h1techSlave
11-19 10:20 AM
If you look at the numbers.
EB3 - 3 years to file 485. Very little risk of rejection of 140 by USCIS.
EB2 - 1 year for LC processing, because you have to file new LC. Very HIGH risk of rejection of 140 by USCIS.
Now take your pick.
h1techSlave,
I saw that priority date for EB2 (all other countries) now is current, while for EB3 is May 2005.....
Does it mean that when my LC is ready I will have to wait my priority date for approximately 3 years?
EB3 - 3 years to file 485. Very little risk of rejection of 140 by USCIS.
EB2 - 1 year for LC processing, because you have to file new LC. Very HIGH risk of rejection of 140 by USCIS.
Now take your pick.
h1techSlave,
I saw that priority date for EB2 (all other countries) now is current, while for EB3 is May 2005.....
Does it mean that when my LC is ready I will have to wait my priority date for approximately 3 years?
JunRN
08-12 03:49 PM
I think there are few applicants between July 4 to July 17 because this the period of limbo - no one knows what to do and waiting for the August VB. I would guess it would not even reach 10% of those who filed in July 1 to 3.
Another guess is that the filers for July 20 to 31 are also many but not as many as July 1 to 3 filers.
I would suspect that there will be many filers before the August 17 deadline and it could be as many as July 1 to 3 filers.
Another guess is that the filers for July 20 to 31 are also many but not as many as July 1 to 3 filers.
I would suspect that there will be many filers before the August 17 deadline and it could be as many as July 1 to 3 filers.
mikemeyers
11-07 04:34 PM
if possible try to complete the course or take CPT ...As of now you are in legal status only but if you dont complete your course..you may have some tough questions to answer when you go for visa stamping.. also try to search in murthy..you will have lot more information.
good luck!!!
Thank you for the response, the course is very expensive and I dont have that much money. Its an MBA course and I am in software field there wont be any justifiable CPT I guess..Also, there was an RFE generated during H-1 processing asking for my status in between times. I sent I-20 to the INS and then only my H1 was approved.
What kind of tough questions you think they can ask?? I am very new to all these and do not have much knowlege but only thing i did is try to maintain status legally..is there anything wrong that I did??
good luck!!!
Thank you for the response, the course is very expensive and I dont have that much money. Its an MBA course and I am in software field there wont be any justifiable CPT I guess..Also, there was an RFE generated during H-1 processing asking for my status in between times. I sent I-20 to the INS and then only my H1 was approved.
What kind of tough questions you think they can ask?? I am very new to all these and do not have much knowlege but only thing i did is try to maintain status legally..is there anything wrong that I did??
masouds
08-27 02:40 PM
What do you guys think about the movement in EB3 ROW cases starting from October 2008?
Does anyone has exact numbers on how many EB3 ROW cases can be approved in a given fiscal year?
140000 is the total worker -> immigrant visa numbers.
28.6% of which goes to EB3, which becomes 40040. That is for everyone: China, India and Rest of us.
Subtract the 14% of that number (that is the dedicated number for people born in China and India), it will become 34435. That is your theoretical number and includes applicants' wives and children. Now, unused EB1 and EB2 will come down to be used by EB3, so the number may be lower or higher.
Now there is something I do not understand: (from http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4328.html, September visa bulletin,)
D. VISA AVAILABILITY FOR OCTOBER
The Mexico F2A and Employment Third preference cut-off dates are �unavailable� for both August and September, since those FY-2008 annual limits have been reached. The Visa Office had originally anticipated that this would be a temporary situation. Then with the start of the new fiscal year in October the cut-off dates would have returned to those which had applied during June. However, continued heavy demand in those categories may require the establishment of cut-off dates which are earlier than those which had applied in June. A formal decision determination of the October cut-off dates will not be possible until early September.
...
Under the INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2008 the per-country limit is 27,209. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,774.
Worldwide Family-sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-based preference limit: 162,704
Under the INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2008 the per-country limit is 27,209. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,774.
WTF?
Does anyone has exact numbers on how many EB3 ROW cases can be approved in a given fiscal year?
140000 is the total worker -> immigrant visa numbers.
28.6% of which goes to EB3, which becomes 40040. That is for everyone: China, India and Rest of us.
Subtract the 14% of that number (that is the dedicated number for people born in China and India), it will become 34435. That is your theoretical number and includes applicants' wives and children. Now, unused EB1 and EB2 will come down to be used by EB3, so the number may be lower or higher.
Now there is something I do not understand: (from http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4328.html, September visa bulletin,)
D. VISA AVAILABILITY FOR OCTOBER
The Mexico F2A and Employment Third preference cut-off dates are �unavailable� for both August and September, since those FY-2008 annual limits have been reached. The Visa Office had originally anticipated that this would be a temporary situation. Then with the start of the new fiscal year in October the cut-off dates would have returned to those which had applied during June. However, continued heavy demand in those categories may require the establishment of cut-off dates which are earlier than those which had applied in June. A formal decision determination of the October cut-off dates will not be possible until early September.
...
Under the INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2008 the per-country limit is 27,209. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,774.
Worldwide Family-sponsored preference limit: 226,000
Worldwide Employment-based preference limit: 162,704
Under the INA Section 202(A), the per-country limit is fixed at 7% of the family and employment annual limits. For FY-2008 the per-country limit is 27,209. The dependent area annual limit is 2%, or 7,774.
WTF?
more...
xgoogle
06-24 08:10 AM
Posted on both sections.... no response yet... pls help. :confused:
avi_ny
08-12 09:33 PM
My case EB3 PD Jan 2004
I40 approved TSC July 2007
485 filed at NSC July 2nd
LUD is 8/12/2007
Does this mean anything ?
On 2nd July, what time was your i-485 application received at NSC?
I40 approved TSC July 2007
485 filed at NSC July 2nd
LUD is 8/12/2007
Does this mean anything ?
On 2nd July, what time was your i-485 application received at NSC?
more...
kumar_herald
04-04 05:28 PM
I need expert advice -
My I-140 has been approved and I-485 pending for more than 18 months. I have a valid EAD & AP. I also have a valid H1-B visa valid till 2011,
that I am using for my current employment with my current employer
1. If I get laid-off, how long can I stay in US without another job?
2. I understand that in order to maintain my eligibility to "port" to a new employer / sponsor under AC21, I should have another job in same or similar occupation. Till I find another job, am I allowed to do some part-time job in different occupation?
3. If new employer gives me the option to move permanently to its subsidiary in another country, what are the available option for me to continue with green card processing?
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
My I-140 has been approved and I-485 pending for more than 18 months. I have a valid EAD & AP. I also have a valid H1-B visa valid till 2011,
that I am using for my current employment with my current employer
1. If I get laid-off, how long can I stay in US without another job?
2. I understand that in order to maintain my eligibility to "port" to a new employer / sponsor under AC21, I should have another job in same or similar occupation. Till I find another job, am I allowed to do some part-time job in different occupation?
3. If new employer gives me the option to move permanently to its subsidiary in another country, what are the available option for me to continue with green card processing?
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
more...
karun99
07-24 11:03 PM
I am also on the same boat. Can anyone please post the links to get all application forms for filing I485/EAD/AP . Thanks in advance.
Karun
Contributed $100
Karun
Contributed $100
mlk
10-20 02:12 PM
but you had a chick.
more...
mariusp
08-12 03:37 PM
I submitted my 485 on July 12 and I got an 08/05 LUD on my pending I-140. Could be coincidence or they checked my 140 as part of the initial 485 processing...
bandhu
02-04 08:07 PM
i was totaly upse about this post, here is my correct entry
definitely your entry should be denied, you are not capable to solve your domestic problem, how come you are going to do good to this country by getting GC. (I agree these people are not good as you, but before they start domestic violence there are on citizen/GC (either one of them),
I did not know moral contractors like u r here otherwise wud hv contacted u before USCIS.
BTW: What good are YOU doing to this country?
definitely your entry should be denied, you are not capable to solve your domestic problem, how come you are going to do good to this country by getting GC. (I agree these people are not good as you, but before they start domestic violence there are on citizen/GC (either one of them),
I did not know moral contractors like u r here otherwise wud hv contacted u before USCIS.
BTW: What good are YOU doing to this country?
more...
sammyb
02-13 02:49 PM
read it ...
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/78355623a0ffd5d61a20d391bee048804g.jpg
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/78355623a0ffd5d61a20d391bee048804g.jpg
setpit_gc
08-13 01:58 PM
My 485 was approved last week. Current status is Post Decison Activity. I've received Welcome Notice few days back.
It seems like USCIS automatically ported the PD.
My EB3 PD is April 2003 and working for the sponsored company.
I filed another 140 under EB2 through another company and it got approved 3 years back. I never joined in that company. I didn't port my EB3 PD when the EB2 140 was filed.
As a matter of fact, I completely forgot about this EB2 140 and this company.
All of a sudden, last week my 485 was approved with the EB2 PD which is Jan 2006.
I guess USCIS ported EB3-EB2 automatically. Is it normal?. What should I do?.
Please advice.
It seems like USCIS automatically ported the PD.
My EB3 PD is April 2003 and working for the sponsored company.
I filed another 140 under EB2 through another company and it got approved 3 years back. I never joined in that company. I didn't port my EB3 PD when the EB2 140 was filed.
As a matter of fact, I completely forgot about this EB2 140 and this company.
All of a sudden, last week my 485 was approved with the EB2 PD which is Jan 2006.
I guess USCIS ported EB3-EB2 automatically. Is it normal?. What should I do?.
Please advice.
more...
nfinity
07-01 07:52 PM
I am in as well. If they play games with peoples lives, USCIS does need to be sued.
justin150377
07-02 01:16 PM
time to sue...
more...
Daisy
11-10 03:56 PM
From texas
susie
10-31 01:47 AM
Thanks for your input, Manderson. My family has been here for four years. We have two sons in England, one of whom is going through the E2 application process, and two daughters, one at University and one in high school. We would all like to stay permanently, but in order to raise the money for EB5, we would have to sell our business and that would put us in breach of our visa conditions.
The half-centrury old E2 laws need to be updated to reflect the valuable economic input of investors. It is unrealistic to expect people to come here, settle their families and run successful businesses for a few years and then go home. Most decide they would like to stay but have no path to GC.
We can't just leave the country and start again because of our daughters' education. Feels like catch 22, but I believe reform is the way forward.
maybe you can re finance your biz and invest the $500,00 and not actually sell the biz, then apply for EB5, once the case is in process you are legal to stay till decision
The half-centrury old E2 laws need to be updated to reflect the valuable economic input of investors. It is unrealistic to expect people to come here, settle their families and run successful businesses for a few years and then go home. Most decide they would like to stay but have no path to GC.
We can't just leave the country and start again because of our daughters' education. Feels like catch 22, but I believe reform is the way forward.
maybe you can re finance your biz and invest the $500,00 and not actually sell the biz, then apply for EB5, once the case is in process you are legal to stay till decision
Steve Mitchell
March 21st, 2004, 07:54 AM
It wa the loudest game of the year. The fans are at Playoff Intensity. I want homecourt throughout....and all seven game series. That would be nice.
lazycis
02-14 04:42 PM
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the “fingerprint check” described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the “fingerprint check” described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
Great ruling. The analysis is totally applicable to AOS. Moreover, the government admitted that it was wrong in recent memo.
"In the context of removal proceedings, ICE has determined that FBI fingerprint checks and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) checks are the required checks for purposes of the applicable regulations."
Wait a minute, isn't immigration judge able to grant AOS in removal proceedings? It means that the DHS acknowledges that it wrongfully interpreted regulations for all these years and that name check is not required by law (at least for AOS) as we were saying all along!
I love also this part: "in the unlikely event that FBI name checks reveal actionable information".
As judge Baylson pointed out, "name check" is nowhere to found in laws and regs.
doomdoom
03-17 11:02 AM
Me also got RFE for 485. My priority date is 2006 Aug. Mine was related to medical report. Dr corrected the mistake and replied back.