starscream
03-24 04:19 PM
Have you hear anything from your appeal? Please let me know.
Thank you.
Aura M/Hassan 11,
I am assuming that when you guys say appeal - you mean request for review (RFR) for the LC that got denied. My LC was denied in November 06 and my employer's lawyer filed a Request for Review (RFR )because the said they were absolutely sure that DOL had denied the LC in error. Well, DOL approved the RFR and my LC was approved in Jan 08 - YES it took 14 months. The advantage is that if RFR is approved the priority date can be maintained. The lawyer's had told me that it does take a year for RFR to be approved (of course at that time nobody expected that the Pdates would become curent in summer of 07 so I missed that bus) - but anyways now I can maintain my original priority date.
From whatever I have read online it seems the lawyers have to be absolutely sure that the LC is denied in error by DOL to expect any positive reply for the RFR.
Best of luck to you both!!
Thank you.
Aura M/Hassan 11,
I am assuming that when you guys say appeal - you mean request for review (RFR) for the LC that got denied. My LC was denied in November 06 and my employer's lawyer filed a Request for Review (RFR )because the said they were absolutely sure that DOL had denied the LC in error. Well, DOL approved the RFR and my LC was approved in Jan 08 - YES it took 14 months. The advantage is that if RFR is approved the priority date can be maintained. The lawyer's had told me that it does take a year for RFR to be approved (of course at that time nobody expected that the Pdates would become curent in summer of 07 so I missed that bus) - but anyways now I can maintain my original priority date.
From whatever I have read online it seems the lawyers have to be absolutely sure that the LC is denied in error by DOL to expect any positive reply for the RFR.
Best of luck to you both!!
Carl2k
11-03 01:34 AM
Im interested. Need time to fill up. Pulling my hair out with all this free time of mine.
serega
04-21 11:10 AM
I'm in the process of convincing my FinAid rep that I am eligible with only EAD/I-485 pending/A# (no I-94 w/parolee stamp). It worked for a secondary verification for my mortgage guaranteed by USDA (Agriculture Dept.). They use the same USCIS SAVE system for verification. The truth is no one knows how to do this. My FinAid rep admitted to never having to do this. What happens when they institute a secondary check thru SAVE is it only says EAD valid, so all it does is verify your status, but does not actually notify the agency that you are eligible for any benefits - it says so in the system rules/regs. But USDA thought that was the green light to approve me for benefits, so now I'm eligible for no down payment/low-interest mortgage. I'm trying to pull the same stunt with college. They said they will consult Dept. of Ed, so that may not work. But you need to sound convincing and not fall for their ignorant BS, until they have it clearly figured out and ask you for an I-94 w/parolee stamp valid for more that a year. Truth is, none of us will ever get a stamp valid for more that a year, since AP is given in 1 year increments. But FinAid reps almost always fall for near-1-year validity of the stamp and cave to your pressure. So keep working at it until you get what you want. That'/s what I intend to do. Once you are approved w/documentation for first year, you never have to go thru the exercise again with that school, since the school ultimately decides whether you are qualified. Good luck, and I'll post my progress.
mchundi
12-17 08:42 PM
Most of the states had processed RIR cases till May 2002. N.J (05/2002) and
NY (10/2001) before all the applications were sent to BEC. So most of the
Applicants with these dates must have already got their Green Cards . Some of my friends with these dates have already got their GC some 1 year back.
It is Non-RIR cases which had 04/2001 processing times with NJ , NY being the states which were backlogged. It is these applications which would be
causing these delays. How many percentage of EB1 , EB2 , EB3
(Employement Category) applications might be in this process. ? If there are
less number of applications then Processing Dates may move forward to
2002 / 2003 for India.
Based on the serial numbering in the pre BEC scheme, there are an average of 1k-2k peteions from california alone for the 2002/2003 years. Many Indians amongst them. Thanks the BEC's most of them locked their PD's (hopefully).
If u look at the distribution for the fiscal year 2005, EB-2 did not use much of the surplus AC21 numbers. So why is EB2 retrogressed for India and China now. As somebody indicated in other threads, the USCIS may have suspended the AC21 act. But if they did that it wud not have moved to 2003 at all. So nobody really knows their formula.
Unless the state dept releases the statistics for the fiscal year 2006, we dont know what actually is happening. One thing though, they need to further break down the ROW EB3 and establish cutoff dates for other countries as well.
