eb3july2003
04-17 08:13 PM
All the best AllVNeedGcPc. I completely understand how difficult it would be to wait for this last step without knowing what is happening.
1. Here are the email addresses that I used. Got a response from the NSC email address after three days that I need to wait for 60 days and have to send a written request.
*ncscfollowup.nsc@dhs.gov
*ebupdate.tsc@dhs.gov
2. Yes, my lawyer did send a explicit letter. Bottom line on that letter was "A request is hereby made to interfile the latest I-140 approval with his "A" file. Kindly make sure that the applicant's pending I-485 file reflects the new I-140 approval which has a priority date of July 8 2003 and it reflects classification under Sec. 203 (b) (2).
3. Also I didn't mention one other thing on the original post was that I have placed multiple call to 800-375-5283 to make sure that my I-485 is processed as EB2.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you need any further information.
1. Here are the email addresses that I used. Got a response from the NSC email address after three days that I need to wait for 60 days and have to send a written request.
*ncscfollowup.nsc@dhs.gov
*ebupdate.tsc@dhs.gov
2. Yes, my lawyer did send a explicit letter. Bottom line on that letter was "A request is hereby made to interfile the latest I-140 approval with his "A" file. Kindly make sure that the applicant's pending I-485 file reflects the new I-140 approval which has a priority date of July 8 2003 and it reflects classification under Sec. 203 (b) (2).
3. Also I didn't mention one other thing on the original post was that I have placed multiple call to 800-375-5283 to make sure that my I-485 is processed as EB2.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you need any further information.
wallpaper who are your real friends
govindk
07-14 02:32 PM
Genius...Great work!
Sent....payment Transaction Number is 411666815
------------------------------------------
Contributed so far $200 + $5(today)
Sent....payment Transaction Number is 411666815
------------------------------------------
Contributed so far $200 + $5(today)
arihant
05-25 07:38 PM
pretty soon they will start requiring photos from worksite to prove that employee exists and that the company exists and is present in the US. LOL :D (I think this was a requirement for H1B...may still be a requirement):rolleyes:
2011 wallpaper quotes for mom.
santb1975
06-05 10:41 AM
I will update our numbers tonight
more...
chanduv23
06-10 10:09 AM
Guys,
How about having another session of flowers campaign? Got to practice gandhigiri continuously. Should we select a date for that? I will say 23rd June'08? We need to draw media attention!!!
Phone calls "is the need of the hour" - please call the CHC members urging them to support Congresswoman Lofgren's bills.
Making phone calls is the best form of Gandhigiri at this moment
How about having another session of flowers campaign? Got to practice gandhigiri continuously. Should we select a date for that? I will say 23rd June'08? We need to draw media attention!!!
Phone calls "is the need of the hour" - please call the CHC members urging them to support Congresswoman Lofgren's bills.
Making phone calls is the best form of Gandhigiri at this moment
sunnysharma
07-18 04:28 PM
My application was sent on June, 14th and delivered on June 15th (I have the FedEx tracking info and signature page confirming 6/15).
The case status online based on receipt number (obtained by calling them a few times until I got lucky) says:
"On July 11, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case."
Not sure if the online status is referring to the receipt date or the notice date when it says "On July 11, 2007, we received" when, in fact, they received it on June 15th!!
.
You will be able to see your actual RD in the reciept notice...Donot worry..
The case status online based on receipt number (obtained by calling them a few times until I got lucky) says:
"On July 11, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case."
Not sure if the online status is referring to the receipt date or the notice date when it says "On July 11, 2007, we received" when, in fact, they received it on June 15th!!
.
You will be able to see your actual RD in the reciept notice...Donot worry..
more...
stldude
08-10 03:29 PM
Congrats - Is u'r 485 processed in NSC. Do you have the SRC** or LIN *** for the receipt no.
