jonty_11
02-09 12:45 PM
Yes we have to keep focused and not give up this fight. With so much taxes and spending we have pumped into the economy, dont u guys think u deserve better.
wallpaper david beckham tattoos pictures
arjunram
04-22 10:24 PM
so if someone mailed on jun 30th and the status online says received on july 26th does it mean that they are not processing these dates as yet? Im kinda confused!
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
2011 David Beckham#39;s new tattoo
kedrex
01-13 10:59 AM
Thanks a lot for the replies.
I have an infopass appointment for tomorrow. Are the infopass officers qualified to review the file and process it right away?
I have an infopass appointment for tomorrow. Are the infopass officers qualified to review the file and process it right away?
more...
gbof
06-30 01:49 PM
so far, I have heard about at least 30 cases over the internet including one personal case (my wife's) and all of the cancelled appointments seem to be either on 7th, 8th or 9th july. (My wife had it on 8th and got a cancellation notice with the same date which was delivered yesterday...)
From forums, it appears that, a few of them already got their rescheduled notices, and some got the new date after calling... either way, I guess the above info seems to be true..... worst case scenario, if you don't get rescheduled notices (or dates by calling) by your appointment date, just go to the ASC. I know it's a pain... but I just don't want to give them a chance at denying and don't want to go thru all that hassle...
pal :)
I am so very ready for FP on 7/6 and now reading these cancellations is very irritating. To show up definitely require some-bit of planning. Why should they send notice at first placeand then cancel en-block. I only wish I donot get this cancellation notice before 6th and it goes on as scheduled.
From forums, it appears that, a few of them already got their rescheduled notices, and some got the new date after calling... either way, I guess the above info seems to be true..... worst case scenario, if you don't get rescheduled notices (or dates by calling) by your appointment date, just go to the ASC. I know it's a pain... but I just don't want to give them a chance at denying and don't want to go thru all that hassle...
pal :)
I am so very ready for FP on 7/6 and now reading these cancellations is very irritating. To show up definitely require some-bit of planning. Why should they send notice at first placeand then cancel en-block. I only wish I donot get this cancellation notice before 6th and it goes on as scheduled.
krishnam70
07-08 02:37 PM
Please visit www.helpvinay.org to get furthur details.
Initially you need to go to a drive and register. You have to fill a form and give a simple swab test (Give saliva sample) . Takes 5 minutes.
Then you will get added to a national registry.
Alternately you can also register online if you not in a metropolitan area. We are having lot of drives right now in New York,New jersey,DC areas.
All details on www.helpvinay.org
If you have any more questions, I can answer
I just got this info from here and I will be going in to the drive today in my city..I have called up all my friends and informed them about it and they will be going in too. hopefully somebody will match.
Initially you need to go to a drive and register. You have to fill a form and give a simple swab test (Give saliva sample) . Takes 5 minutes.
Then you will get added to a national registry.
Alternately you can also register online if you not in a metropolitan area. We are having lot of drives right now in New York,New jersey,DC areas.
All details on www.helpvinay.org
If you have any more questions, I can answer
I just got this info from here and I will be going in to the drive today in my city..I have called up all my friends and informed them about it and they will be going in too. hopefully somebody will match.
more...
eucalyptus.mp
02-17 04:33 PM
Hi My emplyer is saying that he will apply for extention 3 months before expiry . So I guess he will apply in July . So in that case I need the Paystubs of May and June . Am I right ?
2010 Now even David Beckham is
vandanaverdia
09-10 01:42 PM
Trying to keep this thread alive....
more...
TwinkleM
06-25 11:50 PM
Thank You Ms. Sen.
Could you please suggest some other ways to take care of the 3 years pending I-140. i know premium process is one way to go for it & make INS pick the case. But is there any other way?
Thanx in advance
Could you please suggest some other ways to take care of the 3 years pending I-140. i know premium process is one way to go for it & make INS pick the case. But is there any other way?
Thanx in advance
hair david beckham and victoria
abhijitp
01-18 05:23 PM
Looks like a good deal to me:-)
I am about to complete writing my letter, and it will be out by this weekend.
I am about to complete writing my letter, and it will be out by this weekend.
more...
jonty_11
02-09 12:45 PM
Yes we have to keep focused and not give up this fight. With so much taxes and spending we have pumped into the economy, dont u guys think u deserve better.
hot David Beckham got some new ink
satishku_2000
08-01 04:01 PM
How long it would take for me to know whether USCIS is accepted the response or not .. What is the process for MTR? Do USCIS issue NOID if they dont accept the response?
more...
house David Beckham Back Tattoo
vinabath
03-24 03:14 PM
list of some of the threads created by "vinabath" - how many do you see meaningful???
Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
No more LC substitution, No more delays in 140. What a relief
vinabath Today 02:55 PM
what would you do if you get GC tomorrow? ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Today 02:37 PM
What does the dots in my profile mean?
vinabath Today 02:00 PM
Tips to get your GC in a YEAR ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Yesterday 03:38 AM
by vinabath 0 445 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Poll: How many will be happy if..... ( 1 2 )
by vinabath 21 1,922 Priority dates transfers and Post 140-approval options
H4-H1 stamping in chennai- Visa renewal??
by vinabath 45 4,405 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
BIG JOKE on us by USCIS. Story of the Century.
vinabath 07-02-2007 04:00 PM
by vinabath 14 1,037 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Medical Report Delayed by Six months
vinabath 06-15-2007 01:38 PM
by franklin 8 653 Medical exams and related issues
Y1 Visa - Lets make USA as Dubai
vinabath 05-18-2007 10:44 AM
by vinabath 0 468 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
EB2 India - Feb 23 2003. Is it possible this year??
I am exposed now.
Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum
No more LC substitution, No more delays in 140. What a relief
vinabath Today 02:55 PM
what would you do if you get GC tomorrow? ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Today 02:37 PM
What does the dots in my profile mean?
vinabath Today 02:00 PM
Tips to get your GC in a YEAR ( 1 2 3 4 )
vinabath Yesterday 03:38 AM
by vinabath 0 445 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Poll: How many will be happy if..... ( 1 2 )
by vinabath 21 1,922 Priority dates transfers and Post 140-approval options
H4-H1 stamping in chennai- Visa renewal??
by vinabath 45 4,405 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
BIG JOKE on us by USCIS. Story of the Century.
vinabath 07-02-2007 04:00 PM
by vinabath 14 1,037 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
Medical Report Delayed by Six months
vinabath 06-15-2007 01:38 PM
by franklin 8 653 Medical exams and related issues
Y1 Visa - Lets make USA as Dubai
vinabath 05-18-2007 10:44 AM
by vinabath 0 468 Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins
EB2 India - Feb 23 2003. Is it possible this year??
I am exposed now.
tattoo -David-Beckham-reveals-chest-tattoo-Jesus-angels-time.html#ixzz1F3HaVEtK
ilikekilo
09-18 06:02 PM
hey thanks for your response, i appreciate it
where di u file? and did u efile?
where di u file? and did u efile?
more...
pictures David Beckham wears his new
coolmanasip
07-19 09:49 AM
If we submit tax returns with 485 AOS application then do CIS check those to see what exsumptions we have taken etc??? One of my friend by mistake took hope credits coupld yrs ago and is terrified that CIS may catch this if he sends the tax returns so he has been fighting with his attorney about not sending it!! both he and his wife are earning and no dependents. Any thoughts on the situation??
I told him checking the tax returns is not CIS's function!! That is IRS.......he should relax. By the way, what happens if he approaches IRS saying it was an honest mistake and pays off the exsumption he took.
I told him checking the tax returns is not CIS's function!! That is IRS.......he should relax. By the way, what happens if he approaches IRS saying it was an honest mistake and pays off the exsumption he took.
dresses tiren: David Beckham Shows Off
cfan666666
06-27 03:23 PM
I will send my I-485, I-131 and I-765 to this address:
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE
TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
PO BOX 851488 - DEPT A
MESQUITE TX 75185-1488
It's the address on my I-140 approval notice. Have called USCIS, the answer said you can send you I-485 to the address on you I-140 approval notice.
Good luck
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE
TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
PO BOX 851488 - DEPT A
MESQUITE TX 75185-1488
It's the address on my I-140 approval notice. Have called USCIS, the answer said you can send you I-485 to the address on you I-140 approval notice.
Good luck
more...
makeup David Beckham recently shared
tikka
05-29 09:08 PM
Donot forget to send the webfax :)
thanks
2750 web faxes have been sent! we are trying to get to 3,000.:)
thanks
2750 web faxes have been sent! we are trying to get to 3,000.:)
girlfriend david beckham 2011 tattoo.
pappu
01-14 05:46 PM
Now, that's a good idea. How about Cutting Permanent Residency Delays.
18 months is too long for citizenship applicants, and 6 years not too long for permanent residency applicants.
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12citizen.html
Agency Acts to Cut Delay in Gaining Citizenship
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: January 12, 2008
Federal officials said Friday that they had agreed on an emergency plan to hire back about 700 retired government employees in an effort to pare an immense backlog in applications for citizenship by legal immigrants.
Under the plan, first proposed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, retired workers could return to the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency without sacrificing any part of their pensions. The agency will be authorized to hire former employees who have long since passed training programs and could be on the job quickly to help handle the more than one million citizenship applications filed in the first 10 months of last year, Mr. Schumer said.
The required waiver was approved in a letter on Thursday to immigration officials from Linda M. Springer, the director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The rehiring program is one step to help the immigration agency overcome an embarrassing backlog. Legal immigrants, saying they were spurred by a fee increase that took effect July 30 and by worries raised in the fierce political debate over immigration, applied in huge numbers last summer to become citizens. They were aided by a nationwide drive led by Hispanic groups and Univision, the Spanish-language television network.