What about EB-3 (Inda). Hopefully it will move to 2002 very soon. After that i think it has better chances of moving up than EB-2 (India) if the USCIS is following the strict 7% limit.
NY (10/2001) before all the applications were sent to BEC. So most of the
Applicants with these dates must have already got their Green Cards . Some of my friends with these dates have already got their GC some 1 year back.
It is Non-RIR cases which had 04/2001 processing times with NJ , NY being the states which were backlogged. It is these applications which would be
causing these delays. How many percentage of EB1 , EB2 , EB3
(Employement Category) applications might be in this process. ? If there are
less number of applications then Processing Dates may move forward to
2002 / 2003 for India.
Based on the serial numbering in the pre BEC scheme, there are an average of 1k-2k peteions from california alone for the 2002/2003 years. Many Indians amongst them. Thanks the BEC's most of them locked their PD's (hopefully).
If u look at the distribution for the fiscal year 2005, EB-2 did not use much of the surplus AC21 numbers. So why is EB2 retrogressed for India and China now. As somebody indicated in other threads, the USCIS may have suspended the AC21 act. But if they did that it wud not have moved to 2003 at all. So nobody really knows their formula.
Unless the state dept releases the statistics for the fiscal year 2006, we dont know what actually is happening. One thing though, they need to further break down the ROW EB3 and establish cutoff dates for other countries as well.
What about EB-3 (Inda). Hopefully it will move to 2002 very soon. After that i think it has better chances of moving up than EB-2 (India) if the USCIS is following the strict 7% limit.
more...
gc_on_demand
07-14 10:47 AM
I am aware of that backlog but just want to apply as a backup. I just want to know if applying for I 130 while I 140 is approved is there any conflict ?
vactorboy29
10-09 02:33 PM
Thank you guyes.I am trying to get hold of there chicago office but no luck so far.
more...
HRPRO
04-26 11:03 AM
You definitely need an attorney's representation. Dont waste time mulling over it as more time you waste, bigger the problem.
anilsal
12-10 12:28 PM
They are all in Valley lake dr in schaumburg... Devon Ave in downtown.. just kidding. 50% of people who live in valley lake dr (apt community) is H1b folks working for SBC/Motorola.
Totally agree. Motorola does not have a mailing list. They depend on their company attorney for information. I cannot get them appraised of IV (or may be they know, visit the forums and do not care). Maybe it may be worthwhile to post something in the offices of the apartment complex(es), provided they agree to it.
Totally agree. Motorola does not have a mailing list. They depend on their company attorney for information. I cannot get them appraised of IV (or may be they know, visit the forums and do not care). Maybe it may be worthwhile to post something in the offices of the apartment complex(es), provided they agree to it.
more...
gsee
07-01 03:33 PM
I think there is another option too. If she can get in touch with a hospital here, she can come directly for fellowship after which she will have to practice within the same hospital. Some specialties like Radiology and Pathology give you unrestricted license to practice anywhere in US after putting up with the fellowship for certain number of years (5 years in case of radiology). Please check this fellowship option with others who might be more knowledgeable.
pmpforgc
12-28 11:06 PM
Hi
In this line Can H-1 B or H-4 can Invest in Shares and Mutual funds DIRECTLY? not through ORP or other company institutions as there is no direct involvment of H-1 B employee.
In this line Can H-1 B or H-4 can Invest in Shares and Mutual funds DIRECTLY? not through ORP or other company institutions as there is no direct involvment of H-1 B employee.
more...
uslegals
11-11 10:32 AM
thanks chakdepatte !...where do u mail all the docs...?? I read somewhere about a lock box and NOT directly to service center.?
lj_rr
07-30 01:36 AM
Can someone post details about which Service Center to send the 485 papers - Nebraska or Texas?
It is based on employer location or employee location?
Link to a USCIS article or something else will be extremely helpful.
Sorry, if this is a repost. I searched but could not find anything.
It is based on employer location or employee location?
Link to a USCIS article or something else will be extremely helpful.
Sorry, if this is a repost. I searched but could not find anything.
more...
Jaime
09-06 04:49 PM
I have worked in Europe for 4+ years and i can say that life in US and Europe is the same (cost of living is higher in Europe but social security is better). I was seriously considering a move to UK (despite racism) to gain job/life freedom for me and my family. I have HSMP from UK and got a job offer that paid me better (including 35% raise in cost of living) than current US job with flexibility to change employment, also my wife could take up job any day she wants (unlike H4).
You are a poster child of the U.S. Reverse Brain Drain. Shame on Congress if the United States loses you and your family!
You are a poster child of the U.S. Reverse Brain Drain. Shame on Congress if the United States loses you and your family!
bekugc
03-17 09:29 PM
regarding the below question while using AC21
2. first join the new company using EAD, then ask the new company to apply for H1 transfer. will this work?
can somebody tell if there is any issue with this? as i mentioned, i havent used AP and existing i-94 still indicates H1b status (not AOS
thanks
2. first join the new company using EAD, then ask the new company to apply for H1 transfer. will this work?
can somebody tell if there is any issue with this? as i mentioned, i havent used AP and existing i-94 still indicates H1b status (not AOS
thanks
more...
desi3933
03-24 08:50 AM
I was told if you have valid stamping you do not need get new stamping even if you changed the employer. All you need is to give the new approval notice at the POE.
am I missing something here.
If one has I-797 notice without new I-94, he/she should get new H1 visa stamp.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
am I missing something here.
If one has I-797 notice without new I-94, he/she should get new H1 visa stamp.
___________________
Not a legal advice.
chakjobs
12-23 12:33 PM
Hi All,
Could any please provide some insight about the companies "Unemployment Wage report" for the state of California?
This is the only query as stated in the 221(g) form got from Chennai embassy for your reference.
"State Unemployment Wage Reports, showing all wages paid to each employee in the state, for the past two quarters as filed to State of California (This should not be payroll reports, but the actual forms filed to the State authorities listing each employee and wages paid during the quarter.)"
Could you please provide me the exact form name and number to submit through the dropbox. Also some explanation if possible on how the form will look like in order to track it down?
Any help in this regard is greatly appreciated.
Happy Holidays!
All the very best to all of you.
Thanks & Regards,
Chak
Could any please provide some insight about the companies "Unemployment Wage report" for the state of California?
This is the only query as stated in the 221(g) form got from Chennai embassy for your reference.
"State Unemployment Wage Reports, showing all wages paid to each employee in the state, for the past two quarters as filed to State of California (This should not be payroll reports, but the actual forms filed to the State authorities listing each employee and wages paid during the quarter.)"
Could you please provide me the exact form name and number to submit through the dropbox. Also some explanation if possible on how the form will look like in order to track it down?
Any help in this regard is greatly appreciated.
Happy Holidays!
All the very best to all of you.
Thanks & Regards,
Chak
more...
qasleuth
02-25 10:32 AM
Hi..I already searched in the google..But i didn't get the information..Please let me know if u have any details regarding license.
The guy gave you the driving authority name and yet you claim you searched.
http://www.marylandmva.com/DriverServ/Apply/default.htm
The guy gave you the driving authority name and yet you claim you searched.
http://www.marylandmva.com/DriverServ/Apply/default.htm
rajpatelemail
01-15 06:40 AM
Are we screwed by DOL ? -Changing Environment of PERM Labor Certification Application
From immigratgion-law.com Mathew Oh Blog link--->>>
01/15/2009: Changing Environment of PERM Labor Certification Applications
I reported quite earlier and repeatedly the changes in the PERM application process, most noticeably since August 2007. The change was in part triggered by the political pressures relating the various release of fraud investigation reports involving foreign labor certifications. Accordingly, the DOL adopted "integrity" as the focus and goal for the PERM program beginning from FY 2008. As part of the move, it has been reengineering the PERM and termporary labor certification programs including revision of the filing forms (ETA 9089 and ETA 9035). The rule making process for such changes has lately been completed and as a preparatory step to launch the reengineered foreign labor certification program, they have just announced that they are scheduling briefing sessions in the first part of February 2009 for the public and stakeholders to introduce the new program. Initial information indicated that the new program was going to be launched in the late Spring, but this briefing schedules more or less imply that the change in PERM application may come somewhat sonner than the "late" Spring. The reengineered ETA 9089 incorporates many features that are intended and targeted to achieve integrity of the labor certification process. For the reasons, the DOL performance report lowered the target processing time from less than two months in earlier days to six months. Surprisingly, though, even before they launched the new PERM program, the processing times have already reached six months or longer, partly owing to the lawsuit settlement and case loads with earlier priority dates under the settlement turned into the regular non-audit processing queue. Reportedly, this and other factors have caused recent priority date cases caught and frozen in the processing queue. Until recently, no approval of cases with priority dates later than May 2008 has been reported. However, people start seeing reports during the last few days that June 2008 cases have been adjudicated and certified, implying that the impact of the aftermath of the lawsuit settlement started diminishing. However, the immigrant community may not see any dramatic changes in the processing times in the future because of the upcoming launch of the reengineered PERM program.
