niklshah
08-20 12:14 PM
one question?? does it need high speed cable or DSL can work too???
wallpaper Selena+Gomez in Selena Gomez
serg
07-09 09:24 PM
All right, looks like we got (or will get) some attention from media. DOS and USCIS got (or will) it too. That's good. They will forward flowers to hospital, and this is good too (hate to waste flowers)! Bad, if they will not strip messages from buckets, veterans do not need them at all, BUT if they decided to take messages off ... just picture that USCIS will stuck on forwarding flowers instead of doing their job. Who will win?
All right, what next? If BloodDrive will not work, I suggest we have to offer BRAINDRIVE :) Any leaders? :)
All right, what next? If BloodDrive will not work, I suggest we have to offer BRAINDRIVE :) Any leaders? :)
chanduv23
03-24 04:12 PM
Wow !! They probably did their homework and are prepared to hide behind some loophole in the law to clear themselves of discrimination.
After reading the other thread link that BharatPremi had posted earlier, it seems there is a possibility that they could claim that they don't want to do sponsorship (which is legal to say so), and hiring an EAD candidate means they may have to do some amount of sponsorship, however small it might be (like providing the correct form of employment letter etc).
Interesting policy. A lot of companies do not sponser H1b and GC because of the woes, costs and hastles associated with it, though they would love to hire the right kind of candidate. But this company is ready to pass the right candidate just because they have to provide a letter?
After reading the other thread link that BharatPremi had posted earlier, it seems there is a possibility that they could claim that they don't want to do sponsorship (which is legal to say so), and hiring an EAD candidate means they may have to do some amount of sponsorship, however small it might be (like providing the correct form of employment letter etc).
Interesting policy. A lot of companies do not sponser H1b and GC because of the woes, costs and hastles associated with it, though they would love to hire the right kind of candidate. But this company is ready to pass the right candidate just because they have to provide a letter?
2011 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
saimrathi
07-09 06:45 PM
:d
more...
SanjayP
05-09 03:04 PM
you are both quite the racists. :eek: i question the wisdom of such attacks as it makes both sides look desperate. it is best if one side looks content. Let it roll off of the back like water on a duck.
Das73
05-17 06:32 PM
doudou
I 485 question
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am applying for AOS on a EB basis. My wife will apply along with me as a beneficiary. Unfortunately she worked on H1B for another company without notifying USCIS and on a different job capacity. What are the chances for her I485 to be denied? Do we have to mention that in I485 form. She is currently on H4 and is not working. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When her employer applied for H1B means that he notified USCIS & got approved! She will be fine & she will get her GC along with you. No worries.
I 485 question
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am applying for AOS on a EB basis. My wife will apply along with me as a beneficiary. Unfortunately she worked on H1B for another company without notifying USCIS and on a different job capacity. What are the chances for her I485 to be denied? Do we have to mention that in I485 form. She is currently on H4 and is not working. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When her employer applied for H1B means that he notified USCIS & got approved! She will be fine & she will get her GC along with you. No worries.
more...
CADude
10-02 03:58 PM
This is post responsible to monitor USCIS actions. :)
who is cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov? Is this a name of some person or some department name?
who is cisombudsman.trends@dhs.gov? Is this a name of some person or some department name?
2010 Justin Bieber Selena Gomez
veera72
09-14 03:56 PM
My company applied 100 485's . 85 from NSC and 15 from TSC (140 aproval). All NSC people got receipts, some of got FP's also. But TSC people still waiting for checks to be cleared.
140 approved by TSC
LUD on I-140 of 8-5-07
I-485 filed with NSC on 2nd july:mad:
140 approved by TSC
LUD on I-140 of 8-5-07
I-485 filed with NSC on 2nd july:mad:
more...
amitjoey
07-09 07:00 PM
I am telling you, this is all great!!. It is working, do not doubt it. It has to be this way for a news story. This makes a great story. Also canceling orders sends wrong messages, we care for the troops fighting for us, Why cancel.
hair justin bieber and selena gomez
go_getter007
01-24 11:55 AM
Milind123, I can certainly understand your frustration but kudos to you for making your post humorous at several points amidst your painful experience. I especially liked your closing remark about Koh-i-Noor - I'm with you. :D
Come to think of it, even the country where we are right now (i.e., the US) isn't much different not only in terms of lengthy forms and queues (outside of consulates) but also on making our lives a little more than hard by denying driver's licenses, delaying permanent residence perpetually etc. On top of these issues, apparent hate crimes against Indians at LSU and then at Duke would certainly make a lot of parents a little nervous before sending their kids for higher education here.
GG_007
I had the misfortune of travelling thru London in December on my way to Mumbai. After I purchased my tickets, I learnt that I need a transit visa (TV) for UK. (Who is going to tell them (UK) that they are no longer the center of attraction esp. if you have lived and worked in US). Anyway, as per the rules, you need a transit visa if you don�t have a valid US visa. (Note: If you have AP, and don�t have a valid visa, you still need a TV).
I went to their site and did all the research to get a TV. Good god Heavens! Has anyone filled out their painful form for a TV? Besides asking the usual details, they get extremely nosy. They want to know each and everything about you. Where you work, what money do you make, name of your wife, kids and their citizenship status, name of your father and mother and where they were born, their birth date, how much money you have and where the money is (stocks, bonds, CDS) etc. etc. While filling up the form I realized that, even my future father in law did not pose so many probing questions to me. (Please note: I don�t mind answering these silly questions for a regular visa, but for the damn TV, it is certainly overkill).
Anyway to cut the long story short. The regular cost of TV is/was $92. However, when I filled up the application form they were asking for $184. (The satisfaction of getting a good deal on the tickets was quickly evaporating). I assumed I must have made a mistake in thinking the cost to be $92 and reluctantly paid $184. Next it was time to fill the application for my wife and answer the idiotic questions again. You should have seen the �I will kill you right now� look on my wife�s face after I woke her up in the middle of night and asked details about her parents. After I filled up the form, to my surprise, now they were asking $274 for visa fees. It was already 2:00 am and I have no choice but to painfully enter my credit card details, hoping that they would realize the mistake in their recon process and would reimburse the difference. (Of course, I was only dreaming).
It is now almost the end of January and I have still now received any money from them. I have tried sending several email to the emb(ass)y, but none of their emails work. I get bounced email for all the emails that I have used. I have tried calling them and left messages and no one has called back. I have send emails to my credit card company and the people who processed the payment and none of them have been able to help me. There is a way to talk to someone in the emb(ass)y, but you need to dial a 900 number, which BTW costs $2.49 per minute. Throwing good money after bad is not an option.
I just wanted to share this experience with you and remind you of the pain ahead, if you are travelling thru UK and don�t have a valid US visa. Personally, even if they had charged me the regular $92, I will still use other options to travel next time. The amount of time wasted in filling the crappy application form, going to NY, (starting Dec doing your finger prints) is simply too much to handle. Visiting your motherland/fatherland is a very special occasion and all these intermediate steps certainly water down the �good feeling� that you experience during the days leading to your trip.
I haven�t given up my quest for a refund, but now, not only I want my money back I would like to bring back home the Koh-i-noor too.
Come to think of it, even the country where we are right now (i.e., the US) isn't much different not only in terms of lengthy forms and queues (outside of consulates) but also on making our lives a little more than hard by denying driver's licenses, delaying permanent residence perpetually etc. On top of these issues, apparent hate crimes against Indians at LSU and then at Duke would certainly make a lot of parents a little nervous before sending their kids for higher education here.
GG_007
I had the misfortune of travelling thru London in December on my way to Mumbai. After I purchased my tickets, I learnt that I need a transit visa (TV) for UK. (Who is going to tell them (UK) that they are no longer the center of attraction esp. if you have lived and worked in US). Anyway, as per the rules, you need a transit visa if you don�t have a valid US visa. (Note: If you have AP, and don�t have a valid visa, you still need a TV).
I went to their site and did all the research to get a TV. Good god Heavens! Has anyone filled out their painful form for a TV? Besides asking the usual details, they get extremely nosy. They want to know each and everything about you. Where you work, what money do you make, name of your wife, kids and their citizenship status, name of your father and mother and where they were born, their birth date, how much money you have and where the money is (stocks, bonds, CDS) etc. etc. While filling up the form I realized that, even my future father in law did not pose so many probing questions to me. (Please note: I don�t mind answering these silly questions for a regular visa, but for the damn TV, it is certainly overkill).
Anyway to cut the long story short. The regular cost of TV is/was $92. However, when I filled up the application form they were asking for $184. (The satisfaction of getting a good deal on the tickets was quickly evaporating). I assumed I must have made a mistake in thinking the cost to be $92 and reluctantly paid $184. Next it was time to fill the application for my wife and answer the idiotic questions again. You should have seen the �I will kill you right now� look on my wife�s face after I woke her up in the middle of night and asked details about her parents. After I filled up the form, to my surprise, now they were asking $274 for visa fees. It was already 2:00 am and I have no choice but to painfully enter my credit card details, hoping that they would realize the mistake in their recon process and would reimburse the difference. (Of course, I was only dreaming).
It is now almost the end of January and I have still now received any money from them. I have tried sending several email to the emb(ass)y, but none of their emails work. I get bounced email for all the emails that I have used. I have tried calling them and left messages and no one has called back. I have send emails to my credit card company and the people who processed the payment and none of them have been able to help me. There is a way to talk to someone in the emb(ass)y, but you need to dial a 900 number, which BTW costs $2.49 per minute. Throwing good money after bad is not an option.
I just wanted to share this experience with you and remind you of the pain ahead, if you are travelling thru UK and don�t have a valid US visa. Personally, even if they had charged me the regular $92, I will still use other options to travel next time. The amount of time wasted in filling the crappy application form, going to NY, (starting Dec doing your finger prints) is simply too much to handle. Visiting your motherland/fatherland is a very special occasion and all these intermediate steps certainly water down the �good feeling� that you experience during the days leading to your trip.
I haven�t given up my quest for a refund, but now, not only I want my money back I would like to bring back home the Koh-i-noor too.
more...
franklin
01-10 01:26 AM
I do not want to spoil the fun and do truely appreciate the efforts by the IV team. But after sitting in the GC queue for 7 years, all my hopes nearly dead. Campaigns come and go but nothing ever happens.
I truly appreciate your frustration, but nothing will ever change if you do nothing.
Something might change if you do something
Go on, write a letter! It'll take 5 minutes. If you do, I'll write one as well. I'll even visit lawmakers on your behalf :D
IV is you and me, we are the team.
I truly appreciate your frustration, but nothing will ever change if you do nothing.
Something might change if you do something
Go on, write a letter! It'll take 5 minutes. If you do, I'll write one as well. I'll even visit lawmakers on your behalf :D
IV is you and me, we are the team.
hot house Selena Gomez Beach
ab_tak_chappan
08-22 11:50 AM
By sending so many flowers over and over again you are only going to piss off people and expedite retrogression :D:D. Live the real life instead of reel.
lets ignore all the negative comments in this thread and stay focused.
Lets start with letter campaign and see what happens when new year starts. Does somebody has a letter drafted and ready to send out?
Thanks.
lets ignore all the negative comments in this thread and stay focused.
Lets start with letter campaign and see what happens when new year starts. Does somebody has a letter drafted and ready to send out?
Thanks.
more...
house Justin Bieber Y Selena Gomez
abuddyz
02-29 08:21 AM
here are some updates..
i received reply to my inquiry email from mumbai consulate. and they wrote following in email
"Please wait till you get an email from us.
Mumbainiv/vd"
I also visited the inquiry window at mumbai consulate personally and here is the coversation I had..
me: I had my H1b visa interview on feb 11 and I want to know the status of my visa.
she: what is your name (did something on computer). it is still pending for verification
me: how long will it take?
she: it might take another 1 or 2 weeks
me: i was initially told that it will take only 1 week and it is already more than 2 weeks.
she: it takes time
me: what is the procedure to withdraw my visa application
she: if you withdraw, how will you go there?
me: i have advance parole document with me
she: it is advisable to wait for this visa. if you go on advance parole, you might be inquired at port of entry.
me: i have to find some other option as my client is waiting there.
she: if you want to withdraw, you can send an email or you can come here personally but it is advisable to wait for this visa (she said it again).
me: (i again asked) so i can withdraw and then go back using advance parole?
she: as I said, it is advisable that you wait for visa
I hope this is useful to everyone..(i have decided to wait for the visa and not use advance parole)
i received reply to my inquiry email from mumbai consulate. and they wrote following in email
"Please wait till you get an email from us.
Mumbainiv/vd"
I also visited the inquiry window at mumbai consulate personally and here is the coversation I had..
me: I had my H1b visa interview on feb 11 and I want to know the status of my visa.
she: what is your name (did something on computer). it is still pending for verification
me: how long will it take?
she: it might take another 1 or 2 weeks
me: i was initially told that it will take only 1 week and it is already more than 2 weeks.
she: it takes time
me: what is the procedure to withdraw my visa application
she: if you withdraw, how will you go there?
me: i have advance parole document with me
she: it is advisable to wait for this visa. if you go on advance parole, you might be inquired at port of entry.
me: i have to find some other option as my client is waiting there.
she: if you want to withdraw, you can send an email or you can come here personally but it is advisable to wait for this visa (she said it again).
me: (i again asked) so i can withdraw and then go back using advance parole?
she: as I said, it is advisable that you wait for visa
I hope this is useful to everyone..(i have decided to wait for the visa and not use advance parole)
tattoo her friend Selena Gomez,
makemygc
06-29 07:29 PM
Most of us are at the mercy of our attorney's to file for I-485. The attorney's take their sweet time to prepare the draft and send the application. In this heated moment the attorney's offices should hire more people and get the ball rolling.
All that we can do as employees is pester our HRs and attorneys.:p
more than 100% true...My attorney took two weeks to prepare the 3 forms and when he sent out those forms to me for review, I was amazed to see it was full of errors and mistakes. Finally, I'd to prepare the application and send it to him. Application is so simple that anyone can prepare it. I think we should better do it ourselves if given the chance.
All that we can do as employees is pester our HRs and attorneys.:p
more than 100% true...My attorney took two weeks to prepare the 3 forms and when he sent out those forms to me for review, I was amazed to see it was full of errors and mistakes. Finally, I'd to prepare the application and send it to him. Application is so simple that anyone can prepare it. I think we should better do it ourselves if given the chance.
more...
pictures Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
singhsa3
08-06 08:35 PM
Does not look like many takers but so far 50-50..
dresses Justin Bieber Photos - Justin
jungalee43
11-14 11:55 AM
I received standard reply from TSC yesterday. "In absence of A# or SRC number we are unable to locate your file. If you would like to re-submit please quote these numbers......."
Of course I received my envelope also.
Of course I received my envelope also.
more...
makeup Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
johnmcdonald98
10-03 03:35 PM
me and my friend, both are stuck into this right now. Both are having different nationality and we both are in this country from last 10 yrs. So I think it might also depends on your history, as longer stay, your name will pop-out from many places, which will delay the things.
girlfriend Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
hairstyles Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
sc3
08-22 12:49 PM
Some one gave me this comment saying
"You continue to undermine IV with your nonsensical posts. I understand you are frustrated, but your comments are counterproductie at best. You also don't seem to understand the law properly. Do some homework."
Show me where have I undermined IV efforts? And show me nonsensical or counterproductive posts that I have made -- that is, nonsensical or counterproductive to the cause of upholding the law (not pandering to a particular employment category/chargeability area).
I have done my homework, and I have understood the law properly. I have time and again given logical proof, along with the text of the law, as to why EB3 is eligible get the EB1 numbers at the same time as EB2. On the other hand none of the detractors have provided proof, or material that shows EB3 does not qualify.
And for all those holier-than-thou EB2, what is about the letter campaign to get NSC/TSC to process application according to PDs (no lawful basis for that), and asking the removal of NSC bosses and what not. You seem to have different standards when you are suffering, and when others are suffering. There is a word in the dictionary for that, look it up.
"You continue to undermine IV with your nonsensical posts. I understand you are frustrated, but your comments are counterproductie at best. You also don't seem to understand the law properly. Do some homework."
Show me where have I undermined IV efforts? And show me nonsensical or counterproductive posts that I have made -- that is, nonsensical or counterproductive to the cause of upholding the law (not pandering to a particular employment category/chargeability area).
I have done my homework, and I have understood the law properly. I have time and again given logical proof, along with the text of the law, as to why EB3 is eligible get the EB1 numbers at the same time as EB2. On the other hand none of the detractors have provided proof, or material that shows EB3 does not qualify.
And for all those holier-than-thou EB2, what is about the letter campaign to get NSC/TSC to process application according to PDs (no lawful basis for that), and asking the removal of NSC bosses and what not. You seem to have different standards when you are suffering, and when others are suffering. There is a word in the dictionary for that, look it up.
purgan
07-13 03:53 PM
Loo Doggs is a xenophobe and nativist to the core...
He doesn't like Illegal immigrants "because they broke the law"
He says he likes Legal immigration, but then he curses every avenue for legal immigration under curent law.
1. He calls the diversity visa lottery the "great american giveaway" and has called for its abolition.
2. He calls family immigration "chain migration"
3. Finally, he calls employment-based immigrants as "stealing american jobs"
C'mon dude, its time to give up the pretense that you like immigrants!!
He doesn't like Illegal immigrants "because they broke the law"
He says he likes Legal immigration, but then he curses every avenue for legal immigration under curent law.
1. He calls the diversity visa lottery the "great american giveaway" and has called for its abolition.
2. He calls family immigration "chain migration"
3. Finally, he calls employment-based immigrants as "stealing american jobs"
C'mon dude, its time to give up the pretense that you like immigrants!!
pranju
06-15 04:13 PM
Should only be put in the primary applicants !485. The spouse will have one on their receipt notice. The fingerprint appointment will use this number as an identifier.
Thank you so much for the reply.
Thank you so much for the reply.
No comments:
Post a Comment