All 6 of our checks got cleared today below are the details
I-485/131/765 recd date: 2nd july 07
I-485/131/765 notice date: 06th Aug 07
Service Center send : NSC
I-140 approved : on 31-May-06, TSC
Got Recipts : NO
All 6 of our checks got cleared today below are the details
I-485/131/765 recd date: 2nd july 07
I-485/131/765 notice date: 06th Aug 07
Service Center send : NSC
I-140 approved : on 31-May-06, TSC
Got Recipts : NO
2010 with the real Dalai Lama.
makemygc
10-25 11:59 PM
I've sent the mails and strongly encourage everyone to come out and take an early action before this gets worse. Even if you are not affected right now, support the cause to make sure that you will not be affected in the future.
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Also, just wanted to point out some notes that letter says that Yates memo is attached, so if you are blindly copy and pasting make sure that you attach the Memo to your email or a copy to your letter.
I would suggest OP to add the copy of yates memo and the follow up memo to the posting.
Thanks
MakeMyGC
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
matreen
10-17 01:58 AM
Guys,
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
hair glee-people.jpg
nlssubbu
10-01 04:20 PM
A cut-off date avoids submission of AOS applications with PD after cut-off date. In my opinion, this was the only reason to retrogress on July 2: avoid AOS submission whose PDs became current in July.
Now nearly all AOS applications have been submitted. Hence, setting cut-off dates conservatively is not that motivating.
Cut-off days not only determine number of applications that can be received at their end, but also the make eligible applications approvable. I think at times when the cut-off date resulted in more approvable cases than USCIS can handle, then they move it back as well.
May be they should have two cut-off days instead of one like this:
1. One for receiving applications beyond that date.
2. Another for approval.
This may help them to pick necessary applications needed from this pool and approve them without losing the allocated visas.
I think change has to come from the legislation wing to amend the procedure in USCIS.
Thanks
Now nearly all AOS applications have been submitted. Hence, setting cut-off dates conservatively is not that motivating.
Cut-off days not only determine number of applications that can be received at their end, but also the make eligible applications approvable. I think at times when the cut-off date resulted in more approvable cases than USCIS can handle, then they move it back as well.
May be they should have two cut-off days instead of one like this:
1. One for receiving applications beyond that date.
2. Another for approval.
This may help them to pick necessary applications needed from this pool and approve them without losing the allocated visas.
I think change has to come from the legislation wing to amend the procedure in USCIS.
Thanks
more...
bigboy007
06-03 01:35 AM
I have been following with different threads over articles of Susherman / AILA on abolishing Dual intent for H1B visa and very much , deeply curious about finding the same :
Since i myself new of all these different texts of various immigration laws it took me some time but i think i found out the nerve of it atlast.
Here it goes :
There are two important sections of Student visas.
this bill is carefully drafted against us [h1B and green card] such that this provision is included in student visas section.
================================================== ====
(c) CLARIFYING THE IMMIGRANT INTENT PROVISION.— Subsection (b) of
14 section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b))
15 is amended—
16
17 (1) by striking the parenthetical phrase “(other than a
18 nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section
19 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any
20 provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of
21 such section) " in the first sentence; and
22
23 (2) by striking “under section 101(a)(15)" and inserting in its
24 place “under the immigration laws.".
25
26 (d) GRANTING DUAL INTENT TO CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS.—
27 Subsection (h) of section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
28 (8 U.S.C. 1184(h)) is amended—
29
30 (1) by inserting “(F)(iv)," following “(H)(i)(b) or (c),"; and
31
32 (2) by striking “if the alien had obtained a change of status" and
33 inserting in its place “if the alien had been admitted as, provided
34 status as, or obtained a change of status";
================================================== =====
what does (c) in Student visas do :
214(b) of Immigration and Nationality Act : defines whether the applicant has an immigration intent or not and in general avoids , H , L , etc visas out of this category.
As stated in US code of Law this is what it is :
================================================== ======
"Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title, and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i) of this title except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101 (a)(15) of this title. An alien who is an officer or employee of any foreign government or of any international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act [22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.], or an alien who is the attendant, servant, employee, or member of the immediate family of any such alien shall not be entitled to apply for or receive an immigrant visa, or to enter the United States as an immigrant unless he executes a written waiver in the same form and substance as is prescribed by section 1257 (b) of this title."