Another environment, other than program focus on "integrity," that will cause continuous and difficult labor certification process is the economic recess producing massive unemployment. Since availability of certification of PERM applications should be footed on "unavailability" of qualified and "available" U.S. workers, it appears that the Office of Foreign Labor Certification is launching mechanisms to achieve "integrity" of labor certification under the ever increasing unemployment rate since rising unemployment implies that more and more qualified U.S. workers may be available in the labor markets in various areas and regions. One mechanism which they have already announced is to conduct research of unemployment rate in the job site locations and its surrounding areas by reaching commercial and noncommercial websites before they adjudicate the applications. Related to this mechanism, it appears that the adjudicators may mobilize "supervised recruitment" mechanism to require the employer's rerecruitment activities under the supervision of the OFLC when they consider or suspect the employers' claims of unavailability of U.S. workers are considered dubious considering various circumstances, including the changing labor market conditionss and high unemployment situation in the areas. Potential use of the second mechanism may be implied from the FAQs on Supervised Recruitment which the office has just released on its website. The announcement states that clean supervised recruitment cases may be completed in about six months, but it is obvious that most of these cases may take much and much longer than six months. Another fall-out of potential focus on supervised recruitment mechanism is the accompanying policy of pogtential increased debarment of employers and lawyers who are suspected to file PERM applications with misrepresentations. Accordingly, the byproduct of exercise of the supervised recruitment will be more likely increase in the number of debarment of employers and their representatives.
Under the changing environment, what should the employers do? (1) They should quickly familiarize themselves with the new PERM program. Since the new form requires different standards and procedures, their ongoing receruitment may produce a result that does not conform with the new program. Participation in the upcoming breafing sessions in San Diego and Washington D.C metropolitan area in the first week of February may be one way to achieve it. (2) Employers and representatives may initiate their own research on the changing labor market situation in the area where the application is filed and may be prepared for potential supervised recruitment decisions of the agency, should they find the unemployment rate is exceedingly high or the employers themselves have the record of lay-off of their own employees. All of these may have to be done before they develop recruitment plans and strategies. (3) Employers should review and comply, as closely as possible, with the O*Net job zones and acceptable level of education, experience, and special requirements under the O'Net system. ghe more the employer deviates in requirement from the job zone standards, the more they may face challenges including audits and even supervised recruitment. Considering the prediction of further increase of unemployment rate and deterioration of nation's economy this year, the foregoing may be a challenging task for the employers
From immigratgion-law.com Mathew Oh Blog link--->>>
01/15/2009: Changing Environment of PERM Labor Certification Applications
I reported quite earlier and repeatedly the changes in the PERM application process, most noticeably since August 2007. The change was in part triggered by the political pressures relating the various release of fraud investigation reports involving foreign labor certifications. Accordingly, the DOL adopted "integrity" as the focus and goal for the PERM program beginning from FY 2008. As part of the move, it has been reengineering the PERM and termporary labor certification programs including revision of the filing forms (ETA 9089 and ETA 9035). The rule making process for such changes has lately been completed and as a preparatory step to launch the reengineered foreign labor certification program, they have just announced that they are scheduling briefing sessions in the first part of February 2009 for the public and stakeholders to introduce the new program. Initial information indicated that the new program was going to be launched in the late Spring, but this briefing schedules more or less imply that the change in PERM application may come somewhat sonner than the "late" Spring. The reengineered ETA 9089 incorporates many features that are intended and targeted to achieve integrity of the labor certification process. For the reasons, the DOL performance report lowered the target processing time from less than two months in earlier days to six months. Surprisingly, though, even before they launched the new PERM program, the processing times have already reached six months or longer, partly owing to the lawsuit settlement and case loads with earlier priority dates under the settlement turned into the regular non-audit processing queue. Reportedly, this and other factors have caused recent priority date cases caught and frozen in the processing queue. Until recently, no approval of cases with priority dates later than May 2008 has been reported. However, people start seeing reports during the last few days that June 2008 cases have been adjudicated and certified, implying that the impact of the aftermath of the lawsuit settlement started diminishing. However, the immigrant community may not see any dramatic changes in the processing times in the future because of the upcoming launch of the reengineered PERM program.
Another environment, other than program focus on "integrity," that will cause continuous and difficult labor certification process is the economic recess producing massive unemployment. Since availability of certification of PERM applications should be footed on "unavailability" of qualified and "available" U.S. workers, it appears that the Office of Foreign Labor Certification is launching mechanisms to achieve "integrity" of labor certification under the ever increasing unemployment rate since rising unemployment implies that more and more qualified U.S. workers may be available in the labor markets in various areas and regions. One mechanism which they have already announced is to conduct research of unemployment rate in the job site locations and its surrounding areas by reaching commercial and noncommercial websites before they adjudicate the applications. Related to this mechanism, it appears that the adjudicators may mobilize "supervised recruitment" mechanism to require the employer's rerecruitment activities under the supervision of the OFLC when they consider or suspect the employers' claims of unavailability of U.S. workers are considered dubious considering various circumstances, including the changing labor market conditionss and high unemployment situation in the areas. Potential use of the second mechanism may be implied from the FAQs on Supervised Recruitment which the office has just released on its website. The announcement states that clean supervised recruitment cases may be completed in about six months, but it is obvious that most of these cases may take much and much longer than six months. Another fall-out of potential focus on supervised recruitment mechanism is the accompanying policy of pogtential increased debarment of employers and lawyers who are suspected to file PERM applications with misrepresentations. Accordingly, the byproduct of exercise of the supervised recruitment will be more likely increase in the number of debarment of employers and their representatives.
Under the changing environment, what should the employers do? (1) They should quickly familiarize themselves with the new PERM program. Since the new form requires different standards and procedures, their ongoing receruitment may produce a result that does not conform with the new program. Participation in the upcoming breafing sessions in San Diego and Washington D.C metropolitan area in the first week of February may be one way to achieve it. (2) Employers and representatives may initiate their own research on the changing labor market situation in the area where the application is filed and may be prepared for potential supervised recruitment decisions of the agency, should they find the unemployment rate is exceedingly high or the employers themselves have the record of lay-off of their own employees. All of these may have to be done before they develop recruitment plans and strategies. (3) Employers should review and comply, as closely as possible, with the O*Net job zones and acceptable level of education, experience, and special requirements under the O'Net system. ghe more the employer deviates in requirement from the job zone standards, the more they may face challenges including audits and even supervised recruitment. Considering the prediction of further increase of unemployment rate and deterioration of nation's economy this year, the foregoing may be a challenging task for the employers
gcisadawg
01-09 11:44 AM
marty,
That's a good idea. I've already initiated the contact with the congressman for our area. Would keep the forum updated about how it goes.
Thanks,
Seyed
That's a good idea. I've already initiated the contact with the congressman for our area. Would keep the forum updated about how it goes.
Thanks,
Seyed
Singer
10-21 11:10 PM
I am a vocalist based in the US for the last 13 years. I have performed around the world at World music festivals, television shows, radios, various clubs, private events, for stars like P... S.... and D.... B.... and for organizations such as UN, UNESCO, UNDP, NDI, Schomburg Center, etc.I have always been legal and on several P1/O1 artist visas), I have applied on December 2006 for a EB1-EA green card
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
On June 10th 2007 I have received a RFE from the Nebraska Service Center, and I had to submit additional stuff proving I am really a singer with an international carreer. (I won an award by the way)before August 15th 2007. On August 3rd 2007 I went myself to the FedEx office and sent a priority 8.0lbs package to the Nebraska Service Center. It was delivered on August 6th signed by Mr. Brad B... at the Nebraska Center.
When I called they said my case was pending, same thing on the USCIS website where I create a portfolio. It is until April 2009 that thanks to congressional and senatorial help that we found out that my I-140 and I-485 had been denied, closed archived since end of August 2007! They said that my response to the RFE was received by them in October!
We argued that I never received the denial notice, neither my attorney received. My congressional liaison faxed them the ax receipt, then the congressional liaison there said: "O my God!" We were hoping that at this stage they would simply reopen the case and look at my 8 pounder RFE response! Nebraska Service Center decided that i will have to file an appeal.
In April 2008 I filled and appeal with Administrative Appeals Office in DC in 2008 (more money into thei pockets) to demonstrate that both my I-140 and I-485 were denied in error, (they had lost my application) the case was returned to Nebraska for them to reconsider.
The AAO decision granted me all that was in their power to give.
1. The appeal was rejected because it was untimely filed -- By statute (law) they cannot consider an untimely appeal regardless of circumstances however.
2. They state that if "an utimely appeal meets the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, the appeal "MUST" be treated as a motion and a decision "MUST" be made on the merits of the case. -- This is exactly what I asked for.
3. They state that a motion to reconsider must establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Again this is exactly what I claimed.
4. They catagoricaly state in paragraph 2 on page 3 -- Here, the untimely appeal "MEETS" the requirements of a motion to reopen and reconsider. They also positively state that you "SUCCESSFULLY" argue that the October 10, 2007 decision was "FLAWED" and they point to 2 specific reasons -- that yur attorney of record was not properly notified and that your response to the RFE was not considered.
5. In paragraph 5 on page 3 they conclude that the October 10, 2007 decision was "CLEARLY IN ERROR" and that the decision "DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS".
6. Finally, in the last pragraph on page 3 and the 1st paragraph of page 4 they state "therefore, the director "MUST" consider the untimely appeal as a motion to reopen and reconsider and render a "NEW" decision acccordingly"
7. They also state that the "NEW" decision "MUST" thoroughly address all of the evidence submitted in your response to the RFE.
So the AAO�s office sent back my file to the Nebraska Service Center.
Then the I-140 was reopened and I finally approved May 20th 2009. At that time the rest should be like �a letter in the mail�. That is when I demanded that my I-485 be reopened as well.
They responded to my congressional liaison telling him that they will reopen the I-485 and tat the green cards were being prepared and would be sent to us in less then 60 days. Stating: This has been going on for too long�
That is when the �saga� took another turn. On August 14th 09 I received another RFE on the I-485! I was told by one lawyer that it was not so bad (they just needed to update my records since 2006 is the date of my first GC filling), But this RFE did not make sense because once the I-140 is approved they should not ask me to supply any documents work related. They wanted me to prove that I will continue to work in my field, what I have been doing for the last 2 years since they have denied my case and what will be my upcoming work offers.
Remember that in May 2009 they have said that the green cards would be sent�
We responded again with a 5 pounder file! We mailed it September 1rst 2009. I provided them with the same documents I sent in the 8 pounder they have lost in 2006, plus everything I have done since. Including all the performances with P. S., D. B. and letters from future contractors such as The United Nations, Schomburg, my booking agents letters, etc...)
October 19th 2009 we received an email from USCIS saying that a decision has been taken and that my husband�s I-485 has been denied!
Another ridiculous thing.
1-I am the petitioner, not my husband.
2-They should adjudicate my case first, not my husband�s!
3-my case is still pending no decision made on it�
At this time, we are awaiting the full denial explanation letter, to see what is the reason for their decision. Hoping that they just made another mistake for example dissociated my husband I-485 from mine the petitioner.
I am currently (Thank God) on an 01-visa valid until 2011, my husband has a -O3-visa
Because of this terrible saga, we have endured a tremendous stress, and anxiety. We have lost a lot of money. Between the lawyers fees, the various application fees plus the appeal we have spent more than $20,000. I have decided not to file another appeal because this is more money into their pockets. I am ready to sue the USICS with a writ of mandamus and more if they do not fix the multiple mistakes they have made.
Please somebody in this forum answers me. What should I do? Please help!
Thank you.
Singer
lazycis
01-04 01:06 PM
Here is what I usually submit:
1. A formal invtation letter addressed to American consulate.
2. I-485 receipts for me and my spouse.
3. Latest paycheck.
4. An employment letter from my company.
It never failed so far (3 different parents visiting 6 or 7 times), but again, it's just my personal experience.
1. A formal invtation letter addressed to American consulate.
2. I-485 receipts for me and my spouse.
3. Latest paycheck.
4. An employment letter from my company.
It never failed so far (3 different parents visiting 6 or 7 times), but again, it's just my personal experience.