baburob2
10-07 08:11 PM
My son is a US citizen/passport holder and we are planning on applying for a PIO for him at the SFO consulate. I have the following questions on how he could use the PIO card
1. How can he use the PIO card to enter and exit India?
a. Does he simply show the PIO card, US passport to enter and exit India?
2. Incase if the PIO card processing takes a lot of time I know that he can apply for visa. I was wondering anyone has experience on how visa could be applied if PIO processing takes a long time at the SFO consulate.
a. Do they return the PIO application and its supporting documents before visa could be applied?
b. Should a new visa application+visa supporting documents need to be resent for getting a Indian visa?
1. How can he use the PIO card to enter and exit India?
a. Does he simply show the PIO card, US passport to enter and exit India?
2. Incase if the PIO card processing takes a lot of time I know that he can apply for visa. I was wondering anyone has experience on how visa could be applied if PIO processing takes a long time at the SFO consulate.
a. Do they return the PIO application and its supporting documents before visa could be applied?
b. Should a new visa application+visa supporting documents need to be resent for getting a Indian visa?
wallpaper Angelina+jolie+twins+down+
leena_k
01-31 07:04 PM
Thanks for the link:)
gcdreamer05
11-05 03:27 PM
After july fiasco, uscis and dol are very very cautious, in opening up the gates and calling everyone current. (They dont want another 1-2 million applications being sent).
It is defintely not going to happen in the near future.....
So even finding a pattern may not help as its not going to be current for all for EB3 atleast.
It is defintely not going to happen in the near future.....
So even finding a pattern may not help as its not going to be current for all for EB3 atleast.
2011 Brangelina amp; the twins in
aperregatturv
04-20 05:24 PM
I applied AP Feb 3 2011 for my wife and i got approved mail and also checked website saying it was approved.
Application Type: I131 , APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Your Case Status: Post Decision Activity
On April 8, 2011, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
But i have not received the document yet and wife is leaving on 24 th Apr 2011.
I would like to know if she can go without and when i get it i can mail the document so she can come back.
Please help.
Thanks
Arun
Application Type: I131 , APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Your Case Status: Post Decision Activity
On April 8, 2011, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service at 1-800-375-5283.
But i have not received the document yet and wife is leaving on 24 th Apr 2011.
I would like to know if she can go without and when i get it i can mail the document so she can come back.
Please help.
Thanks
Arun
more...
reverendflash
10-18 02:59 PM
Kit:
I took the gif into fireworks, looked at in the 4 by preview mode, then took it down to 32 colors... that makes it 16k .
http://aulman.com/advert_02b.gif
it is a matter of how good do you want it to look vs. small file size.... anything else will take much more time (export individual frames, then import into FW, then optimize/export, then paste into layers, then export as animated gif...
hope this helps,
Rev :elderly:
I took the gif into fireworks, looked at in the 4 by preview mode, then took it down to 32 colors... that makes it 16k .
http://aulman.com/advert_02b.gif
it is a matter of how good do you want it to look vs. small file size.... anything else will take much more time (export individual frames, then import into FW, then optimize/export, then paste into layers, then export as animated gif...
hope this helps,
Rev :elderly:
gc28262
07-16 07:30 AM
Murthy Bulletin
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
more...
krishna
06-29 09:36 AM
Most west coast technology firms are very aware of the AC21 regulations. I recently talked to the HR of a reputed west coast firm and they told me the procedure for porting. They also let me talk to their law firm which deals with their immigration process. So the answer really depends on the company that you are about to join. It is not a bad idea to get everything clear before making the move.
2010 same, Angelina
kcforgc
05-19 04:20 PM
I missed the opportunity in July 2007 and would like to file for EAD.
more...
permfiling
07-29 11:24 AM
Iv4gc,
yes, you will miss the window if dates retrogress but this is the safest approach as if you used company A's GC then u have to work for that company A after getting ur GC. You start applying to Company A for employment in the same job
yes, you will miss the window if dates retrogress but this is the safest approach as if you used company A's GC then u have to work for that company A after getting ur GC. You start applying to Company A for employment in the same job
hair Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt Twins
yabayaba
08-18 09:34 PM
My Wife got RFE on EAD, asking her to schedule an appointment for biometrics. There is no scuch thing that we could sehedule biometrics. We took an infopass appointment, USCIS officer she understood the issue and aimmediately gave an apponitment for biometrics.
Inconsistent RFE are issued by USICS these days. Take infopass appointment, go to the field office with all the documents and hope they would help you.
Inconsistent RFE are issued by USICS these days. Take infopass appointment, go to the field office with all the documents and hope they would help you.
more...
gnrajagopal
08-19 02:15 AM
Does your welcome letter/approval say anything about ADIT process?. thanks
Cant seem to find anything about it. There is only details on when i would receive the card and stuff like that.
Cant seem to find anything about it. There is only details on when i would receive the card and stuff like that.
hot Twins Have Down#39;s Syndrome
greenguru
04-15 11:57 PM
Is Advance Degree MS ? or BS ?
more...
house Angelina+jolie+twins+down+
kaisersose
07-24 11:09 AM
I think your lawyer maybe right.
The FAQ is saying Labor should be approved by the time you file for 140. Attaching any piece of evidence along with your 140 application that your labor has been approved should suffice.
The FAQ is warning against filing 140 before Labor approval as many newbies may be wondering if they can utilize this 485 window by applying 140/485 based on a pending labor.
The FAQ is saying Labor should be approved by the time you file for 140. Attaching any piece of evidence along with your 140 application that your labor has been approved should suffice.
The FAQ is warning against filing 140 before Labor approval as many newbies may be wondering if they can utilize this 485 window by applying 140/485 based on a pending labor.
tattoo angelina jolie twins down
baskarans
10-08 02:15 PM
PIO card is valid for 15 years and no need to apply for visa every time you go. You just present it with the passport when entering/departing in India. it takes about 20 days to get it they say 15 working days which is about 3 weeks. if you do in person they will check all documents and let you know if there is some thing wrong so you can correct it and submit it and no issues when issuing. they give you date to pick up or even you can ask them to mail back for 15$. i would say get poi if you have time and also if you are local do pio if you are not getting it by the time of travel you can always go and get visa the same day. http://www.cgisf.org/ is the sfo counslate website can get all the infor and download application there. even you can email them they are very prompt in replying you will get a reply the next day if you have any questions
more...
pictures Angelina+jolie+twins+down+
mmanurker
10-07 11:32 AM
irrational - Sorry to say this is little bit unlucky case. This happened to me also. My case got transferred to VSC from TSC in July 2009 and from then it is sitting there with no progress. Taken info pass but no use. (Yet to think about the next steps!).
I applied for EAD and AP in Aug last week and got the approved copies in Sep second week. I sent the application to TSC.
mmanurker - Can you please tell me how long your application was present in VSC? Also did you do anything to move it back to TSC or NSC.
my case was in VSC for about 10 months then for last 10 days or so its been going back and forth. I did not do anything at all at my end to move it back to TSC. You wont believe this, i got another email this morning that my case has been transferred again to Lincoln,NE (i guess this is Nebraska Service Center).
so now the sequence is TSC--->VSC--->TSC---->NSC---->USCIS Office(local office)--->Lincoln, NE:confused:
only service center that is left out is California:D
I applied for EAD and AP in Aug last week and got the approved copies in Sep second week. I sent the application to TSC.
mmanurker - Can you please tell me how long your application was present in VSC? Also did you do anything to move it back to TSC or NSC.
my case was in VSC for about 10 months then for last 10 days or so its been going back and forth. I did not do anything at all at my end to move it back to TSC. You wont believe this, i got another email this morning that my case has been transferred again to Lincoln,NE (i guess this is Nebraska Service Center).
so now the sequence is TSC--->VSC--->TSC---->NSC---->USCIS Office(local office)--->Lincoln, NE:confused:
only service center that is left out is California:D
dresses angelfish facts, Angelina
gg_ny
02-16 10:06 AM
Sorry I was busy doing my work and hence could not immediately answer your questions on hypothetical situations and some wrong conclusions.
FBI check for visa (H1 and L1) is different from what you get when you apply for GC (consular or AOS). While you are patiently (!) waiting for more from the other 257 people to answer you, please check some USCIS documents.
One has to be thankful that these two screenigns are different because there are people stuck for years in this step when they apply for GC.
Like somebody said, good luck!
I've been thinking about this for a while. Typically, it takes more time in average to obtain a green card through adjustment of status (I-485) than going through consular processing. Here's the part I don't understand! Both applicabts have to pass FBI name check. Those who use I-485 are already in the U.S. and that means they have gone through FBI name check once they applied for a visa at an American consulate/embassy to enter the U.S. under any visa category. Therefore, their background has been checked once and should be less questionable than those who go through consular processing and it's the first time FBI is conducting a name check on them. Now, how is it possible that I-485 applicants have to go through hell to get their green cards while consular processing applicants feel the heat of a green card in their hands much sooner?
FBI check for visa (H1 and L1) is different from what you get when you apply for GC (consular or AOS). While you are patiently (!) waiting for more from the other 257 people to answer you, please check some USCIS documents.
One has to be thankful that these two screenigns are different because there are people stuck for years in this step when they apply for GC.
Like somebody said, good luck!
I've been thinking about this for a while. Typically, it takes more time in average to obtain a green card through adjustment of status (I-485) than going through consular processing. Here's the part I don't understand! Both applicabts have to pass FBI name check. Those who use I-485 are already in the U.S. and that means they have gone through FBI name check once they applied for a visa at an American consulate/embassy to enter the U.S. under any visa category. Therefore, their background has been checked once and should be less questionable than those who go through consular processing and it's the first time FBI is conducting a name check on them. Now, how is it possible that I-485 applicants have to go through hell to get their green cards while consular processing applicants feel the heat of a green card in their hands much sooner?
more...
makeup ishwara, Angelina
prp925
02-10 08:21 PM
Congrats for getting a green card. Lucky you!
girlfriend hairstyles, Brad
sayantan76
09-24 11:39 AM
Guys, HR 5882 is having Total recapture of 550,000 visas (Employment Based + Family Based) . We all were hoping that this bill would pass, but it did not pass in Judiciary Committee so far. Probably because of opposition from some lawmakers, may be group of some people due to current state of Economy.
But How about, if we would just try for "Recapture for Employment Based visas , for Adjustment of Status" ( EB Visa recapture Numbers are arround 218,000). By this way, no American job would be taken away as this is just a recpture of visas for just Adjustment of Status. So, if we can drop Family Based Visa Recapture from the bill (approx.332,000 visa), this bill might pass in the congress. Looks like, we do not have any choice and bill might still have possibility of passing in lame duck session. Don't get me wrong, I also want to keep Family Based Visas in the Current State of HR 5882 Bill. But if we would be able to pass just recapture of Employment Based visas at this stage, Family based visas recapture can be taken up later on. This is just a thought. IV core group and members can discuss this idea for further action.
"WE" do not decide what to keep and what to drop from bills - Elected representatives of US citizens do!
All we can do (either directly or through paid lobbyists) is suggest some common-sensical options and appeal to reasonableness of the elected representatives - at the end of the day - they would listen to current voters or go by what would and would not sit well with their current voters
But How about, if we would just try for "Recapture for Employment Based visas , for Adjustment of Status" ( EB Visa recapture Numbers are arround 218,000). By this way, no American job would be taken away as this is just a recpture of visas for just Adjustment of Status. So, if we can drop Family Based Visa Recapture from the bill (approx.332,000 visa), this bill might pass in the congress. Looks like, we do not have any choice and bill might still have possibility of passing in lame duck session. Don't get me wrong, I also want to keep Family Based Visas in the Current State of HR 5882 Bill. But if we would be able to pass just recapture of Employment Based visas at this stage, Family based visas recapture can be taken up later on. This is just a thought. IV core group and members can discuss this idea for further action.
"WE" do not decide what to keep and what to drop from bills - Elected representatives of US citizens do!