================================================== ======
By doing this (i.e. remove my Underlined and Bold letters) they making H1B prone to 214B clause and any CONSULAR officer can reject visa based on this statute as a H1B categorized as IMMIGRANT intent rather than earlier being non-immigrant.
Now i think this should not effect 485 or 140 or any immigration applications as still H1B holder is still categorized in DUAL Intent.
This is how : when (d) of the above Student visa section is applied this is how it turns :
This is from US code of rules pertaining to 8 U.S.C. 1184(h)
(h) Intention to abandon foreign residence
The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c),(F)(iv), (L), or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had been admitted as, provided status as, or obtained a change of status under section 1258 of this title to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien’s most recent departure from the United States.
================================================== ======
Section 1258 is nothing but Change of nonimmigrant classification which allows for change of status with in Non-immigrant visas.
based on all these , conclusion i see is : h1B visa can now be rejected ( if law passes and i wish , i pray and i am doing all my best it doesnt) under 214B for consular posts.
Still h1B is considered DUAL Intent as per above amendment as it doesnt remove 101 (a)(b) (H) as they are speciality workers that is we seeking GC.
Please comment , i know i am not an immigration attorney with my knowledge i tried to relate things i am curious about this subject and i request all to comment on this and i feel i made a good judgment based on these resources i have please comment.
*******************
But logically i also feel this H1B under 214B as doesnt logical for a person whose 140 is approved as in principle his intent of being Immigrant is approved.
Since i myself new of all these different texts of various immigration laws it took me some time but i think i found out the nerve of it atlast.
Here it goes :
There are two important sections of Student visas.
this bill is carefully drafted against us [h1B and green card] such that this provision is included in student visas section.
================================================== ====
(c) CLARIFYING THE IMMIGRANT INTENT PROVISION.— Subsection (b) of
14 section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(b))
15 is amended—
16
17 (1) by striking the parenthetical phrase “(other than a
18 nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section
19 101(a)(15), and other than a nonimmigrant described in any
20 provision of section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) except subclause (b1) of
21 such section) " in the first sentence; and
22
23 (2) by striking “under section 101(a)(15)" and inserting in its
24 place “under the immigration laws.".
25
26 (d) GRANTING DUAL INTENT TO CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT STUDENTS.—
27 Subsection (h) of section 214 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
28 (8 U.S.C. 1184(h)) is amended—
29
30 (1) by inserting “(F)(iv)," following “(H)(i)(b) or (c),"; and
31
32 (2) by striking “if the alien had obtained a change of status" and
33 inserting in its place “if the alien had been admitted as, provided
34 status as, or obtained a change of status";
================================================== =====
what does (c) in Student visas do :
214(b) of Immigration and Nationality Act : defines whether the applicant has an immigration intent or not and in general avoids , H , L , etc visas out of this category.
As stated in US code of Law this is what it is :
================================================== ======
"Every alien (other than a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (L) or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title, and other than a nonimmigrant described in any provision of section 1101 (a)(15)(H)(i) of this title except subclause (b1) of such section) shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 1101 (a)(15) of this title. An alien who is an officer or employee of any foreign government or of any international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act [22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.], or an alien who is the attendant, servant, employee, or member of the immediate family of any such alien shall not be entitled to apply for or receive an immigrant visa, or to enter the United States as an immigrant unless he executes a written waiver in the same form and substance as is prescribed by section 1257 (b) of this title."
================================================== ======
By doing this (i.e. remove my Underlined and Bold letters) they making H1B prone to 214B clause and any CONSULAR officer can reject visa based on this statute as a H1B categorized as IMMIGRANT intent rather than earlier being non-immigrant.
Now i think this should not effect 485 or 140 or any immigration applications as still H1B holder is still categorized in DUAL Intent.
