bhasky25
10-11 12:45 PM
Hello guys,
I need a clarification on the process. Here is my scenario
1. PD : Feb 2004 EB3 India
2. 485 : Filed during july 2007
3. 140 : Approved on jan 2009 --> Revoked by my previous company on 12/23/2009
4. AC21 : Used AC21 to change jobs in Feb 2009. Transferred job using H1B tranfer and got it for 3 years(valid until Jan 2012). Changed jobs after 500 days of applying 485.
5. EAD and Ap is not valid(did not renew it as I chose to maintain H1b). I let it expire in 2008.
6. The new company would not file for EB2 as my current job description does not qualify for EB2. They are willing to refile EB3 petition. I was not interested in doing it.
My question is:
If I want to get my H1b renewed again @ Jan 2012, it is possible to get it renewed for 3 years by using my previous 140 approval even though it is revoked by my previous employer ?? If that is not possible, what are my options to maintain my H1B.
Appreciate your insight.
I need a clarification on the process. Here is my scenario
1. PD : Feb 2004 EB3 India
2. 485 : Filed during july 2007
3. 140 : Approved on jan 2009 --> Revoked by my previous company on 12/23/2009
4. AC21 : Used AC21 to change jobs in Feb 2009. Transferred job using H1B tranfer and got it for 3 years(valid until Jan 2012). Changed jobs after 500 days of applying 485.
5. EAD and Ap is not valid(did not renew it as I chose to maintain H1b). I let it expire in 2008.
6. The new company would not file for EB2 as my current job description does not qualify for EB2. They are willing to refile EB3 petition. I was not interested in doing it.
My question is:
If I want to get my H1b renewed again @ Jan 2012, it is possible to get it renewed for 3 years by using my previous 140 approval even though it is revoked by my previous employer ?? If that is not possible, what are my options to maintain my H1B.
Appreciate your insight.
wallpaper money rose tattoos
nixstor
08-30 01:11 PM
My 25,000 AAdvantage miles to IV.
dilber
07-16 06:24 PM
How about setting up a poll to get a rough idea we could create a poll with a salary range and EB level for example 48000~ 59999 EB3 48000~59999 EB2 60000~70000 EB3 60000~70000 EB2 etc. this would give us a rough Idea about Levels and corresponding EB categories. I suggest using numerical ranges Instead of Levels because some people may not know the levels.
This poll can give us some thing like X% of level 3 are EB2 and Y% of Level 2 are EB3 sort of estimates.
This poll can give us some thing like X% of level 3 are EB2 and Y% of Level 2 are EB3 sort of estimates.
2011 ::Royalty tattoos:: Get money
heywhat
07-26 10:07 AM
Option 1> Try to bring your wife to US before aug 17. (No risk at all)
Option 2> File it and do not use EAD and stay on H1b so you can bring your wife on H4. ( Thers is some risk. 99.99% USCIS is not going to do anything with your I485 till Oct'07 except sending you receipt. But god forbid, they approve your application before that then you are in trouble because you won't be able to bring your wife to US. Chances of happening this is very slim). Get benefit of AC21.
Option-3> Do not apply. And wait for 2005 becode current ( this is not going to happen atleast for next 3-4 years without any new legislation. And if you change job or somethingm, restart it from 0, no AC21 benefit.
In short, FILE IT....
Option 2> File it and do not use EAD and stay on H1b so you can bring your wife on H4. ( Thers is some risk. 99.99% USCIS is not going to do anything with your I485 till Oct'07 except sending you receipt. But god forbid, they approve your application before that then you are in trouble because you won't be able to bring your wife to US. Chances of happening this is very slim). Get benefit of AC21.
Option-3> Do not apply. And wait for 2005 becode current ( this is not going to happen atleast for next 3-4 years without any new legislation. And if you change job or somethingm, restart it from 0, no AC21 benefit.
In short, FILE IT....
more...
caprianurag
11-15 03:55 PM
So, what did you decide..to join as PM or not?
texanguy
02-02 01:45 PM
previously discussed.
check out my post and gc28262 's response in the following link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23111&page=2
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
check out my post and gc28262 's response in the following link
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23111&page=2
I believe you need more than 6months of stay for it to be called as continous presence. Anyone shed some light.
more...
walking_dude
12-12 04:12 PM
I'm not surprised if there are Eb2 prior to 2000. Almost every employer substituted every LC they could subsitute just before the deadline to end Substitution. Some estimates put it at 175,000. So I'm not surprised it there are hidden Eb2s who have PDs prior to 2000 !
Of course, none of them will come here and claim it !
Of course, none of them will come here and claim it !
2010 Pacman Tattoo on Butt
anilsal
03-17 01:19 PM
it is very important that you seriously consider the options you have at the earliest.
You should try to talk to an immigration attorney at the earliest.
Reading your case, I think best would be for you to find another job and file a new PERM application. You will retain the earlier priority date.
Additionally, have you considered getting a 3 year H1B extension based on the approved 140? I am not sure whether you can do it because you no longer work for this company. So, when you got a H1B transfer (for the new company B), did they give you 3 years or 1year extension for H1B?
You should try to talk to an immigration attorney at the earliest.
Reading your case, I think best would be for you to find another job and file a new PERM application. You will retain the earlier priority date.
Additionally, have you considered getting a 3 year H1B extension based on the approved 140? I am not sure whether you can do it because you no longer work for this company. So, when you got a H1B transfer (for the new company B), did they give you 3 years or 1year extension for H1B?
more...
chanduv23
03-14 12:07 PM
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office�s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
hair money rose tattoo designs
alterego
12-12 07:03 PM
My guess is they retrogressed to basically stem demand completely as they felt they had used too many visas too soon, and that is where they decided they need to put the date to extinguish demand. Last month they tried Jan. 2002, but quite clearly that did not have the desired impact. Hence the further move backward.
This is not too hard to see once you realize you are speaking about 2800 visas for EB2 India, and that means 700 per quarter or about 250-300 primary beneficiaries. When they kept PD at Apr 2004 for the first 3 months, why is it hard to envision that they went through say about 500 primary applicants with such dates, between genuinely old petitions, substitute labor petitions and EB3 to EB2 jumpers, backlog center applicants etc? I mean the truth hurts but this is where it is at. My guess is they have almost certainly used up over 1/2 of the annual allotment for EB2 India, hence they mentioned last month they used up 38% and now they are warning about the possibility of unavailability in coming months preparing us for the inevitable.
EB3 won't be too far behind in my guesstimate since if they move dates by just a few months this will drive up demand and the fate of that PD will be the same as EB2. 2800 visas inclusive of family members for EB2 and EB3 India is like feeding a hungry lion a chicken wing.:)
The one possibility that might help us is if once again around the may-june-july time period they accelerate demand by moving EB India to use up visa numbers. If my memory serves me right they did end up using about 15K visas for EB2 India last year. There is no guarantee they will do that again this year however after last years VB fiasco for which they took a lot of heat, they may just let the visas go.
I see visa recapture as our only hope for temporary relief. Failing which we desperately need administrative fixes like 3yr EADs etc to ease our pain while we wait out the presidential elections next year. Lets hope for the best with the omnibus legislation.
This is not too hard to see once you realize you are speaking about 2800 visas for EB2 India, and that means 700 per quarter or about 250-300 primary beneficiaries. When they kept PD at Apr 2004 for the first 3 months, why is it hard to envision that they went through say about 500 primary applicants with such dates, between genuinely old petitions, substitute labor petitions and EB3 to EB2 jumpers, backlog center applicants etc? I mean the truth hurts but this is where it is at. My guess is they have almost certainly used up over 1/2 of the annual allotment for EB2 India, hence they mentioned last month they used up 38% and now they are warning about the possibility of unavailability in coming months preparing us for the inevitable.
EB3 won't be too far behind in my guesstimate since if they move dates by just a few months this will drive up demand and the fate of that PD will be the same as EB2. 2800 visas inclusive of family members for EB2 and EB3 India is like feeding a hungry lion a chicken wing.:)
The one possibility that might help us is if once again around the may-june-july time period they accelerate demand by moving EB India to use up visa numbers. If my memory serves me right they did end up using about 15K visas for EB2 India last year. There is no guarantee they will do that again this year however after last years VB fiasco for which they took a lot of heat, they may just let the visas go.
I see visa recapture as our only hope for temporary relief. Failing which we desperately need administrative fixes like 3yr EADs etc to ease our pain while we wait out the presidential elections next year. Lets hope for the best with the omnibus legislation.
more...
purgan
08-06 09:26 AM
Well a lot of people I know have coverted from EB3 to EB2 while retaining their old PDs, so i'mnot sure about EB2 dates staying in 2004.
hot money symbol tattoos
reddy77
04-12 04:21 PM
Thanks, Even I am thinking the same but just worried, would I also get the copy of RFE??
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
Don't worry much its more than like going to be a medical RFE.
I had an RFE recently with similar status. See thread....
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24601
more...
house 2010 Money, Lil Wayne Tattoos
dartkid31
05-17 11:30 PM
That is true. This thing called "special handling" in common parlance is, thank god, not a hot topic of discussion. I hope this clause doesn't get weeded out given the current scenario where they have killed F4. I really wonder if "highly skilled" legal immigrants would ultimately get any benefit out of this bill. Limboland is where many people are - and at the end of the day you still get to live in Limboland and become its citizens by default.
My two cents! :( :(
The original language that was in CIR would exempt from the quota STEM graduates who have worked for 3 years, under the F 4 provision. More importantly, it allows for self petitioning and adjustment of status following a $2000 fee. If this amendment passes, all that would be gone, and simply replaced with the exemption that was already in the original bill. Again I'm puzzled: why are we supporting this amendment?
My two cents! :( :(
The original language that was in CIR would exempt from the quota STEM graduates who have worked for 3 years, under the F 4 provision. More importantly, it allows for self petitioning and adjustment of status following a $2000 fee. If this amendment passes, all that would be gone, and simply replaced with the exemption that was already in the original bill. Again I'm puzzled: why are we supporting this amendment?
tattoo toilet paper money tattoo
stemcell
03-07 11:53 PM
Londontown
sorry to hear about your denial.
Regarding my friend, His 140 was denied but he was already on EAD by then.His 485 was not denied ( maybe they were not processing his 485 at that point.He is a july 07 filer under EB3-I). The appeal for 140 denial was filed and it is still pending(8 months now). Meanwhile a 2 yr EAD has been approved.
I am not sure if this process is followed for everyone as each case has its variables.....
hope this helps...
sorry to hear about your denial.
Regarding my friend, His 140 was denied but he was already on EAD by then.His 485 was not denied ( maybe they were not processing his 485 at that point.He is a july 07 filer under EB3-I). The appeal for 140 denial was filed and it is still pending(8 months now). Meanwhile a 2 yr EAD has been approved.
I am not sure if this process is followed for everyone as each case has its variables.....
hope this helps...
more...
pictures tattoo%20convention_getting%
atulnayak1
02-19 12:03 PM
Franks Red Hot sauce, I put that sh&t on EVERYTHING!
dresses tattoo on money laundering
DSLStart
07-28 03:56 PM
The reason for transfer as per email was that the jurisdiction is now TSC But why now? why not transferred along with 485 in 2007?
Orignal poster,
what was your message in email/online status?
is it in any shape size or form possible that you would put your I-140 employer into a bracket of potentially fraudulent companies? or did you have sub labor? anything you can think of that your employer may not have toed the line as far as the law is concerned? i am not suggesting that fraud investigation is the cause of these happenings... i am in fact wondering if that could be the case... if you think your employers were super lawful, then who knows what USCIS is doing!!
Orignal poster,
what was your message in email/online status?
is it in any shape size or form possible that you would put your I-140 employer into a bracket of potentially fraudulent companies? or did you have sub labor? anything you can think of that your employer may not have toed the line as far as the law is concerned? i am not suggesting that fraud investigation is the cause of these happenings... i am in fact wondering if that could be the case... if you think your employers were super lawful, then who knows what USCIS is doing!!
more...
makeup tattoos of money stacks.
panini
03-15 01:24 PM
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
girlfriend tattoos of money stacks.
Bhaskar_80
06-10 04:16 PM
Mr. gnutin,
I really appreciate your help on this regard.
Thanks a lot!
I really appreciate your help on this regard.
Thanks a lot!
hairstyles tattoos of money stacks.
rheoretro
08-08 07:33 PM
...of meaningless "predictions."
peekay
06-29 03:03 PM
Hi,
I dont have a direct answer to your question but I do know that insurance has to be taken within the 30 days of your wife's arrival in US. I had the same situation where I applied for insurance on 32nd day and got a reply from the insurance company that I have to apply within 30 days. I finally was able to convince them and take the insurance. Try your luck by talking to some insurance company like BCBS or Humana. They should be able to provide more info. I cant be of more help than this.
Peekay
I dont have a direct answer to your question but I do know that insurance has to be taken within the 30 days of your wife's arrival in US. I had the same situation where I applied for insurance on 32nd day and got a reply from the insurance company that I have to apply within 30 days. I finally was able to convince them and take the insurance. Try your luck by talking to some insurance company like BCBS or Humana. They should be able to provide more info. I cant be of more help than this.
Peekay
belmontboy
08-10 10:41 PM
Even if they reform all your 9 issues, we would still be stuck in the GC mess.
The concerns should be 3-4, so that we don't appear demanding to the lawmakers, press and the public.
we should request:
1.) increase in GC numbers
2.) capturing unused visa's from previous years
3.) removing country cap
4.) reforming namecheck.
EB backlogs would be eliminated by sep end anyways.
The funny thing is ONLY now they are thinking about their JOB RESPONSIBILITIES which is to UPHOLD the Law!! However, they have not specified ANY TIMELINE for REFORM!!
SEPTEMBER Rally would be ideal to raise these issues!
ISSUES THAT WE COULD RAISE DURING THE RALLY
1. Eliminate EB Backlog
2. Processing Timeline for I-485
3. Faster processing of FBI Name Check(Questionable process according to USCIS OMBUDSMAN)
4. Uniform Processing Methodology across all USCIS Service Centers
5. Uniform Level of Customer Service across all USCIS Service Centers
6. Increase Coordination between USCIS and DOS
7. Allocation of ALL VISA Numbers by DOS at the beginning of fiscal year rather than a piece meal allocation during the first 3 quarters.
8. More Transparency and flexibility in invoking AC21
9. Decrease the time to invoke AC21 from 6 months to atleast 3 months
The concerns should be 3-4, so that we don't appear demanding to the lawmakers, press and the public.
we should request:
1.) increase in GC numbers
2.) capturing unused visa's from previous years
3.) removing country cap
4.) reforming namecheck.
EB backlogs would be eliminated by sep end anyways.
The funny thing is ONLY now they are thinking about their JOB RESPONSIBILITIES which is to UPHOLD the Law!! However, they have not specified ANY TIMELINE for REFORM!!
SEPTEMBER Rally would be ideal to raise these issues!
ISSUES THAT WE COULD RAISE DURING THE RALLY
1. Eliminate EB Backlog
2. Processing Timeline for I-485
3. Faster processing of FBI Name Check(Questionable process according to USCIS OMBUDSMAN)
4. Uniform Processing Methodology across all USCIS Service Centers
5. Uniform Level of Customer Service across all USCIS Service Centers
6. Increase Coordination between USCIS and DOS
7. Allocation of ALL VISA Numbers by DOS at the beginning of fiscal year rather than a piece meal allocation during the first 3 quarters.
8. More Transparency and flexibility in invoking AC21
9. Decrease the time to invoke AC21 from 6 months to atleast 3 months
No comments:
Post a Comment