Yes, i agree that if August bulletin retrogresses than that affects only august filers and not the people eligible to file in july.
Yes, the august bulletin will be showing retrogressed dates. But when August bulletin is issued in mid-July, it does not impact the petitions received in July, because the August bulletin applies to August and even if August is retrogressed until 1975, they still have to accept 485s until 31st July.
That's what your lawyer said. Right?
wallpaper Planking Exercise Kills
Common man is common man everywhere. Star worship is something that exists everywhere. be it sportsmen or movie stars - these people win hearts of people and thats what matters which is most important.
Now you are blaming people for worshipping him. Thats how things are.
Do you know how crazy soccer fans are in some countries?
Thats how things are my friend.
2011 SYDNEY - Planking, the craze
Can you prove that the concept is false, this is plain interpretation of visa bulletin notes and the law.
You also know what I am stating. You already have heard the word"Pre-adjudication" which means "To assign number" based on monthly bulletin based EB table dates and then put a file on shelf to eat dust till USCIS can "approve 485" /"Send Physical greencard" based on Prority date becomes active based on "country specific limit"
If assigning number is almost equivalent to granting visa in a few days then there should not be hundreds of applicants waiting in "pre-adjudication" queue. We all know that many people have been pre-adjudicated and now they are just waiting for their physical GCs.
Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine (http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Ne300509eating_the.asp)
YSR's evangelist son-in-law triggers 'war of words' - Express India (http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/YSRs-evangelist-soninlaw-triggers-war-of-words/421191/)
what is the mistake of Andhra Jyothi? :: Politics :: Telugulo.com - Telugu portal, Telugu cinema, andhra news, telugu politics, andhra cities, hyderabad (http://www.telugulo.com/view_news.php?id=3810&limit=10&pg=2)
Red Flag Hoisted on Satyam’s Lands (http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2009/march_09/cover.html)
I have filed my 485 on 8th June 2007, My 140 is approved in August 2006.
I have 2 different questions.
I have changed the job on 1st July 2008. Do I need to involve my attorney to file for AC 21? The New job title is "System Administrator" which is the same ONET CODE.
IN the while I have another offer with title as "Sr Systems Analyst".
My labor was applied as "Network Engineer" ONET code 15-1071. Can I switch to a job with title "Sr. Systems Analyst" ONET Code 15-1081.00 or 15-1051.00
2010 Planking… everybody is doing
Wow.. guess who is unpopular around these parts :)
As suggested by many, its time to find out what we can get together as far as commitment goes.
I am a lowly member. While I have raised this issue, I think there is definitely someone else here better than me at leading this issue & getting people together. So if the moderators can allow members willing to step forward and help out with this, to have edit permissions on this thread, that would be help
We may have different school of thoughts, but we are all still IV. No matter what we do, it is more important for us to be united and not let an issue like this cleave us. It would be nice to hear where the IV leadership stands on this and what kind of support can be expected.
Can the moderators please modify the poll to be the following or add another poll to this thread. I don't seem to have the requisite permissions.
Q) Do you commit to participate in a class action lawsuit against USCIS
1) I am willing to commit $10-$20 needed for the initial consultation ($600-$1000)
2) Yes. I am willing to commit $500
3) Yes. I'm willing to be a plaintiff ( full name and full contact info required)
4) Yes. I'm willing to commit $500 and become a plaintiff as well
5) No. I don't think it will work
What: Lawsuit against USCIS
Why: Possibly the only near term solution to retrogression. 218,759 visas are available for recapture and those numbers were lost due to systematic agency delays and bad policies (i.e. name check). The terms of settlement would include RECAPTURE OF LOST VISAS along with recovery of cost of litigation. Apparently, about 50 asylees have filed a similar lawsuit to challenge the retrogression in their category.
Who: All thos who are willing to make this change. You indicate your willingness and support by saying 'Yes' in the poll above. The poll above is just a headcount. We are hoping we can count on you for support.
How: We can kick this off with an initial consultation with an attorney. A $$ collection will soon be organized depending on the support expressed in the poll.
Can we do it? Yes... If we can come to this great country with just 2 bags in our hands and create a life for us here... we can totally do this.
NOTE: IV core forever rocks in our books for what they did relating to July 2nd. IV's agenda cannot be discounted. We are all part of IV and it would be very nice to get direction from them on how can take this further correctly. We will see members who do not agree with our point of view. The least we can do is attempt to understand their point of view.
Great info posted by member lazycis related to this:
Original Post follows:
Clear up your mind for a little while and consider this:
The whole working world lives by on one simple rule ..... GETTING PEOPLE OFF YOUR BACK.
The bigger PITA (pain-in-the-ass) you are... the higher is the priority you get.
As a community we will need to become a PR nightmare for govt. officals... simply being an inconvenience is not going to cut it... we will have to become a "a cactus that is stuck in the colon".
USCIS says EBs are retrogressed because there are XXXXX people in the queue. Why is the queue so long? Because they wasted numbers in the past and kept the queue long. This is pure operational inefficiency that is resulting in monetary, emotional and mental loss to about a million people.
This is a valid ground for a class action lawsuit.
By filing this suit, we will become the "cactii in the colon" that they will have to address. And you know what the easy out of court settlement will be..... RECAPTURE!
We will keep lobbying and crying as we usually do.. But this thing has a far better shot than anything else.
Lets say the interested muster around plaintiffs and sue USCIS. Also, The court agrees that USCIS did not do its duty. Will the court go to the extent of ruling over INA which clearly says that unused visa numbers cannot be recaptured? Will the courts/judicial system set such a precedent where they will go against law just because the agency failed to implement it correctly? I don't think they will set such a precedent by overruling against the law set up by congress and the President who signed it. By long shot, Can the court recommend congress to fix the situation by changing the law and by allowing recapture? Possibly. Does that help and fix our issue?
Can you cite a provision of the INA that unused EB numbers cannot be reused? There is a provision that DV lottery number expire at the end of a fiscal year. The absence of such provision for EB numbers proves that Congress did not want to prevent recapture of EB or famili-based numbers. Moreover, such recapture happened several times in the past. Plus, check Galves v. Howerton ruling a few pages back.
hair facebook planking craze.
Trust me. I was under the impression that it will be 3-4 years before I see green, but the reality is almost true for me now. Similarly, EB3 folks would get some news by next year. Who knows, the government will change and we have seen how keenly Obama wants a change ;). May be recapturing visas provision will be considered next year and everyone until 2006(EB3) may see some green. We never know. It's all magic and lets hope for the best. :D
hot australian planking craze.
IV has had it's own share of success with it's approach. No other methods have succeeded so far .
Also, from my little IV volunteering experience I can vouch that our community has very high inertia and is difficult to organize. people are afraid to send letters to president...good luck in getting them to sue USCIS.
community does not have the bandwidth to take multiple initiatives.
I see no wisdom in doing this. USCIS/DOS can screw us worse , if they wish to . This is not being timid but being pragmatic...anyway the bravado talk also needs to be followed up by multiple clear paths to victory.
Boss, you will realize the importance when you are told that you are NOT ELIGIBLE for a driver license in this country and they will ask you to get a cab to work or WALK to work.
house What a plank: Gordon Ramsay
Well said. It is similar to Bill Clinton takes credit for revolution in IT area. It is all time. Gujarat prospered becuse of successful bussiness minded people. Growth was aided by high demand for export. I agree with you that though a guy has a great leadership skills, commanding speech, great administartive and management skills, if he commited/aided the crime, he has no right to hold the office. See the Alska Senator..He was one of the most successful politician and elected many times from alska for Senate. Now he is in jail at his very old age, just becuse he got money from oil comapines to renovate his house.
tattoo The new craze, which is taking
Yes, EB3 2003 is of no use except for h1b extensions, so consider taking the job only if you see something good other than a sub labor
pictures The “planking craze”
And more importantly, even if 'we have a case', do we have folks who are willing to be plaintiff in this lawsuit. Are you or Googler or chandu (because he replied to my earlier posts suggesting that we will find someone to lead) willing to be the plaintiff, or are you encouraging others (putting the gun on other's shoulder to fire) to be the plaintiff. If you see that there is chance/value in filing lawsuit, why don't you decide to be the plaintiff? Either way, if you are a plaintiff or if you know someone who wants to be one, why don't you take this to IV team.