This is how : when (d) of the above Student visa section is applied this is how it turns :
This is from US code of rules pertaining to 8 U.S.C. 1184(h)
(h) Intention to abandon foreign residence
The fact that an alien is the beneficiary of an application for a preference status filed under section 1154 of this title or has otherwise sought permanent residence in the United States shall not constitute evidence of an intention to abandon a foreign residence for purposes of obtaining a visa as a nonimmigrant described in subparagraph (H)(i)(b) or (c),(F)(iv), (L), or (V) of section 1101 (a)(15) of this title or otherwise obtaining or maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant described in such subparagraph, if the alien had been admitted as, provided status as, or obtained a change of status under section 1258 of this title to a classification as such a nonimmigrant before the alien’s most recent departure from the United States.
================================================== ======
Section 1258 is nothing but Change of nonimmigrant classification which allows for change of status with in Non-immigrant visas.
based on all these , conclusion i see is : h1B visa can now be rejected ( if law passes and i wish , i pray and i am doing all my best it doesnt) under 214B for consular posts.
Still h1B is considered DUAL Intent as per above amendment as it doesnt remove 101 (a)(b) (H) as they are speciality workers that is we seeking GC.
Please comment , i know i am not an immigration attorney with my knowledge i tried to relate things i am curious about this subject and i request all to comment on this and i feel i made a good judgment based on these resources i have please comment.
*******************
But logically i also feel this H1B under 214B as doesnt logical for a person whose 140 is approved as in principle his intent of being Immigrant is approved.
hot even real people?
H1B-GC
02-07 09:25 AM
sorry to hear your situation 007! hope things work out for you in time. You could also consider heading home and having someone mail it to you once its received. just an option not sure what your situation is as far how far from approval etc etc
A Person cannot Travel before the AP gets Approved.If you do, means Abandoning your GC forever. Please be careful before you advise anyone on these critical issues.
A Person cannot Travel before the AP gets Approved.If you do, means Abandoning your GC forever. Please be careful before you advise anyone on these critical issues.
more...
house How about a Real vs Fake Party
rkotamurthy
12-28 06:21 PM
I just registered on this website today. I like the professionalism and commitment of the members on this forum. I would like to contribute to the efforts in promoting the cause. Please let me know any activities/campaings planned by So Cal members.
tattoo Lots of people have had are
Pallavi79
09-14 01:20 AM
stop fighting just for yourself. fight for the community and get your GC on the way.
more...
pictures WHY do people buy fake
glus
07-05 10:39 AM
I sent them letters via certified mail on Tuesday!
J
J
dresses Creates #39;Fake People#39; on
newbee7
07-05 11:16 PM
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
They clearly broke the law...this is the first time we see the officials at ucsics confirming this and the weekend work. Perhaps, they figured out they need to admit it before they are forced to do so.
They clearly broke the law...this is the first time we see the officials at ucsics confirming this and the weekend work. Perhaps, they figured out they need to admit it before they are forced to do so.
more...
makeup is is how many people have
priti8888
07-23 06:07 PM
My husband doesn't even want to look. He says he'll become too agitated, so only let him know the good news. I'm addicted too, but this could become a problem for me, since this week I have finals at school:o
I am the better half too!:) Anyway, just an FYI. Since you got your RD, i would suggest you inquire about your and your familys name check status in the next few months. As far as i know, name checks are cleared whithin a few months of RD or few months after 1st Fingerprint. This would just give you some peace of mind...
I am the better half too!:) Anyway, just an FYI. Since you got your RD, i would suggest you inquire about your and your familys name check status in the next few months. As far as i know, name checks are cleared whithin a few months of RD or few months after 1st Fingerprint. This would just give you some peace of mind...
girlfriend Created by moi using this Fake
mirage
03-31 01:57 PM
Their objective is to provide service to the customers, we are their customers, we are giving them exorbitent amount of money as fees. I don't know of any other Organization/Company who provides as crappy service as they do, what would you call their management then ???
hairstyles if they are real or fake
kumar1305
02-24 04:12 PM
Interesting discussion...
