pady
08-21 10:13 AM
Office of Inspector General, they investigate all Labor Frauds
wallpaper Ray+an+clubmaster+
sumansk
07-27 04:21 PM
I must say I haven't seen so many interesting !!! people at one place....AMAZING ..Please send one to Bush Bhai...May be they will consider yours a special case and immidiately grant you GC...you are one really SMART...:D :rolleyes:
TomPlate
07-19 03:32 PM
Tell Embassy that you need to file I485, so they will an earlier appointment.
2011 the ray-an club master
Shirdibaba
11-04 05:59 PM
hello NrK,
I was waiting to hear back frm u.
Is the agent id matches yours and others?
How quick did u get the Appointment wt Infopass?
I still am waiting to hear back from our lawyer.Its taking for ever
and we r worried.
Thanx,
Shirdibaba
I was waiting to hear back frm u.
Is the agent id matches yours and others?
How quick did u get the Appointment wt Infopass?
I still am waiting to hear back from our lawyer.Its taking for ever
and we r worried.
Thanx,
Shirdibaba
more...
absaarkhan
02-13 01:37 PM
I understand so Many of us are looking at the Options of Using AC21.
I am currently looking for a Good Attorney for this.
I have contacted Sheela Murthy's Office and Rajiv Khanna's Office.
Both of them are very very expensive.
I am looking for an Attorney who charges under $1000 and also knows
about the Immigration Matters.
I would appreciate any pointers and suggestions in this regards.
I believe it is not a problem, I have read in other threads. but I would suggest lot of attorneys are only taking 300 or 500 dollars to file aC21. it is worth spending.
Good luck
I am currently looking for a Good Attorney for this.
I have contacted Sheela Murthy's Office and Rajiv Khanna's Office.
Both of them are very very expensive.
I am looking for an Attorney who charges under $1000 and also knows
about the Immigration Matters.
I would appreciate any pointers and suggestions in this regards.
I believe it is not a problem, I have read in other threads. but I would suggest lot of attorneys are only taking 300 or 500 dollars to file aC21. it is worth spending.
Good luck
GCaspirations
10-02 01:05 PM
My case was transferred from NSC to CSC, and then to TSC. I guess its because my I-140 was approved by TSC. I got my FP notices from TSC.
Could you tell us when was your case transferred to TSC and when did you recieve the FP notice.
My I140 is approved by TSC but still it went back to NSC.
Could you tell us when was your case transferred to TSC and when did you recieve the FP notice.
My I140 is approved by TSC but still it went back to NSC.
more...
gcformeornot
12-26 09:10 PM
First of all, not everyone here is from India. Second, not everyone here is from programming/IT background. It is easy to make that assumption, but believe me, there are plenty of non-indians, or non-IT people, and even non-Indian, non-IT people here. :D
For these, what is or is not happening in Bangalore is completely irrelevant.
Second, people who are still here have already decided where they want to be. (Which is why they are on the forum in the first place). People change countries for more reasons than just following the next IT boom.
Anyway, regarding impact on opportunities here, there is a common misconception that companies have unlimited access to talent in other countries, and the only limiting factor is the quota of H1B visas.
Not true, by a long shot.
To give a simple example, our company is looking for people in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Canada and UK since the pool of qualified people in India has dried up in our field. Can anyone guess where is the biggest talent pool? Nope, not in Bangalore, its right here in USA!! Not all companies are looking for the cheapest person. They are looking for the best person. And in many cases, the best person is already here, and has gathered more experience over the years working for US companies. But they cannot hire her, simply because she is on a visa and thereby beholden to another company. If she had a GC, that would free up the talent pool and thereby make many companies less reliant on H1Bs. Increasing GCs for EB candidates has the same effect as increasing H1 quota, with the added benefit of making the cream of the crop available and reducing the uncertainty and hassle of hiring an H1.
When you outsource, you lose this talent pool which is already sitting in your backyard. You may still outsource, of course, but the most cost effective solution would be to hire the top talent already here. This is especially true in professions which do not work very well in outsourced situations, like business consulting, marketing, management etc.
This is why it is in the best interest of companies to support EB GCs.
most of the US companies don't look for cheapest person availiable. They are willing to pay whatever they pay to other employees. They just want right person with stability in mind. Most cheaply paid persons are not stable and happy.... they leave employer as soon as they get a $100/month+ offer.....
So I agree 100%. Even the company I work for is doing same. They are willing to pay me equal benefits..... and they are waiting for GC to come thr'......
For these, what is or is not happening in Bangalore is completely irrelevant.
Second, people who are still here have already decided where they want to be. (Which is why they are on the forum in the first place). People change countries for more reasons than just following the next IT boom.
Anyway, regarding impact on opportunities here, there is a common misconception that companies have unlimited access to talent in other countries, and the only limiting factor is the quota of H1B visas.
Not true, by a long shot.
To give a simple example, our company is looking for people in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Canada and UK since the pool of qualified people in India has dried up in our field. Can anyone guess where is the biggest talent pool? Nope, not in Bangalore, its right here in USA!! Not all companies are looking for the cheapest person. They are looking for the best person. And in many cases, the best person is already here, and has gathered more experience over the years working for US companies. But they cannot hire her, simply because she is on a visa and thereby beholden to another company. If she had a GC, that would free up the talent pool and thereby make many companies less reliant on H1Bs. Increasing GCs for EB candidates has the same effect as increasing H1 quota, with the added benefit of making the cream of the crop available and reducing the uncertainty and hassle of hiring an H1.
When you outsource, you lose this talent pool which is already sitting in your backyard. You may still outsource, of course, but the most cost effective solution would be to hire the top talent already here. This is especially true in professions which do not work very well in outsourced situations, like business consulting, marketing, management etc.
This is why it is in the best interest of companies to support EB GCs.
most of the US companies don't look for cheapest person availiable. They are willing to pay whatever they pay to other employees. They just want right person with stability in mind. Most cheaply paid persons are not stable and happy.... they leave employer as soon as they get a $100/month+ offer.....
So I agree 100%. Even the company I work for is doing same. They are willing to pay me equal benefits..... and they are waiting for GC to come thr'......
2010 ray ban clubmaster.
nozerd
12-25 09:34 AM
And are you doing anything to try and speed up your case since PD are current ?
My PD is before Oct 2001
My PD is before Oct 2001
more...
vin13
06-24 04:17 PM
From Washington Post:Senate Subcommittee Chair Lays Out Priorities for Immigration Reform - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062402244.html?hpid=moreheadlines)
Congress can pass a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws as soon as this year if it prioritizes a crackdown on illegal immigration, including a new national identity card that will verify workers' eligibility, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said today.
Speaking one day before President Obama is to host lawmakers from both parties at the White House to discuss prospects for an immigration bill, the head of the Senate's main immigration subcommittee laid out key legislative priorities, including requiring that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants register with the government and "submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status" or face immediate deportation.
Legislation must also create mechanisms to attract high-skilled immigrants, control the flow of low-skilled immigrants and protect native-born workers, Schumer said, without providing specifics. He did not propose an expanded guest-worker program, a linchpin of overhaul efforts that failed in 2006 and 2007 under President George W. Bush.
In laying down a road map for legislation, Schumer set the groundwork for tomorrow's White House meeting, a long-awaited session that immigrant advocates and Latino leaders have demanded as proof that Obama will fulfill a campaign pledge to move forward on immigration legislation this year.
Schumer said he expects Obama to show his "unyielding commitment" toward the goal but demanded that advocates recognize that Democrats must show the American people they believe that "illegal immigration is wrong -- plain and simple."
"All of the fundamental building blocks are in place to pass comprehensive immigration reform this session and, even possibly, later this year," Schumer said. "I truly believe that [President Obama's] leadership will be the critical difference in getting us over the hump this time around."
However, Schumer added, "the American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration. . . . Advocates understand the need to embrace this principle during the current debate."
As examples, the New York Democrat -- who has taken the lead in the Senate immigration debate in the place of the ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is focusing on health-care legislation -- said the federal government must achieve "operational control" of the nation's borders within a year and develop new ways to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
Schumer's proposal for a national "biometric" identification system to verify work documents -- based on fingerprints, iris scans or digital photographs -- stems from a key weakness of past immigration overhaul efforts. A 1986 law required workers to fill out I-9 forms and present identification documents, but it lacked provisions to crack down on unscrupulous employers or job seekers with fake IDs, creating a booming fraudulent ID industry.
"I'm sure the civil liberties groups will object to some type of biometric card -- it will be something with all kinds of protections -- but we're going to have to do it. It's the only way to do it," Schumer said, referring to enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
Congress can pass a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws as soon as this year if it prioritizes a crackdown on illegal immigration, including a new national identity card that will verify workers' eligibility, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said today.
Speaking one day before President Obama is to host lawmakers from both parties at the White House to discuss prospects for an immigration bill, the head of the Senate's main immigration subcommittee laid out key legislative priorities, including requiring that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants register with the government and "submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status" or face immediate deportation.
Legislation must also create mechanisms to attract high-skilled immigrants, control the flow of low-skilled immigrants and protect native-born workers, Schumer said, without providing specifics. He did not propose an expanded guest-worker program, a linchpin of overhaul efforts that failed in 2006 and 2007 under President George W. Bush.
In laying down a road map for legislation, Schumer set the groundwork for tomorrow's White House meeting, a long-awaited session that immigrant advocates and Latino leaders have demanded as proof that Obama will fulfill a campaign pledge to move forward on immigration legislation this year.
Schumer said he expects Obama to show his "unyielding commitment" toward the goal but demanded that advocates recognize that Democrats must show the American people they believe that "illegal immigration is wrong -- plain and simple."
"All of the fundamental building blocks are in place to pass comprehensive immigration reform this session and, even possibly, later this year," Schumer said. "I truly believe that [President Obama's] leadership will be the critical difference in getting us over the hump this time around."
However, Schumer added, "the American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration. . . . Advocates understand the need to embrace this principle during the current debate."
As examples, the New York Democrat -- who has taken the lead in the Senate immigration debate in the place of the ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is focusing on health-care legislation -- said the federal government must achieve "operational control" of the nation's borders within a year and develop new ways to enforce laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
Schumer's proposal for a national "biometric" identification system to verify work documents -- based on fingerprints, iris scans or digital photographs -- stems from a key weakness of past immigration overhaul efforts. A 1986 law required workers to fill out I-9 forms and present identification documents, but it lacked provisions to crack down on unscrupulous employers or job seekers with fake IDs, creating a booming fraudulent ID industry.
"I'm sure the civil liberties groups will object to some type of biometric card -- it will be something with all kinds of protections -- but we're going to have to do it. It's the only way to do it," Schumer said, referring to enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
hair Ray+an+clubmaster+black
eb3retro
07-08 05:55 PM
you still didnt answer my question, who are you and why are you here and that too sneakily...(;)). Caught you pretty good eh??
To solve the EB immigration issue, we need to focus on issues that are pertinent to the problem. How and why does it matter what my status is? I know the truth hurts, but just coz someone does not like it, does not change it. I am not giving my opinion - it's the truth.
To solve the EB immigration issue, we need to focus on issues that are pertinent to the problem. How and why does it matter what my status is? I know the truth hurts, but just coz someone does not like it, does not change it. I am not giving my opinion - it's the truth.
more...
Ramba
02-20 10:16 AM
As everyone knows that AOS for those who already in US and CP is for those who are outside US (theoretically). It is a personal choice for a person in US to file either 485 or opt for CP. The reason for CP was a popular choice due to 485 processing delay between 2001 and 2005. Between 2001 and 2004 all EB categories were current for all countries. No one heard of term retrogression in that period. No one was worried about EB2 or EB3. However due to severe processing delay (partially due to increased security check due to 911) in 485 applications during that period, it was taking about 2 years for 485 approvals. During those entire 2 year period visa numbers were current and did not fluctuate as it is happening now. Therefore people opted to go for CP, as US consulates in abroad were not busy. They scheduled the interview right away as PD was current for all categories, during that 5 year period. That�s why CP was popular choice that period. Now, in the retrogression climate and continuous fluctuation in PD (back and forth movement), opting CP is a blunder mistake. Furthermore, now (at least before July 2007 fiasco) 485 approvals are so fast. If PD was current, USCIS was approving 485 with in 2 months before July 07. Therefore one should not even think about CP, if already in US unless if you are in EB1 or EB2-ROW category. Therefore 485 is the only option available to enjoy subsidiary benefits like EAD/AP/AC21. If any one already filed CP, to switch back to AOS they must wait till visa number available to their PD again. It will be a long road, and it complicates. As already mentioned, there is no technical ground to award EAD/AP for CP persons if already in US. If IV goes and talk to USCIS, they will laugh. To achieve same result, one can lobby for administrative fix like awarding EAD/AP for a person whose 140 was approved and legally present in the US in a valid non-immigrant status. This may be possible.
hot Ray-Ban clubmaster RB3016
venanu
06-19 03:43 PM
"Priority Date(PD) is valid for filing the 485..Whereas Receipt Date(RD) is the only one which is valid in the 485 stage..."...Can someone confirm this?
more...
house ray ban clubmaster tortoise
ganesha
02-27 04:39 PM
I do not know what you are trying to achieve by posting your story in a forum where we discuss legal immigration issues.
tattoo pair of Ray Ban Clubmaster
Libra
01-11 02:36 PM
can you please cast your vote. thanks.
i have sent a hand written letter to President and a copy to IV. yet to contact law maker.
i have sent a hand written letter to President and a copy to IV. yet to contact law maker.
more...
pictures Ray+an+clubmaster
H4_losing_hope
02-17 07:20 PM
i think CP filers have a valid point to argue for relief. clearly there is an injury to CP filers as the dates were moved forward creating the impression that they will continue to do so or at least hold steady. legal opinion was also in favor of CP based on individual circumstances in many cases. many of these filers already underwent a lengthy BEC process, which newer Perm/I-485 filers never went through. the government flip flop is the cause of this additional injury.
instead of asking for specific fixes to be put in, CP filers should articulate this problem clearly and get legal opinion as to possible relief measures.
Thanks for your good rational comments Mantric. They are appreciated.
instead of asking for specific fixes to be put in, CP filers should articulate this problem clearly and get legal opinion as to possible relief measures.
Thanks for your good rational comments Mantric. They are appreciated.
dresses Ray-Ban clubmaster 3016
jsb
04-20 11:43 AM
I will be sending the following note to my senator and have already posted it to WhiteHouse.gov. I urge all those screwed by the ongoing retrogression to do the same.
"I am writing to inform you of how the country based quotas imposed on Employment Based green cards are unfair and totally illogical. When I immigrated to the US, I believed that this country was a meritocracy where you were judged based on your abilities and qualities. These country based quotas reward people depending on where they or their ancestors were born. This causes people from India and China to wait over a decade to get a green card whereas someone from another country with similar or lesser abilities can obtain permanent residence in half that time.
Since these EB category based green cards are awarded for professional skills, imposing a country based quota just does not make any sense. I urge you to work with Congress and change this discriminatory policy and reinforce that America is truly a society that celebrates meritocracy."
It is very good, brief and to the point. Just a little comment. Expand EB to Employment Based, and "half that time" to "fraction of that time". Also, add a sentence making reference to lost visas due to USCIS inefficiency (which has a greater chance of getting through) to be captured and used.
Must be posted in a very large number to get attention.
"I am writing to inform you of how the country based quotas imposed on Employment Based green cards are unfair and totally illogical. When I immigrated to the US, I believed that this country was a meritocracy where you were judged based on your abilities and qualities. These country based quotas reward people depending on where they or their ancestors were born. This causes people from India and China to wait over a decade to get a green card whereas someone from another country with similar or lesser abilities can obtain permanent residence in half that time.
Since these EB category based green cards are awarded for professional skills, imposing a country based quota just does not make any sense. I urge you to work with Congress and change this discriminatory policy and reinforce that America is truly a society that celebrates meritocracy."
It is very good, brief and to the point. Just a little comment. Expand EB to Employment Based, and "half that time" to "fraction of that time". Also, add a sentence making reference to lost visas due to USCIS inefficiency (which has a greater chance of getting through) to be captured and used.
Must be posted in a very large number to get attention.
more...
makeup Clubmaster II Red Tortoise
Sunx_2004
04-01 06:39 PM
As per my understanding, Lawyer or employer can not withdraw I485. I may be wrong, I 485 can be only withdrawn by applicant.
Any inputs..
I am in serious trouble, please read and comment if you can help.
- Spouse (Primary) and I filed I 485 in June 2007. (PD March 2004)
- Spouse Application is approved in July 2008
- Spouse changes employers after approval
- In October 08 we write to the law firm that initially filed the I 485 to withdraw their representation.
- In Nov 08 the Law firm incorrectly writes to USCIS to with draw the I 485 application.
- In March 08 I get an email from USCIS stating my application is withdrawn.
I obtained the notice of withdrawal and the notice says
'As a result of your request, your application is considered withdrawn, and it will recieve no further consideration by USCIS. There is no appeal to this decision.'
Neither I nor my wife have authorized the attorney to withdraw the application, we only wanted them to withdraw their representation (I have the letter we wrote to them and it clearly states it.)
what can we do.
Is it possible to reinstate our case?
Can we refile my AOS again, even thought the primary applicants green card is approved more than 6 months ago?
Any inputs..
I am in serious trouble, please read and comment if you can help.
- Spouse (Primary) and I filed I 485 in June 2007. (PD March 2004)
- Spouse Application is approved in July 2008
- Spouse changes employers after approval
- In October 08 we write to the law firm that initially filed the I 485 to withdraw their representation.
- In Nov 08 the Law firm incorrectly writes to USCIS to with draw the I 485 application.
- In March 08 I get an email from USCIS stating my application is withdrawn.
I obtained the notice of withdrawal and the notice says
'As a result of your request, your application is considered withdrawn, and it will recieve no further consideration by USCIS. There is no appeal to this decision.'
Neither I nor my wife have authorized the attorney to withdraw the application, we only wanted them to withdraw their representation (I have the letter we wrote to them and it clearly states it.)
what can we do.
Is it possible to reinstate our case?
Can we refile my AOS again, even thought the primary applicants green card is approved more than 6 months ago?
girlfriend Ray-an-sunglasses-clubmaster-
GCard_Dream
06-26 04:05 PM
I am getting confused here about digital photo and USCIS not accepting them. I am assuming that "digital photo" just means pictures taken from a digital camera and printed out, which is what most of the studios do anyways, so why would USCIS have any problem with it. Is there a difference in pictures taken from a digital camera vs poloroid camera? If anything, digital camera most likey will have far better picture quality than poloroid camera so what's the deal with "digital photo" being unacceptable. Or do you guys mean a photo on a floppy of something when you say digital photo.
hairstyles Ray-Ban clubmaster RB3016
xyzgc
10-23 03:56 PM
If thats the case then why don't they move the PD forward. EB3-I is stuck in 2001 since last 3 years and its not moving forward at all. How can we get some help here, ombudsman?
That is exactly the issue. they don't move it forward despite lack of sufficient number of cases and then they move it forward by a year or so, it creates a chaos. And it applies to EB2-I also. Look where the dates are as per Nov bulletin.
Its crazy.
How many cases you think are in 2001, when last june the cutoff PD was June 2003? All this has been said over and over again in other threads, there is no point in repeating it.
That is exactly the issue. they don't move it forward despite lack of sufficient number of cases and then they move it forward by a year or so, it creates a chaos. And it applies to EB2-I also. Look where the dates are as per Nov bulletin.
Its crazy.
How many cases you think are in 2001, when last june the cutoff PD was June 2003? All this has been said over and over again in other threads, there is no point in repeating it.
shana04
02-12 04:28 PM
I will like to ask your brain if this could be a problem as i did my H1 B Transfer twice before appling for my I 485 and everything went sucessful my GC sponsering Company is not in good terms they might have even revoke my I 140.
Is there any way to find out if my I 140 was revoked.
I applied my I 485 and EAD in July last year my H 1 B was transfered in March Last year i got my EAD's and Finger printing is also done.
But my PD is Dec 2001 so i have already crossed 180 Days and now have the right to use AC21, do i have to file any particular letter for this.
Can you guys please advice i will really appriciate your help.
Saburi,
please be more precise. when you transfered and when did you file your 485 with company A or B.
Is there any way to find out if my I 140 was revoked.
I applied my I 485 and EAD in July last year my H 1 B was transfered in March Last year i got my EAD's and Finger printing is also done.
But my PD is Dec 2001 so i have already crossed 180 Days and now have the right to use AC21, do i have to file any particular letter for this.
Can you guys please advice i will really appriciate your help.
Saburi,
please be more precise. when you transfered and when did you file your 485 with company A or B.
Pegasus503
02-20 06:46 PM
The damn thing was taken down before I could save it. Did anyone save the file?
The link just worked for me
I saved it as a pdf and doc, but the upload keeps failing so here's the text:
Office of Communications
Questions & Answers
February 20, 2008
FBI NAME CHECK POLICY
Q. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication requirements?
A. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q. Why is this policy being implemented?
A. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security?
A. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A. Applications included in this policy are:
• I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
• I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
• I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
• I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603).
Q. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly. USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400), For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A. No.
Q. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria of this new policy?
A. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are needed.
in the time it took me to copy and paste it was already posted above
The link just worked for me
I saved it as a pdf and doc, but the upload keeps failing so here's the text:
Office of Communications
Questions & Answers
February 20, 2008
FBI NAME CHECK POLICY
Q. How has USCIS changed its national security reporting and adjudication requirements?
A. USCIS has not changed its background check policies as those policies related to naturalization applications. Recently, the agency did modify its existing guidance for applications where the immigration laws allow for the detention and removal of individuals if actionable information from a FBI name check response is received after approval. For these types of applications, including applications for lawful permanent residence, the adjudicators will approve the application if it is otherwise approvable and the FBI name check request has been pending for more than 180 days. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably.
Q. Why is this policy being implemented?
A. This policy change is in response to a 2005 DHS Inspector General recommendation that USCIS align its background check screening policies with those of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Q. Is this policy consistent with the national security priorities of USCIS and the Department of Homeland Security?
A. Yes. No application for lawful permanent residence will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. In addition, in the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings. Lastly, in general these individuals have been in the United States for some time and have previously been subjected to DHS background checks.
Q. What applications are affected by this policy change?
A. Applications included in this policy are:
• I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status;
• I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility;
• I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; and
• I-698, Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident (Under Section 245A of Public Law 99-603).
Q. How many applications for lawful permanent residence are affected by this policy change?
A. USCIS is currently aware of approximately 47,000 applications for permanent residence (I-485) cases that are otherwise approvable but for the fact that an FBI name check is pending. In a subset of these case, the FBI name check request that been pending for more than 180 days. USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008.
Q. Does this policy change affect naturalization applications?
A. No. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400),
Q. How long will it take for USCIS to work through these cases affected by the policy change?
A. USCIS has begun identifying the cases affected by this policy modification in each field office and service center. Each office will evaluate the pending cases and will adjust their workload accordingly. USCIS anticipates that the majority of the cases that are subject to this policy modification will be processed by mid-March 2008. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about their cases. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate pending cases.
Q. USCIS Director Gonzalez pledged in his January 17, 2008, testimony regarding naturalization backlogs before Congress not to cut corners in the adjudicative process or risk national security in the interest of production? Does this policy comply with the Director’s pledge?
A. Yes. There is no change in the requirement that FBI name check, FBI fingerprint and IBIS check results be obtained and resolved prior to the adjudication of an Application for Naturalization (N-400), For those applications for permanent residence that are affected by this policy modification, no application will be approved until a definitive FBI fingerprint check and Interagency Border Inspection Services (IBIS) check are completed and resolved favorably. USCIS will continue to initiate the FBI name check requests upon receipt of the applications and will review, monitor and track cases approved under this policy until the FBI name check is complete. In the unlikely event that DHS receives actionable information after the application is approved, it will initiate removal proceedings.
Q. The memorandum identifies I-485, I-601, I-687 and I-698 forms. Is there a plan to include other forms, specifically nonimmigrant and naturalization, in this policy?
A. No.
Q. Should customers contact USCIS through the 1-800 customer service number or make an INFOPASS appointment to visit their local office if they believe their application meets the criteria of this new policy?
A. We recommend that customers wait until mid-March before inquiring about cases affected by this policy modification. This will allow each office sufficient time to identify and adjudicate the relevant pending cases. If no action is taken by mid-March, we recommend inquiring with the USCIS customer service line at 1-800-375-5283.
Q10. Will USCIS automatically notify an applicant to appear at an Application Support Center if their fingerprints have expired?
A10. Applicants will be notified through an appointment notice if new/updated fingerprint checks are needed.
in the time it took me to copy and paste it was already posted above
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar