Hunter
05-09 01:42 PM
American college kids spend most of their time partying and sex. They do not study. Only a very very few really study
As usual typical stereotyping devoid of any reality and isn't even worth a reply. It is clear that knowledge of the above poster about ameriacn teenager comes from watching MTV.
No wonder otherwise tolerant americans are saying "F*** You" to fraudulent indian companies trying to commit fraud under the guise of globalization.
As usual typical stereotyping devoid of any reality and isn't even worth a reply. It is clear that knowledge of the above poster about ameriacn teenager comes from watching MTV.
No wonder otherwise tolerant americans are saying "F*** You" to fraudulent indian companies trying to commit fraud under the guise of globalization.
wallpaper rory-mcilroy-us-open-golf-pics
diqingshen
06-29 03:55 PM
I am not a member.
satyasaich
01-11 11:18 AM
The text is at the link below.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
Section 501 and 503 would help retrogression a lot.
Section 503 will do more harm and add fuel to retrogression. Either it shall be redrafted or we shall oppose without any doubt
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
Section 501 and 503 would help retrogression a lot.
Section 503 will do more harm and add fuel to retrogression. Either it shall be redrafted or we shall oppose without any doubt
2011 Rory McIlroy Wins US Open
h1techSlave
07-09 10:03 PM
Can we do a blood drive next as protest! seriously. Donate blood as protest and for media attention.
I totally support the blood donation idea. I am pretty sure, a blood donation drive would be front page news on American Red Cross web site also. It should send out a message that the GC is so important to us.
The actual collection of blood hopefully will be fully carried out by the American Red Cross.
Thanks,
h1techSlave
I totally support the blood donation idea. I am pretty sure, a blood donation drive would be front page news on American Red Cross web site also. It should send out a message that the GC is so important to us.
The actual collection of blood hopefully will be fully carried out by the American Red Cross.
Thanks,
h1techSlave
more...
gcgreen
08-07 01:55 PM
I think this red dot green dot thing is the silliest thing to be carping about. It appears that a SIGNIFICANT number of posts in all threads are about this red dot green dot stuff.
Why do we care about this red/green dot nonsense? Does it really affect anything in the real world?
NKR,
I will be glad to give u a gree to up your reputation :-)
Why do we care about this red/green dot nonsense? Does it really affect anything in the real world?
NKR,
I will be glad to give u a gree to up your reputation :-)
gk_2000
04-04 07:29 PM
You are kidding right. I currently has - 20,000 points. So that would mean 20 k IV members did not like what i stated and yes that is 20 k within a week :D:D:D
I occasionally happen to say something they like to hear. I may criticize, but I try to appreciate where it is warranted. World doesn't run by criticism alone.
The plus point with you is, you never use abusive language and your arguments (at least for the most part) look sane and rational. I wish more intelligent people would interact with you so that the discussion results in some good knowledge being produced.
Apart from that, what I dont understand is that you say that unless spillover is fixed not even visa recapture can help EB3i. Are you familiar with the numbers for this?
I occasionally happen to say something they like to hear. I may criticize, but I try to appreciate where it is warranted. World doesn't run by criticism alone.
The plus point with you is, you never use abusive language and your arguments (at least for the most part) look sane and rational. I wish more intelligent people would interact with you so that the discussion results in some good knowledge being produced.
Apart from that, what I dont understand is that you say that unless spillover is fixed not even visa recapture can help EB3i. Are you familiar with the numbers for this?
more...
Canadian_Dream
11-25 03:53 PM
(8) Instead of land, the above applies to stocks as well.
(9) The actual worth of land or stocks depend largely on supply and demand
No siree Bob, there is a world of difference in Stock and Land/Real Estate. The value of your land is primarily driven by emotions and other intangible benefits.
But Stocks are generally driven by future earnings and their value determined by P/E. When you buy a stock in a company: You are buying a future earnings in the form of dividend and an equity in the company. The board, CEO and employees of the company helps you get returns in your investment. For a real estate no one works towards your equity except may be you in backyard or your real estate broker.
I am not saying stocks are not subject to supply and demand. They indeed are as any other commodity that is traded in a market place. But value of stocks can be more assessed fairly from balance sheet and income statement thus investment is more predictable. What differentiates stock from real estate one is how the value of each is assessed.
(9) The actual worth of land or stocks depend largely on supply and demand
No siree Bob, there is a world of difference in Stock and Land/Real Estate. The value of your land is primarily driven by emotions and other intangible benefits.
But Stocks are generally driven by future earnings and their value determined by P/E. When you buy a stock in a company: You are buying a future earnings in the form of dividend and an equity in the company. The board, CEO and employees of the company helps you get returns in your investment. For a real estate no one works towards your equity except may be you in backyard or your real estate broker.
I am not saying stocks are not subject to supply and demand. They indeed are as any other commodity that is traded in a market place. But value of stocks can be more assessed fairly from balance sheet and income statement thus investment is more predictable. What differentiates stock from real estate one is how the value of each is assessed.
2010 2011 Rory McIlroy US Open
crystal
07-09 10:14 PM
i am not sure what crap u r talking about 2205/2006/2007 guys
i landed here in 2000 my priority date is 2006 because of useless employers . dont think that everybody sailing in the same boat as urs.
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
i landed here in 2000 my priority date is 2006 because of useless employers . dont think that everybody sailing in the same boat as urs.
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
more...
vg1778
09-25 12:49 PM
Type in congressman your city name in google or yahoo search. It will give you various names for your senator and congressmen. Call them and give them your name FN LN, DOB, Alien number and fedex / delivery tracking mnumber. They will call you back with relevant information.
Goodluck
this is a draft I used to email my inquiries. Hope this helps.
------------------
Regarding: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007 [FedEx Tracking No. xxxx - Recd. by Mr. J. Barrett NSC At 10.25am on July 2nd]
Dear Mr. Assistant Chief,
My Adjustment of status application [I-485,I-765 and I-131] based on EB3 RIR category, was delivered to Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. It was received in the mailroom at 10.25am (reference : FedEx tracking number xxxxx).
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. However, I haven't heard any sort of communication pertaining to my pending application with USCIS. USCIS Customer Service would not pull up my application information in the system yet. Seems like USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or the figures are misleading.
Details as provided below:
Name of Applicant: Name xxx
“A” Number of Applicant: A 088 xxx xxx
Date of Birth: xxx
FedEx Tracking No: (whatever is your tracking number)
I would greatly appreciate if your office can help me to track and process my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me at (xxx) xxxx for any additional information.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Where did you get the A number of the applicant? I checked my I140 approval there is no such number on it in front of Beneficiary name and in the bottom. Even in my I131 application the A number box is blank. Is there any other way to get this A number.
Goodluck
this is a draft I used to email my inquiries. Hope this helps.
------------------
Regarding: Inquiry/status for I-485 AOS application sent to USCIS, Nebraska Service Center on July 2nd 2007 [FedEx Tracking No. xxxx - Recd. by Mr. J. Barrett NSC At 10.25am on July 2nd]
Dear Mr. Assistant Chief,
My Adjustment of status application [I-485,I-765 and I-131] based on EB3 RIR category, was delivered to Department of Homeland Security, USCIS, Nebraska Service Center, Lincoln, NE on July 2nd 2007. It was received in the mailroom at 10.25am (reference : FedEx tracking number xxxxx).
USCIS website says NSC are working with August 2007 received AOS applications. However, I haven't heard any sort of communication pertaining to my pending application with USCIS. USCIS Customer Service would not pull up my application information in the system yet. Seems like USCIS is either not following the First in First out (FIFO) process for sure or the figures are misleading.
Details as provided below:
Name of Applicant: Name xxx
“A” Number of Applicant: A 088 xxx xxx
Date of Birth: xxx
FedEx Tracking No: (whatever is your tracking number)
I would greatly appreciate if your office can help me to track and process my AOS application delivered to NSC on July 2nd 2007. Please feel free to contact me at (xxx) xxxx for any additional information.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Where did you get the A number of the applicant? I checked my I140 approval there is no such number on it in front of Beneficiary name and in the bottom. Even in my I131 application the A number box is blank. Is there any other way to get this A number.
hair Rory McIlroy
pdakwala
02-01 10:04 AM
1. Legislation: The Future of Employment-Based Immigration during the next few weeks, Congress is scheduled to decide the future of
employment-based immigration to the United States.
Comprehensive immigration reform proposals by Senators McCain and
Kennedy, Cornyn and Kyl, Hagel and Specter will be considered by the Senate in February.
Each proposal contains a combination of the following elements: (1) a
guest worker program; (2) stricter immigration enforcement; and (3) an
expansion of the employment-based immigration system.
The guest worker program is, by far, the most controversial part of the
package. To President Bush and its Congressional proponents, a guest
worker proposal is simply a way of creating a procedure to allow U.S.
companies to continue to employ millions of foreign-born workers to fill jobs which American choose not to perform.
Opponents of a guest worker program maintain that if employers simply
raise their wages, American workers will do any job. Call me a "doubter".
Our unemployment rate has been hovering around 5% for over a year. Yet,
the Wall Street Journal recently ran an article about lettuce growers who,
unable to harvest their crops, raised their rates to over $10 per hour. A few
Americans applied, but none lasted more than a few hours. How many of the
unemployed are willing and able to perform stoop labor in rural valleys?
The opponents of a guest worker program refuse to vote for any program
which looks like an "amnesty". Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) of the
Subcommittee on Immigration in the House of Representatives puts it
simply: "A guest-worker program that applies to illegal aliens already here is an amnesty." Representative Sensenbrenner and over one hundred Republican Congressman in the House of Representatives are against any "amnesty". Since Chairman Sensenbrenner will be the chief House negotiator in any Senate-House Conference Committee on an immigration reform bill, this spells trouble for any guest worker program.
If the guest worker program does not include the 10 million plus
illegal workers who are presently in the U.S., there is not the slightest
possibility of either regularizing their immigration status or of deporting them.
That is simply a fact, and building a huge fence on Mexico's border (no one
ever suggests doing so along the Canadian border) with the U.S. will simply
discourage illegal workers in the U.S. from returning home to visit
their families. Also, it does nothing to stem the influx of illegal workers
who enter the U.S. with visas and then overstay. Those in Congress who
think that by criminalizing these people the problem is solved are kidding
themselves and their constituents.
The real solution is to look reality square in the face, and fashion a
solution which will penalize illegal workers, but, at the same time, allow them
to participate in a guest worker program that will eventually result in
them becoming permanent residents of the U.S. Unless there is a light at
the end of the tunnel for them, what is the incentive for them to come out of the shadows and register for the program? The McCain-Kennedy bill contains such a program.
At least one ex-INS prosecutor (The one who writes this newsletter)
knows that the government cannot solve the illegal alien problem by wishing it away, or by an enforcement-only approach. Ten years after President Clinton enacted a "get tough" at the border policy, the number of illegal workers in the U.S. has more than doubled. Congress must realize that, in the post-9/11, world, the United States simply cannot afford to have 10 million persons in the U.S. who are unknown to the government. Every citizen should write to his Member of Congress and tell them that he/she wants these people identified, fingerprinted, registered with the government, paying taxes and learning English.
Whether or not the Congress enacts a guest worker program, the United
States has another immigration problem that needs to be solved, and solved
now. Our country is educating less scientists, engineers, doctors and nurses
than we did when I graduated from law school in 1973. In the meantime, countries in Asia are graduating far more of these professional workers than does the U.S. Fortunately, many of these professional workers have been supplementing the U.S. workforce for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, during the past year, huge backlogs in our immigration system have developed, and many of the best and brightest of these professionals are choosing to stay at home. This does not bode well for our security and our industries.
Our country is losing its manufacturing base. For example, the U.S.
automobile industry is firing tens of thousands of U.S. workers and G.M. and Ford are edging ever-closer to bankruptcy. Why? Because the American public is choosing to buy automobiles produced by Japanese and German companies.
Fortunately, thanks to the immigration of tens of thousands of Indian
and Chinese engineers to the U.S., the top software, chip makers and
biotech companies are still located in the U.S. But with our outdated
immigration laws making it increasingly difficult for U.S. employers to hire talented foreign- born scientists and engineers, how long can America maintain its dominance in these industries? U.S. employers can vote with their feet the same as U.S. consumers. Make it impossible to bring a sufficient number of foreign-born engineers to the U.S., and Microsoft and Intel and other top U.S. companies will simply locate their new plants and hire their new engineers not in the U.S., but in India and China.
Most of the bills pending before Congress would increase
employment-based immigration to 290,000 annually. This would help insure that our country maintains its number one position in science and technology.
employment-based immigration to the United States.
Comprehensive immigration reform proposals by Senators McCain and
Kennedy, Cornyn and Kyl, Hagel and Specter will be considered by the Senate in February.
Each proposal contains a combination of the following elements: (1) a
guest worker program; (2) stricter immigration enforcement; and (3) an
expansion of the employment-based immigration system.
The guest worker program is, by far, the most controversial part of the
package. To President Bush and its Congressional proponents, a guest
worker proposal is simply a way of creating a procedure to allow U.S.
companies to continue to employ millions of foreign-born workers to fill jobs which American choose not to perform.
Opponents of a guest worker program maintain that if employers simply
raise their wages, American workers will do any job. Call me a "doubter".
Our unemployment rate has been hovering around 5% for over a year. Yet,
the Wall Street Journal recently ran an article about lettuce growers who,
unable to harvest their crops, raised their rates to over $10 per hour. A few
Americans applied, but none lasted more than a few hours. How many of the
unemployed are willing and able to perform stoop labor in rural valleys?
The opponents of a guest worker program refuse to vote for any program
which looks like an "amnesty". Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) of the
Subcommittee on Immigration in the House of Representatives puts it
simply: "A guest-worker program that applies to illegal aliens already here is an amnesty." Representative Sensenbrenner and over one hundred Republican Congressman in the House of Representatives are against any "amnesty". Since Chairman Sensenbrenner will be the chief House negotiator in any Senate-House Conference Committee on an immigration reform bill, this spells trouble for any guest worker program.
If the guest worker program does not include the 10 million plus
illegal workers who are presently in the U.S., there is not the slightest
possibility of either regularizing their immigration status or of deporting them.
That is simply a fact, and building a huge fence on Mexico's border (no one
ever suggests doing so along the Canadian border) with the U.S. will simply
discourage illegal workers in the U.S. from returning home to visit
their families. Also, it does nothing to stem the influx of illegal workers
who enter the U.S. with visas and then overstay. Those in Congress who
think that by criminalizing these people the problem is solved are kidding
themselves and their constituents.
The real solution is to look reality square in the face, and fashion a
solution which will penalize illegal workers, but, at the same time, allow them
to participate in a guest worker program that will eventually result in
them becoming permanent residents of the U.S. Unless there is a light at
the end of the tunnel for them, what is the incentive for them to come out of the shadows and register for the program? The McCain-Kennedy bill contains such a program.
At least one ex-INS prosecutor (The one who writes this newsletter)
knows that the government cannot solve the illegal alien problem by wishing it away, or by an enforcement-only approach. Ten years after President Clinton enacted a "get tough" at the border policy, the number of illegal workers in the U.S. has more than doubled. Congress must realize that, in the post-9/11, world, the United States simply cannot afford to have 10 million persons in the U.S. who are unknown to the government. Every citizen should write to his Member of Congress and tell them that he/she wants these people identified, fingerprinted, registered with the government, paying taxes and learning English.
Whether or not the Congress enacts a guest worker program, the United
States has another immigration problem that needs to be solved, and solved
now. Our country is educating less scientists, engineers, doctors and nurses
than we did when I graduated from law school in 1973. In the meantime, countries in Asia are graduating far more of these professional workers than does the U.S. Fortunately, many of these professional workers have been supplementing the U.S. workforce for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, during the past year, huge backlogs in our immigration system have developed, and many of the best and brightest of these professionals are choosing to stay at home. This does not bode well for our security and our industries.
Our country is losing its manufacturing base. For example, the U.S.
automobile industry is firing tens of thousands of U.S. workers and G.M. and Ford are edging ever-closer to bankruptcy. Why? Because the American public is choosing to buy automobiles produced by Japanese and German companies.
Fortunately, thanks to the immigration of tens of thousands of Indian
and Chinese engineers to the U.S., the top software, chip makers and
biotech companies are still located in the U.S. But with our outdated
immigration laws making it increasingly difficult for U.S. employers to hire talented foreign- born scientists and engineers, how long can America maintain its dominance in these industries? U.S. employers can vote with their feet the same as U.S. consumers. Make it impossible to bring a sufficient number of foreign-born engineers to the U.S., and Microsoft and Intel and other top U.S. companies will simply locate their new plants and hire their new engineers not in the U.S., but in India and China.