My point - I am going to take things in a stride, basically wait till I can - doesn't hurt me as long as I go about my daily routine.
All who are thinking of jumping the fence and giving up, one piece of advice - if you do not have kids and plan to have any in this life, please do it NOW - have them be born here (all of them) and then move on with whatever / wherever you want to go.
At least this is a gift you will be giving your kids for their lifetime and all the generations following them (remember - a US citizen's kid can be a US citizen no matter where he/she is born) - so you will be arranging US citizenship for all your great^n * grand * kids (0 <= n <= infinity) !
This is how I think about it when I do not think about MYSELF. Once the kids are born, you can flaunt their American Passports and feel happy in their well-being and security (for whatever it is worth) and move on to Canada / India / Singapore / wherever! Live happily.
And do not forget your kids can sponsor you when they are 21.
My point - I am going to take things in a stride, basically wait till I can - doesn't hurt me as long as I go about my daily routine.
All who are thinking of jumping the fence and giving up, one piece of advice - if you do not have kids and plan to have any in this life, please do it NOW - have them be born here (all of them) and then move on with whatever / wherever you want to go.
At least this is a gift you will be giving your kids for their lifetime and all the generations following them (remember - a US citizen's kid can be a US citizen no matter where he/she is born) - so you will be arranging US citizenship for all your great^n * grand * kids (0 <= n <= infinity) !
This is how I think about it when I do not think about MYSELF. Once the kids are born, you can flaunt their American Passports and feel happy in their well-being and security (for whatever it is worth) and move on to Canada / India / Singapore / wherever! Live happily.
And do not forget your kids can sponsor you when they are 21.
ind_game
05-15 10:09 AM
There was a campaign on wrongful denial in AC21 , there was also letter campaign not sure what happened after that ? It was IV action item too... What was the conclusion ? should we all suffer even if it is a training issue, if they act such nice on letters , then why they act as if there is no form and if AC21 is for real aliens from a real alien world.
Trust me your frustration is understandable......
Guys,
1. Consultant companies are making money by threatening to withdraw I-140 if an employee leaves the company for a better job
2. USCIS is already making enough money on these improper denials (I would like to call it white collar extortion)
3. Attorneys are making money on these cases
In the end we the immigrants are the losers.
Please make more noise on these kinds of issues concerned with I-140 withdrawls and I-485 denials, as this is becoming more and more apparent. Write blogs, spread in forums, write news letters. Go to your local congressman's office and make them aware of the situation. My local congresswoman's office is under the impression that my case is unique, but I am trying to convince them that this is wide spread by sending them the links of Ombudsman etc.,
We need to increase the awareness.
We do not want to get to a point where we may not utilize AC21 properly.
thanks
Trust me your frustration is understandable......
Guys,
1. Consultant companies are making money by threatening to withdraw I-140 if an employee leaves the company for a better job
2. USCIS is already making enough money on these improper denials (I would like to call it white collar extortion)
3. Attorneys are making money on these cases
In the end we the immigrants are the losers.
Please make more noise on these kinds of issues concerned with I-140 withdrawls and I-485 denials, as this is becoming more and more apparent. Write blogs, spread in forums, write news letters. Go to your local congressman's office and make them aware of the situation. My local congresswoman's office is under the impression that my case is unique, but I am trying to convince them that this is wide spread by sending them the links of Ombudsman etc.,
We need to increase the awareness.
We do not want to get to a point where we may not utilize AC21 properly.
thanks
jelo
05-14 01:26 PM
When your employer filed for revocation of I-140, on 02/03/2009 the officer might have performed an action of disapproval instead of revoke and also the date of action not updated (and you got the soft LUD not hard).
This will let the current officer to see as disapproved on 09/04/2007 ?. Just a thought.
This will let the current officer to see as disapproved on 09/04/2007 ?. Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment