gc_check
07-11 12:28 PM
Hi,
My wife is on H4 and she has her H4 extension approval. But the local DMV says that they need to see a visa stamp in her passport to issue a DL. Its actually exchanging her out of state DL! Can anyone from NC (Raleigh, Cary, RTP, Durham etc) share their experiences please.
This was introduced very recently and unfortunately they are asking for a VISA Stamp in Passport. Earlier they were not issuing the DL without an ITIN if you do not have SSN; my wife had to wait for almost a year as you cannot apply for ITIN unless you send the W7 with your tax returns due to new regulations. Now they are NOT concerned on ITIN, but are looking for VISA stamp. Only thing that can be done online in NC with regards to DL is you can get a Duplicate DL online if lost or your address is changed. Try writing to Congressman David Price and see if you can get assist from him. I know this office has helped folks here on Visas before for other issues.
My wife is on H4 and she has her H4 extension approval. But the local DMV says that they need to see a visa stamp in her passport to issue a DL. Its actually exchanging her out of state DL! Can anyone from NC (Raleigh, Cary, RTP, Durham etc) share their experiences please.
This was introduced very recently and unfortunately they are asking for a VISA Stamp in Passport. Earlier they were not issuing the DL without an ITIN if you do not have SSN; my wife had to wait for almost a year as you cannot apply for ITIN unless you send the W7 with your tax returns due to new regulations. Now they are NOT concerned on ITIN, but are looking for VISA stamp. Only thing that can be done online in NC with regards to DL is you can get a Duplicate DL online if lost or your address is changed. Try writing to Congressman David Price and see if you can get assist from him. I know this office has helped folks here on Visas before for other issues.
wallpaper the Week no.1 Girl Tattoos
gc_dedo
08-11 06:06 PM
The reason CIS isnt processing EB3 for last 3 months is because the dates are U and since they have lot of pressure not to waste visa numbers they have put all resources into EB2.
I have seen EB2 cases filed in May-08 been approved.
But i know this is unfair for EB3 people like us waiting for over a yr.
I have seen EB2 cases filed in May-08 been approved.
But i know this is unfair for EB3 people like us waiting for over a yr.
anna
11-06 05:45 AM
can u please tell me where did u read it jeniya?
2011 girl tattoos.
pappu
12-10 04:06 PM
Good they have seem to have read recently published IV analysis and recommendations and provided a much more detailed bulletin this month for the community.
more...
abhisam
07-20 09:21 PM
we need more such videos....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIMopYtJEfk&NR=1
!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIMopYtJEfk&NR=1
!!!
seahawks
09-13 01:23 AM
send to Chris Matthews of Hardball and Keith Olbermann of Countdown.
more...
adhantari
07-06 03:52 PM
You morons, You have spent so much time in useless discussions and anti-immigrants are laughing at your foolishness. Its high time your greencards applications get a denial or RFE. You will come crying to IV to save your status. Or else you will be deported. That is all you can do. You guys have got sub labor or faked your resumes and now you want someone to be accountable to you. First learn to be accountable to yourself and your values.
Here is what antis are telling you aholes:
STFU you freeloaders
just frustered bcoz you are still stuck in Labor while mostly everybody filed their GC right...... I can understand...... but you should channel your frustration in good way.... may be try seeing a shrink...... I will pitch in $1 if you get shrink help......
Here is what antis are telling you aholes:
STFU you freeloaders
just frustered bcoz you are still stuck in Labor while mostly everybody filed their GC right...... I can understand...... but you should channel your frustration in good way.... may be try seeing a shrink...... I will pitch in $1 if you get shrink help......
2010 girl tattoos. Hot Girl Tattoo
akhilmahajan
09-10 09:51 AM
Please call congressmen to support HR5882.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
GO IV GO.
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)- DEFINTELY CALL AND TRY TO CONVINCE
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) 202-225-7931 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member new_horizon)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) 202- 225-2906 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV members cnag & Prashant)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) 202-225-2201 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member little_willy)
Anthony D. Weiner (D-N.Y.) 202-225-6616 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) 202-225-3001 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) 202-225-1605 (IN FAVOR - Reported by IV member punjabi77)
GO IV GO.
more...
gimme Green!!
07-06 08:40 AM
Hopefully the emphasis on homeland security will not have an adverse effect when dates become current again or move forward.
On a lighter vein, isn't this essentially what we need - quick processing and approval of 485 apps without being stuck with all the paperwork? :)
Changing title to "Homeland security compromised in mad rush to process Green Cards" may provide fuel to anti-immigrants. They may argue that the process is better served by taking for 25 years to ensure no would be terroists get green cards !
On a lighter vein, isn't this essentially what we need - quick processing and approval of 485 apps without being stuck with all the paperwork? :)
Changing title to "Homeland security compromised in mad rush to process Green Cards" may provide fuel to anti-immigrants. They may argue that the process is better served by taking for 25 years to ensure no would be terroists get green cards !
hair Rib Cage Tattoos for Girls
jsquare
02-21 09:27 AM
Friends,
I have couple of questions...
My employer has filed my Labor from Georgia state...
So in which bpc my case should exists??
What is 45-days letter as I have read so many times in this forum??
My cas received date Oct 10 2004, is this Priority date??
I would appriciate proper answers
Thanks
Jsquare
I have couple of questions...
My employer has filed my Labor from Georgia state...
So in which bpc my case should exists??
What is 45-days letter as I have read so many times in this forum??
My cas received date Oct 10 2004, is this Priority date??
I would appriciate proper answers
Thanks
Jsquare
more...
vbkris77
06-25 06:48 PM
Reverse Brian Drain. I believe it is already been identified and some of the State governors wrote to Washington that they are observing a reverse brain drain and it is not good for the country.
I just started my GC Process, But I kept a 5 Year time frame to try this out. That is my breaking point. I am sure everybody will have some or other breaking point. I don't think I want to browse IV website lifetime.
We do need to fight and give a sincere try to achieve this before the whole thing breaks out. But if it breaks out, I am sure both ends lose. I lose an opportunity to enjoy American dream.
Of course, America loses, jobs that I am indirectly creating. Taxes that I am paying. Social security. More than everything my experience.
In all this, my home country gains. All my savings and experience will work for India. I think it is an opportunity loss for America.
Imagine, 1M people, with an average saving of 20K per year with atleast 10 Years of compounding and then sending all this money to Home country to go back and settle there. It will create enough financial turbulence for any country.
On the contrary, Imagine the other way, if they give say citizenship faster, All those Indian Savings, repatriate to America. All of a sudden, America will add lot of fortune to their GDP for free.
I just started my GC Process, But I kept a 5 Year time frame to try this out. That is my breaking point. I am sure everybody will have some or other breaking point. I don't think I want to browse IV website lifetime.
We do need to fight and give a sincere try to achieve this before the whole thing breaks out. But if it breaks out, I am sure both ends lose. I lose an opportunity to enjoy American dream.
Of course, America loses, jobs that I am indirectly creating. Taxes that I am paying. Social security. More than everything my experience.
In all this, my home country gains. All my savings and experience will work for India. I think it is an opportunity loss for America.
Imagine, 1M people, with an average saving of 20K per year with atleast 10 Years of compounding and then sending all this money to Home country to go back and settle there. It will create enough financial turbulence for any country.
On the contrary, Imagine the other way, if they give say citizenship faster, All those Indian Savings, repatriate to America. All of a sudden, America will add lot of fortune to their GDP for free.
hot Permanent Girl Tattoos Design
Keeme
03-06 05:57 PM
To keep the HOPE high;) One more point to consider , remember a month back there was a information going around on the # of Cards ordered by USCIS? Man, all these crazy things going around with
a) LUDs
b) Name Check 180 days rule
c) # of Cards ordered etc etc., etc., is making ppl. more anxious.....
Agree. I still blame name check 180 rule - a major decision by USCIS/FBI helped this backlogg to go from bad to worst.
