
May-06
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/02/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/27/2007
Compare
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 417
a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future a_yaja has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keshtwo
I hope this lawsuit fails. Looking ahead this lawsuit, if it succeeds might do us more damage than good. Law of unintended consequences states that something can happen we haven't thought of.
Supposing, if lawsuit goes ahead and wins, one outcome might be - USCIS might start adhering to strict interpretation of 7% per country, or curtail spillovers drastically. Then we are in deep shit.
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
__________________
Greened on 05/04/2011
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #35 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 05:57 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Nov-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
03/03/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
06/30/2007
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 776
roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute roseball has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:

The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.

/End Quote

This statement from Mr. Aytes can be used to prove the conspiracy against July filers. If they knew that the security check process would have been completed shortly, then why in the world would they have to approve them before July....They had all the time till end of the fiscal year (Sept 30th) to approve such cases once the security checks were complete and still not allow wastage of immigrant visas for the current fiscal year. They only approved it for one of the following two reasons:

-- They didnt want all of us to file under the old fee system. That would cause USCIS a loss of $225-300 million (based on guestimates from www.immigration-law.com)

-- They were not ready to accept the work load of 300-400k I-485 applications which could have led to huge backlogs for years to come because the current political situation will in no way increase the number of immigrant visas for legal immigrants. All they care for is illegal immigrants.....
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #36 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 06:00 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Aug-04
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
10/30/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 51
keshtwo is a jewel in the rough keshtwo is a jewel in the rough keshtwo is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a_yaja
How can USCIS adher to 7% per country quota when AC21 explicitly says that if visas are still available after allotment to ROW, the remaining visas must spill over to the over subscribed countries?
As a result of failure of this lawsuite, if they start adhering to 7% cap, then they are in violation of AC21. That would be another lawsuite for sure.
dude, When do they know ROW quota is not filled. The last day of the year? do you think they can give the spillover numbers to India, China and Mexico in one day? Currently what they do is, make a guess on how much will be free and then allot spillovers. tommorow as a result of this ladies lawsuit, they might decided to make sure other countries under 7% get their quota, and spillivers might be drastically curtailed.
Rememer there is no law which states 140K numbers have to be issued. only that max 140k can be issued.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #37 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 06:02 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Aug-04
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
10/30/2006
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 51
keshtwo is a jewel in the rough keshtwo is a jewel in the rough keshtwo is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by same_old_guy
And we are not in deep shit right now ???? Where have you been all the time ?

Why are you so scared ? Is it because you think USCIS wil do harm to you and others ? Well, what the hell it was doing while allocating all the quota in 15 days to avoid the rush ?

I wish USCIS would get down on it's knee and issue an apologies to all those people it's screwed over !

dude if you think we are in deep shit now, wait till you are really in deep shit. no lawsuit can get you a green card any faster (could make it slower though). All that it might do is make sure that USCIS has to deal with an avalanche of EAD apps, delaying EAD anyways.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #38 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 07:30 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25
CSPAvictim is on a distinguished road
Post Immigrant visa number calculation

I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.

DOS Reg 22 CFR §42.51:

(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and

(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.

Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...22cfr42.33.pdf


Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?

Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?

PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.

Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #39 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 07:36 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Sep-03
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,590
jonty_11 is a glorious beacon of light jonty_11 is a glorious beacon of light jonty_11 is a glorious beacon of light jonty_11 is a glorious beacon of light jonty_11 is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSPAvictim
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.

DOS Reg 22 CFR §42.51:

(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and

(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.

Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...22cfr42.33.pdf


Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?

Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?

PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.

Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'

They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #40 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 07:40 PM
Super Moderator
Priority Date
:
Jul-07
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/02/2007
Compare
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,535
paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute paskal has a reputation beyond repute
Default nope

there is still the last quarter's quota
which is 100 - (27% X 3) = 19%

this 19% cannot be issued in July either- not more than 10% a mnth

there is no question they ignored this
i'm curious to know what reason they will use to justify it.
especially if it's a deposition under oath.
__________________
Not a lawyer clearly- far from it!
iv-mn-mw: The MN State IV Chapter
iv-physicians:The IV Chapter for Physicians

To be a star, you must shine your own light, follow your own path, and not worry about the darkness, for that is when the stars shine brightest!
Don't be afraid to try something new, remember amateurs built the ark and professionals the Titanic!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #41 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 07:47 PM
Senior Member
Priority Date
:
Mar-05
Category
:
EB2
I140 Mailed Date
:
12/22/2005
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
07/17/2007
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 231
shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future shreekhand has a brilliant future
Default

Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.

The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #42 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 07:53 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25
CSPAvictim is on a distinguished road
Default

I have a question: If this is indeed an internal DOS regulation, which it most probably is, does it mean that DOS can make changes without sufficient notice to the applicants/public? Does the Administrative Procedures Act come into play in such a situation?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shreekhand
Remember this is internal DoS regulation and not a US Code or Law. They can change at any time and way they want to.

The whole law-suit is essentially about hardship caused to applicants in multiple dimensions with a sprinkling of violation of law (info on which is still quiet hazy )to give some back-bone to the argument in the law-suit!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #43 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 08:05 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 28
hara_patta_for_rico is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSPAvictim
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.

DOS Reg 22 CFR §42.51:

(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and

(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.

Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...22cfr42.33.pdf


Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?

Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?

PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.

Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.

Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #44 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 08:17 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25
CSPAvictim is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm not sure I totally understand what you said, but
a. The 27% limitation doesn't apply to the last quarter(July,August, Sept)
b. However, June falls in the third quarter for which the limitation DOES apply.
c.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty_11
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'

They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
Like jonty_11 pointed out, Clause B states that numbers from previous months can be requested. Since it is a grey area, the USCIS may claim that in June (if they used up X number of visas) then (X-14,000) visas were balance numbers from previous months. And yet, it has to account for the 27% limitation for the third quarter.

It'll be interesting to see how USCIS explains itself in court.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hara_patta_for_rico
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #45 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2007, 08:24 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25
CSPAvictim is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hara_patta_for_rico
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.

On second thoughts, it seems like you're talking about the 37800 for the last quarter. Well, I havent yet come across any law/regulation that prevents USCIS from using up all the visa numbers before the last quarter. And like I said before, the last quarter is not subject to the 27% limitation. Over the years, USCIS has not been using up all the numbers for the fiscal year. This time, they did the opposite and used them up in the first three quarters itself!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Class Action LawSuit Against the USCIS lahiribaba Action Items for everyone 19 02-22-2011 10:26 AM
Lawsuit for H1B visa against USCIS eastindia Non-Immigrant Visas 3 07-20-2010 04:57 PM
Lawsuit against USCIS eastindia Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins 15 04-23-2010 01:18 PM
Class Action Lawsuit against USCIS hopefulgc Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins 220 03-02-2008 09:40 PM
I'll file lawsuit against USCIS / DOS EndlessWait Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins 23 07-16-2007 03:42 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org