Most of the bills pending before Congress would increase
employment-based immigration to 290,000 annually. This would help insure that our country maintains its number one position in science and technology.
more...
logiclife
06-15 11:57 AM
My attorney said only copy of recent i-94 and i-797 required.
I-94s are submitted at the airport when you leave the country. In many cases there are no I-94s coz they have been submitted and no one thought of making copies of them before travelling out of country. I am sure I dont have all the I-94s that I ever used. I submitted them at the airport when I went out and didnt make copies.
I think it must be ok if you dont have all of them. Can anyone advise if that's the case?
I-94s are submitted at the airport when you leave the country. In many cases there are no I-94s coz they have been submitted and no one thought of making copies of them before travelling out of country. I am sure I dont have all the I-94s that I ever used. I submitted them at the airport when I went out and didnt make copies.
I think it must be ok if you dont have all of them. Can anyone advise if that's the case?
hot Rory McIlroy wins U.S. Open in
puddonhead
08-31 07:47 AM
I just called CS of Vonage and asked them about 5k minute limit. They just laughed as I was not the first one to ask. They said for residential Vonage world plan there is no limit. those 5k applies to business . So rest assured and call India without any fear or limit. Unlimited !
So I am happy.
The 5000 minute limit is phrased as "consistent with residential use" term in the Terms and Conditions. CS is often clueless.
For more details - look at the chat transcript I posted in the fatwallet forums Chat Tanscript - Look at the 8th post in this page (http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/946947/?start=120).
Or - even better - look at the original Terms and Conditions (http://www.vonage.com/tos/#SERVICE). The relevant section is section 5.4, named "Inconsistent with Normal Use".
So I am happy.
The 5000 minute limit is phrased as "consistent with residential use" term in the Terms and Conditions. CS is often clueless.
For more details - look at the chat transcript I posted in the fatwallet forums Chat Tanscript - Look at the 8th post in this page (http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/946947/?start=120).
Or - even better - look at the original Terms and Conditions (http://www.vonage.com/tos/#SERVICE). The relevant section is section 5.4, named "Inconsistent with Normal Use".
more...
house rory mcilroy us open
gdhiren
07-11 12:02 PM
Nice to know the film makers comment about our campaign. How about contacting them to get the hundreds of DVDs of 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' and send them to Walter Reed where flowers are going? Just a vague thought, I am sure someone else also mentioned similar thing earlier.
tattoo Another US Open winner: Graeme
conchshell
07-09 09:13 PM
Please do not feel violated by what Smitha mentioned. If we claim that we follow Gandhi's path, than we must act on it. Smitha has her own way of thinking and even though we disagree, kindly respect her point of view. She has suffered as much as any of us has suffered in past days/months/years.
Smitha, I would like to remind you about an incident from India's freedom struggle. When M. K. Gandhi requested the nation to start burning the cloths that were made in Great Britain, most of the people felt that it was inappropriate. What can you achieve by burning your own cloths? But later on an entire nation saw the power behind civil disobedience. Even the people who were worst affected by Swadesi Movement (the cloth mill workers of Britain: who lost their jobs-bread-butter because of less demand) realized that this was done to support a just cause.
I would like to quote a poem by C. Rajagopalachari:
Victory is certain, O Mind!!
Away with false fear.
Devotion bears its fruit.
Shoulders we have, Broad and strong, And intelligence.
We can gather what we work for.
Unalterable law protects Our efforts unflagging.
Away then with fear and despondency!
So I urge you to be away then with false fear and despondency. Sending flowers is humane and certainly not illegal.
Smitha, I would like to remind you about an incident from India's freedom struggle. When M. K. Gandhi requested the nation to start burning the cloths that were made in Great Britain, most of the people felt that it was inappropriate. What can you achieve by burning your own cloths? But later on an entire nation saw the power behind civil disobedience. Even the people who were worst affected by Swadesi Movement (the cloth mill workers of Britain: who lost their jobs-bread-butter because of less demand) realized that this was done to support a just cause.
I would like to quote a poem by C. Rajagopalachari:
Victory is certain, O Mind!!
Away with false fear.
Devotion bears its fruit.
Shoulders we have, Broad and strong, And intelligence.
We can gather what we work for.
Unalterable law protects Our efforts unflagging.
Away then with fear and despondency!
So I urge you to be away then with false fear and despondency. Sending flowers is humane and certainly not illegal.
more...
pictures Rory McIlroy US Open Golf
dudenj
09-28 08:14 AM
Good news guys, my checks have been encashed this morning, looks like they are processing july 2nd cases now, probably because of all the pressure from congressmen and all the complaints that have been going out to uscis-complaints.
Finally some relief, the receipt #'s are printed at back of the check and its starts with SRC so i guess it has been transferred to either CA or TX.
Hang in there guys iam sure all july 2nd filers will surely see their applications processed by early next week.
My details Filed at NCS @ 9:01 am received by R.Mickels
Finally some relief, the receipt #'s are printed at back of the check and its starts with SRC so i guess it has been transferred to either CA or TX.
Hang in there guys iam sure all july 2nd filers will surely see their applications processed by early next week.
My details Filed at NCS @ 9:01 am received by R.Mickels
dresses Rory McIlroy returns home as
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
more...
makeup US Open Champion Rory McIlroy
delhiguy79
10-17 07:15 PM
If you get different A#s then definitely there is a possibility of delays in the application.
I am not sure what happens with namechecks. Need to research further. My guess is you will have double chances of getting stuck in namechecks! This assumption is based on the fact that multiple filers need to undergo fingerprinting and background checks multiple times and thus chances of getting stuck in namechecks must also increase for them.
i heard from my lawyer that we shoud combine them...will talk to him again on Friday...lets see wat he suggests...
does anybody know the process of combining or withdrawing one set....
I am not sure what happens with namechecks. Need to research further. My guess is you will have double chances of getting stuck in namechecks! This assumption is based on the fact that multiple filers need to undergo fingerprinting and background checks multiple times and thus chances of getting stuck in namechecks must also increase for them.
i heard from my lawyer that we shoud combine them...will talk to him again on Friday...lets see wat he suggests...
does anybody know the process of combining or withdrawing one set....
girlfriend hair U.S. Open champion and
drona
07-11 01:51 PM
Yes, Lou Dobbs will only want to quote the Al Jazeera article.
hairstyles US Open winner Rory
maag
03-27 03:57 PM
(1) CapitalOne OP example
(2) Kaiser Permanente cse_us example
(3) Chandu and BharatPremi has some examples
(4) Applied Biosystems sweet_jungle example
More?
(5) Procter & Gamble
(2) Kaiser Permanente cse_us example
(3) Chandu and BharatPremi has some examples
(4) Applied Biosystems sweet_jungle example
More?
(5) Procter & Gamble
walking_dude
01-08 12:08 PM
Guys, please desist from using this thread for discussions unrelated to the main topic (whether you can buy houses on H1/EAD etc.). There are other forums and threads on IV where these types of issues can be discussed in detail. If you don't find any, you can start a new thread of your own.
Let's keep the discussion here focussed on IV action items. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
Let's keep the discussion here focussed on IV action items. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
xyz2009
08-19 04:11 PM
To xyz2009:
Congratulations on getting approved. My wife traveleved to India in a similar situation. She left 2 days after the GC approval email. She returned yesterday on her H1B. I think the systems at the POE take time to reflect the new status. She was planning to inform the IO in case he/she asks about the GC approval - but they did not ask anything. Before she left, she spoke to a second level IO who said it was OK to travel and just to explain to the IO at POE in case it comes up. D-155 stamp is not done at POE.
Your wife can either use AP or H4.
thanks a lot and my wife is in exact situation. This has made it very clear. Then i will suggest her the same ...enter on H4. Thanks a lot.
Best
Congratulations on getting approved. My wife traveleved to India in a similar situation. She left 2 days after the GC approval email. She returned yesterday on her H1B. I think the systems at the POE take time to reflect the new status. She was planning to inform the IO in case he/she asks about the GC approval - but they did not ask anything. Before she left, she spoke to a second level IO who said it was OK to travel and just to explain to the IO at POE in case it comes up. D-155 stamp is not done at POE.
Your wife can either use AP or H4.
thanks a lot and my wife is in exact situation. This has made it very clear. Then i will suggest her the same ...enter on H4. Thanks a lot.
Best
No comments:
Post a Comment