Name check 180 rule -it allowed thousands of people from EB1 / EB2 Row to get their 485 cleared and consumed major chunk of 2008/09 EB visas. Had it been not there, many old timers, would have used visas as their Name check would have been cleared before them.
a) LUDs
b) Name Check 180 days rule
c) # of Cards ordered etc etc., etc., is making ppl. more anxious.....
Agree. I still blame name check 180 rule - a major decision by USCIS/FBI helped this backlogg to go from bad to worst.
Name check 180 rule -it allowed thousands of people from EB1 / EB2 Row to get their 485 cleared and consumed major chunk of 2008/09 EB visas. Had it been not there, many old timers, would have used visas as their Name check would have been cleared before them.
more...
house Back then girl tattoos weren#39;t
zoooom
08-10 11:06 PM
I dont think this is true coz I am juky 2nd filer and my checks havent been cashed yet...
tattoo girl tattoos, you#39;ll be
24fps
02-08 11:23 PM
wow!!
after reading all this i think its best that i land up marrying an american/european girl , atleast they dont have all this inlaw/dowry crap going on
and then i'll get my GC taken care off as well ;) :D
after reading all this i think its best that i land up marrying an american/european girl , atleast they dont have all this inlaw/dowry crap going on
and then i'll get my GC taken care off as well ;) :D
more...
pictures for pin up girl tattoos?
lonedesi
08-05 12:17 PM
^^^^^
dresses hot girl tattoos.
nk2006
10-16 04:29 PM
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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
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: Ombudsman
======================
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
=======================
============================
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...
makeup Girl Tattoo
royus77
07-17 11:23 PM
Given That All Dates Are Now Current And There Will Be Hundreds Of I-485 Filings By August 17, Will The Uscis Process Them In Order Of The Original Labor Cert Priority Date Or The Date Of Receipt Of The I-485 Filing Itself?
Only on PD when the date is current
Only on PD when the date is current
girlfriend girl tattoos ideas. tattoo
srinivas_o
09-16 06:45 PM
I have made one time of contribution of $100 through PayPal.
Here are the details.
Confirmation Number: 3YE50599L7886501J.
Due to some personal reason, I am not able to make it to Rally, but my heart felt best wishes to everyone.
Here are the details.
Confirmation Number: 3YE50599L7886501J.
Due to some personal reason, I am not able to make it to Rally, but my heart felt best wishes to everyone.
hairstyles Girl Tattoos
sushilup
07-11 08:28 AM
I agree with tnite
But the downside to this is that most EB2 July filers have (or will be) been renewing their EAD's in August/Sepetember and this bulleting will not let USCIS give out 2 yr EAD's and instead hand out 1 yr ones.
Just because your PD is current dosnt mean that USCIS will process your apps right away. There are folks whose PD was current under July bulletin and their apps haven't been touched based on some anecdotal evidence here..
But the Eb3 news is not good.
just my 2 cents
But the downside to this is that most EB2 July filers have (or will be) been renewing their EAD's in August/Sepetember and this bulleting will not let USCIS give out 2 yr EAD's and instead hand out 1 yr ones.
Just because your PD is current dosnt mean that USCIS will process your apps right away. There are folks whose PD was current under July bulletin and their apps haven't been touched based on some anecdotal evidence here..
But the Eb3 news is not good.
just my 2 cents
amitjoey
05-06 10:46 AM
Our Phone calls are making the desired effect, Now they are probably keeping a tally of the calls. If we keep calling, we will have the desired effect. Please call-everybody that has not. Please step up.
trueguy
02-26 12:01 PM
Forget about LIFO or FIFO, this year EB2 won't be getting enough visa's from spill-over. They would be giving majority of spill-over to EB3-ROW/I/C and EB2 would be getting very small fraction. And how's that is possible for that they would play around the law ( by making EB2 current).
Thanks'
MDix
On what basis you are saying that? Do you have any data/links to support this?
Thanks'
MDix
On what basis you are saying that? Do you have any data/links to support this?
No comments:
Post a Comment