All we can do (either directly or through paid lobbyists) is suggest some common-sensical options and appeal to reasonableness of the elected representatives - at the end of the day - they would listen to current voters or go by what would and would not sit well with their current voters
hairstyles oxxford clothes, Are
babu123
07-27 10:55 AM
Even I forgot it. My lawyer said it is not a problem.
conchshell
07-12 10:37 PM
Please access http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html to read the details.
The foregoing review would suggest that there might be potentially two options to correct the current visa bulletin fiasco. One option is for the USCIS to reverse itself and abandon its decision to reject the I-485 applications and start accepting the I-485 applications under the original July Visa Bulletin. In fact, this is do-able regardless of legality of the DOS act to revise, if there was revision at all, the visa bulletin in the middle of the month, or the legality of the releasing "updates" without revision of the visa bulletin and changing it to "unavailabile." Probably, there was no precedent of such action in the DOS history. From the perspectives of the USCIS, they do not have to follow such an act of the sister agency. They should just stick to the USCIS own regulation to authorize accepting I-485 applications when the visa number was available since the legality of the DOS act was arguably of suspect in all accounts. Sometimes, however, reversing one's decision may not be that easy because of potential complex political and legal issues involved. An alternative might be the second option that changes its rule to permit I-485 application, I-765 employment authorization application, and I-131 applications for the foreign workers and their spouses and children if the foreign workers have obtained the labor certification approvals. Without doubt, the USCIS has been looking into the feasibility of changing the policy without legislation on the procedural issues which are described here. The fact that this reform was introduced in the Congress as part of the SKIL bill or Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act bill would not preclude the USCIS from looking into feasibility of achieving such changes in the procedures under the given legislative authority. All of the current debacle or fiasco would have been prevented, had the Congress passed the SKIL bill or CIR. At this juncture, though, the nation and EB immigrants do not have a luxury to point a finger at the failures of the Congress as it serves no purposes whatsoever. We really hope that the USCIS will work out one of these two solutions promptly to save the nation from further confusion and nightmare.
The foregoing review would suggest that there might be potentially two options to correct the current visa bulletin fiasco. One option is for the USCIS to reverse itself and abandon its decision to reject the I-485 applications and start accepting the I-485 applications under the original July Visa Bulletin. In fact, this is do-able regardless of legality of the DOS act to revise, if there was revision at all, the visa bulletin in the middle of the month, or the legality of the releasing "updates" without revision of the visa bulletin and changing it to "unavailabile." Probably, there was no precedent of such action in the DOS history. From the perspectives of the USCIS, they do not have to follow such an act of the sister agency. They should just stick to the USCIS own regulation to authorize accepting I-485 applications when the visa number was available since the legality of the DOS act was arguably of suspect in all accounts. Sometimes, however, reversing one's decision may not be that easy because of potential complex political and legal issues involved. An alternative might be the second option that changes its rule to permit I-485 application, I-765 employment authorization application, and I-131 applications for the foreign workers and their spouses and children if the foreign workers have obtained the labor certification approvals. Without doubt, the USCIS has been looking into the feasibility of changing the policy without legislation on the procedural issues which are described here. The fact that this reform was introduced in the Congress as part of the SKIL bill or Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act bill would not preclude the USCIS from looking into feasibility of achieving such changes in the procedures under the given legislative authority. All of the current debacle or fiasco would have been prevented, had the Congress passed the SKIL bill or CIR. At this juncture, though, the nation and EB immigrants do not have a luxury to point a finger at the failures of the Congress as it serves no purposes whatsoever. We really hope that the USCIS will work out one of these two solutions promptly to save the nation from further confusion and nightmare.
martinvisalaw
09-27 06:12 PM
Hi above is an update from this end. I do have one more question though. My wife was not given an I-94 when she entered using TL instead her passport was stamped with the arrival date and initials "LPr". I am getting ready to apply for a new AP for us what should I write as her "Class of Admission"? Also do you foresee any issues with the AP renewal since I cannot send them a copy of an I-94?
CBP at the airport mistakenly thought your wife was a permanent resident, instead of still having a pending 485. She should not this on the I-131 when applying for a new AP.
CBP at the airport mistakenly thought your wife was a permanent resident, instead of still having a pending 485. She should not this on the I-131 when applying for a new AP.
No comments:
Post a Comment