Say we have a case, then to go to the next step we need -
1.) Someone willing to take the initiative/lead
4.) There maybe more that I am not able to think at this time, because I no experience of filing class action lawsuit.
How to find what we need to file lawsuit -
For (1.), I suggest someone willing to give out his/her name as plaintiff should contact IV. I saw that folks are discussing this on too, but that site is not a non-profit. That site is owned by some guy who is earning good money of off the ads on his site. He won't spend resources to file for lawsuit although he has made good money off of the woes of others tracking their green card case status. So the only viable option is to get IV involved.
For (2.), if you want to see this through, then, at least one of around 180 folks who voted for filing lawsuit should be willing to be the plaintiff. If not, then someone needs to make phone calls to find a possible plaintiff.
For (3.), as mentioned above, I don't know of any one organized effort other than IV to lead such an effort of a lawsuit.
Sanju, while I commend the thought you have put into this, note that the thinking on this is at a VERY VERY VERY preliminary stage. In real life class action lawsuits, named plaintiffs are chosen based on how well they fit the argument in the case, not the other way round. As I said upthread, all those who want decisions, deals, money etc RIGHT NOW are being pretty unrealistic -- probably just because of unfamiliarity with the progress of cases like this. I know people want to be reassured that there is NO risk of losing, every decision node is mapped out, responsibility assigned, but if that is what anyone is thinking they have to rejigger their thinking. ;-)
If I fit the argument that is eventually made, I'd be more than happy to be a named plaintiff. I also have no problem ponying up a significant amount of money once I'm convinced about the legal argument and the attorney in question.
dresses Best of the Rest: Chris
makeup on the quot;plankingquot; craze.
Probably you are your relatives did these kinds of stuff. Most of us on this forum didn't.
When did you get your GC ?
girlfriend the “planking” craze has
posted 07-24 09:59 AM
Ron Gotcher has some thoughts on India E2 movement over the next two months.
More and more, I see people posting messages containing the unspoken assumption that since the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward, it is likely to move forward further in the coming months. This is a false hope.
Even with a cutoff date in early 2003, the CIS has sufficient inventory of Indian E2 adjustments on file to use up the remaining inventory of E2 visas for this fiscal year. The reason that the Visa Office advanced the priority date is to move it up to the point where overseas consular posts can take up the slack left by the CIS's inability to close out enough cases and avoid wasting visas this year.
The CIS inventory of pending cases is massive. If there were no quota at all - if everyone were suddenly "current" - and no new cases were filed after today, it would still take the CIS four to five years to close out all of the pending cases that they already have in their inventory.
Overseas consular posts maintain inventories of cases as well. When the priority date for a particular case starts to edge forward and it appears that the applicant may become "current' in the not too distant future, the applicant is told to submit all required supporting documents to the post or the NVC. When this is done, the applicant is reported to the Visa Office as being "documentarily qualified." This means that the case is in a position where an immigrant visa can be issued to the applicant as soon as a visa number becomes available.
The inventory of documentarily qualified cases with current priority dates at a consular post never exceeds that post's ability to process all such cases within sixty days. Consular posts have very high bandwidth processing capabilities. No matter how many cases become current, they are able to process all of them within sixty days.
The reason that the Indian E2 cutoff date has moved forward is that the Visa Office fears that the CIS will not be able to adjudicate enough adjustment of status applications to exhaust the annual quota. They have advanced the cutoff date in order to make more cases overseas eligible for final processing.
This means that overseas consular posts have exhausted their inventories of Indian E2 cases with priority dates earlier than 2006 and the Visa Office had to move the cutoff date forward in order to make more cases eligible to be closed out.
This does not mean that the CIS has closed out all of the pre-2006 cases pending in their inventory. Far from it. When the new fiscal year starts, Indian E2 is likely to retrogress back to late 2002 or early 2003. This is roughly the point reached by the CIS in processing their inventory of pending cases.
Please understand that this is a temporary phenomenon and due entirely to the difference in the processing capabilities of the CIS and the overseas consular posts.
I hope this clarifies matters.
I dont agree with his post except that "EB2 will retrogress in the coming months". EB2 may retrogress in the coming bulletins as part of the adjustment of demand VS available visa numbers. But the retrogression will be very mild and it would be there very short span of time. After that the cut off date will run like to catch up the current. In Ron's post he has no where mentioned about the horizontal spill overs. May be he might have been talking with DOS officials once in a while. But he is not predicting the EB2 movement properly on a whole.
And besides that our core team has started a call campaign on HR5882 bill. Please participate in that. We have a dedicated IV core team for our Immigration Issues. If this bill passes it will give a great relief for our EB3 friends who are already waiting for years. Hope this bill will pass.
hairstyles hairstyles Planking craze goes
My priority date is Aug 11 , 2006(EB2) and my 6 year H1B ends Sept 2011. Is there any chance the priority dates will move to Aug 2006 levels in FY2010? Or in FY2011? I am really worried because these days people are getting rejections for H1 renewals. When my time comes for renewal I want to have the EAD as a backup in case H1 renewal gets rejected.
Please let me know your thoughts on movement to Aug 2006 before Sept 2011.
Why are you so worried? Dont be scared, make enough money and dont make silly financial decision. You can take your kitty back if push comes to shove. Economies in India and China are booming and you wont die hungry. I guarantee you that.
discuss /* lawsuits, letter campaign etc etc */.
discuss some more.
pessimists dismiss everything. /* start again */
That's all that we do ...the same points again and again ...members get bored and they leave ..if only we were to start having numerous small campaigns !!! at the very least there would be some enthusiasm ..well maybe one day wishes will come true :rolleyes:
for every good point there are 100 naysayers, cynics and pessimists !!
(2) On Class Actions: Villamonte, have you read the Mocanu decision (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08%20LEXIS.pdf)? If not I encourage you to do so -- that was just individual cases being consolidated, but the situation is not very different -- you should pay particular attention to the part where Judge Baylson recommends a multi-district class action litigation to deal with all the other name check cases (see p. 16, para numbered 6).
The parallels between the those cases and the one being proposed are very strong.
Judge Baylson is not the only judge who has recommended a class action approach to these issues. IV members should also be aware that all we need are a few named plaintiffs, it isn't as though every IV member or even everyone wanting to sue needs to be a named plaintiff. All the judge needs to recognize is that there is a large group of applicants with same or similar grounds for suing USCIS/Emilio Gonzalez. Edit to add: IV the organization doesn't even need to be the primary plaintiff, since that will necessarily cutoff any parallel discussion with the agencies. The IV forums are just a place to organize this.
(3) Preliminary Ideas on the Grounds for Suing (courtesy lazycis):
The grounds for suing USCIS is the same as in Gonzalez v Howerton -- (a) interpreting the law incorrectly (b) not following the statutory requirement that they use up all the greencards available in a given year and therefore being guilty of affirmative misconduct. At the very least, a judge is within his rights to make them make amends -- by recapturing 2003-2004 EB greencards, since they wasted them as a result of their affirmative misconduct -- they waited for name checks or simply not processing applications - no one can say there wasn't an application backlog in 2003-2004.
(4) First Steps
What we need here is to get this matter before a good legal strategist who is familiar with (a) the two sources of affirmative misconduct (FBI name checks and cessation of processing in 2003-2004) (b) precedents and caselaw (note that most immigration law firms are good with filing paperwork, but not necessarily complex litigation, so forget about the usual suspects.) The perfect legal argument will not sprout up immediately. In the same way that the legal arguments in the name check cases were honed over time (lazycis can confirm this), this too will need some serious research and thinking.
Those of you who want everything about this case sorted out, signed, sealed, guaranteed and delivered this week will need a reality check. :)
As will those of you who think that the way to approach this is to discuss these issues without familiarizing yourself with facts and legal precedents in some detail (so arguments about slavery etc are not the ones that will win the day in court, it is arguments that can show that USCIS was not interpreting the law correctly and in doing so caused harm and that the harm can be remedied through recapture.) -- if you want to see how a case like this will work read Mocanu and Galvez. This case will not be a dramatic movie-style civil rights case about slavery, it will involve the most tedious sort of nitty gritty discussion of admin misconduct.
OTOH, for most of us, all we've got is time -- I do not foresee my Jan 2003 EB-2 India PD becoming current any time soon. I'm prepared for a long legal battle. I'd rather do something constructive** that will likely change the process than sit and wait and mope.
**: Yes, I've sent off my letters too. I think of these two things as complementary projects.
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.