According to its Web site, the immigration agency is projecting that it could take up to 18 months to process citizenship applications received after June 1. Hispanic groups have protested that hundreds of thousands of applicants would be unable to vote in the presidential election.
“It’s a problem of their own making,” William Ramos, director of the Washington office of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, said of the agency. “We kept telling them, there is going to be a surge.”
In recent days, the immigration agency confirmed that it received 1,026,951 citizenship applications from last January to October, nearly double the number in that period in 2006.
The agency also received a deluge of other immigration petitions.
Hispanic groups have demanded that the agency complete by July 4 the naturalizations of all immigrants who applied in the 2007 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, Mr. Ramos said.
Normally, when retired federal employers return to work, their salaries are reduced by the amount of their pension payments. Under the new waiver, retired workers who return to the immigration agency will receive full salary as well as their regular pension payments.
Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency was also reorganizing its work force and imposing mandatory overtime on current workers.
The immigration agency plans to hire at least 1,500 new regular employees by the end of this year, Mr. Bentley said.
Read the people and organizations marked in bold above. They seem to be behind it. It is all about how much you can highlight the cause and lobby for it.
If we want something like this we will have to work for it too. Each one of us needs to participate it in.
18 months is too long for citizenship applicants, and 6 years not too long for permanent residency applicants.
===
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/12citizen.html
Agency Acts to Cut Delay in Gaining Citizenship
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: January 12, 2008
Federal officials said Friday that they had agreed on an emergency plan to hire back about 700 retired government employees in an effort to pare an immense backlog in applications for citizenship by legal immigrants.
Under the plan, first proposed by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, retired workers could return to the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency without sacrificing any part of their pensions. The agency will be authorized to hire former employees who have long since passed training programs and could be on the job quickly to help handle the more than one million citizenship applications filed in the first 10 months of last year, Mr. Schumer said.
The required waiver was approved in a letter on Thursday to immigration officials from Linda M. Springer, the director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The rehiring program is one step to help the immigration agency overcome an embarrassing backlog. Legal immigrants, saying they were spurred by a fee increase that took effect July 30 and by worries raised in the fierce political debate over immigration, applied in huge numbers last summer to become citizens. They were aided by a nationwide drive led by Hispanic groups and Univision, the Spanish-language television network.
According to its Web site, the immigration agency is projecting that it could take up to 18 months to process citizenship applications received after June 1. Hispanic groups have protested that hundreds of thousands of applicants would be unable to vote in the presidential election.
“It’s a problem of their own making,” William Ramos, director of the Washington office of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, said of the agency. “We kept telling them, there is going to be a surge.”
In recent days, the immigration agency confirmed that it received 1,026,951 citizenship applications from last January to October, nearly double the number in that period in 2006.
The agency also received a deluge of other immigration petitions.
Hispanic groups have demanded that the agency complete by July 4 the naturalizations of all immigrants who applied in the 2007 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, Mr. Ramos said.
Normally, when retired federal employers return to work, their salaries are reduced by the amount of their pension payments. Under the new waiver, retired workers who return to the immigration agency will receive full salary as well as their regular pension payments.
Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agency was also reorganizing its work force and imposing mandatory overtime on current workers.
The immigration agency plans to hire at least 1,500 new regular employees by the end of this year, Mr. Bentley said.
Read the people and organizations marked in bold above. They seem to be behind it. It is all about how much you can highlight the cause and lobby for it.
If we want something like this we will have to work for it too. Each one of us needs to participate it in.
hairstyles Beckham Tattoo Meanings
GCanyMinute
08-23 08:34 AM
Hi GCanyMinute;
The PD only shows on the Approval Notice of the I140 . The I485 does not show any PD.
thanks
andy
You guys were right!!! :)
I took a look at my I-140 and thank God yes the PD is over there!!
I guess i'll really get the GC Any minute :D !!!
Thanks a lot guys and good luck for you all.
The PD only shows on the Approval Notice of the I140 . The I485 does not show any PD.
thanks
andy
You guys were right!!! :)
I took a look at my I-140 and thank God yes the PD is over there!!
I guess i'll really get the GC Any minute :D !!!
Thanks a lot guys and good luck for you all.
singhsa3
05-01 11:29 AM
Thats exactly my plan. It will be accompanied by covering letter, a spreadsheet and a recommendation.
I will be sending mainly to DOS , DHS and USCIS
singhsa3:
What you may want to do is, write to the NEW Director, with your proposal and also send a copy to all the senators who have recently proposed new EB related immigration bills. This might make an impact...
I will be sending mainly to DOS , DHS and USCIS
singhsa3:
What you may want to do is, write to the NEW Director, with your proposal and also send a copy to all the senators who have recently proposed new EB related immigration bills. This might make an impact...
rajeshbillabong
09-24 11:55 AM
All they said was that you do not have enough ties in India and you will work there.
It sounds very lame to me.
It sounds very lame to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment