I have some Delta Skymiles (3729miles), Not sure how to donate. If anyone needs them let me know.
wallpaper Dr. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE REECE
We should be able to submit this question to the lawyer's conference call organized by IV and see what's their take is on this. I wonder what the procedure is to submit the question. I have never done that before.
EAD is not tied to an employer/company, it is your application. You may apply for EAD but not work at all, if you wish.
2011 A Shakespeare Genealogy
This is bad what has happened. They need to be educated about the protest.
Is there any email address to the CNN editor? I can writeup a message about this.
Is there any email address to the CNN editor? I can writeup a message about this.
IT IS TOO BAD FOR EB 3 , WHY THIS INJUSTICE WITH EB 3 ?
everyone was expecting them to go U
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
everyone was expecting them to go U
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
I know someone who had to go for FP for their son who is 7 yrs old.
So yes, your 6 yrs old will have to get FP done.
As per my knowledge FP is only for the Age 14+
So yes, your 6 yrs old will have to get FP done.
As per my knowledge FP is only for the Age 14+
I filed EAD renewal on May 28 2008.
Service Center: Nebraska
When did u file your application for EAD renewal and which service center? I am not sure why you think EAD renewal triggered this I-485 RFE?
Service Center: Nebraska
When did u file your application for EAD renewal and which service center? I am not sure why you think EAD renewal triggered this I-485 RFE?
2010 William Shakespeare Family
Its due...
although not much excitement anticipated....seeing all 'U' sucks
although not much excitement anticipated....seeing all 'U' sucks
I know , More than 50% of IV members who can not file I 485 due to retrogression will be happy to pay this nominal amount of $10 to fax letter to USCIS for rule change
but What is the stand of Core group on this?
No update from any one!!
but What is the stand of Core group on this?
No update from any one!!
hair William Shakespeare Rece,
May ask you why you joined this organization if you say that only sick people are frustrated with the delay in GC. By that logic all of us are sick people! I think your comment was made in bad taste and crticizes all the hard work this organization and its members are doing.
I am sorry for it if you took my comment that way. I also realize that this organization is doing great. I only want to say be should not be sick because of just GC. you should be sick if you are not responsible for you wife and kids. you should be sick if you are not responsible for your family back in India. you should be sick if you are not responsible for your country. you could be most intellegent person in the world but if you are not responsible then you should worried. Richness, intelligency and responsibility is great combination but to be a great person you dont have to be rich and intellegent.
I am sorry for it if you took my comment that way. I also realize that this organization is doing great. I only want to say be should not be sick because of just GC. you should be sick if you are not responsible for you wife and kids. you should be sick if you are not responsible for your family back in India. you should be sick if you are not responsible for your country. you could be most intellegent person in the world but if you are not responsible then you should worried. Richness, intelligency and responsibility is great combination but to be a great person you dont have to be rich and intellegent.
I spoke with the immigration guy at my ex employers place. My 140 was indeed revoked. He doesnt know the date when it was revoked. He is certain the 140 sponsoring employer is willing to employ me. This means I can get an Employment Verification Letter from him.
Will this cause a concern with USCIS as
1. This company applies for 140
2. Revokes an approved 140 when employee quits
3. Is again willing to offer the job
Should I take AC21 route instead as I have an offer with the company B.
Will this cause a concern with USCIS as
1. This company applies for 140
2. Revokes an approved 140 when employee quits
3. Is again willing to offer the job
Should I take AC21 route instead as I have an offer with the company B.
hot William Shakespeare - A Study
MY PD is Sep 2002. Filed in July 2007.
house william shakespeare#39;s
I have written to my congressmen couple of times but I am yet to recieve any response. I will contact his office again this week..
Ajay
Ajay
tattoo William Shakespeare.
Excellent
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
I agree with you 100 % , I believe having excessive media coverage and lawsuits , would bring the GC number and process in the open , and most americans would oppose the GC as they oppose H1B.
If i was a american i would surely be happy with USCIS/DOS creating so much trouble for the immigrants to my country , who i believe are taking my job.
Everyone blaming CIS/DOS needs to understand some basics behind this mess. Before going to conclude anything, first, one should read all the ombudsman reports for last 3 or 4 years. Former INS or current USCIS�s functions and operations were not questionable and not known to public till ombudsman office was established. Ombudsman has helped customers and keep helping to improve efficiency of CIS. Ombudsman main concern (or goal) have been over the 4 years are
1. Primarily reducing backlogs in any application type particularly 485 and timely approval of any application.
2. Abolish the need for interim benefits like EAD, AP etc. If they approve 485 in 6 months, then most of us do not require EAD and AP.
3. Reduce the wastage of EB visas, as unused EB visas can not be carried over to next year (use it or lose it). Since 1992, about 200,000 EB visas were lost permanently. In 2003 alone, they issued only 64,000 EB visas and lost 88,000.
The recent report to congress, the ombudsman scolded the CIS left and right for its inefficiency and highlighted how many EB visas were lost for ever, in last 10 years despite the very heavy demand for employment based green cards. Based on his report, both CIS and DOS try to obey the direction of ombudsman and modifying the 485 adjudication procedure. The reason for loss of EB visas in previous years not only due to inefficiency in processing the 485s on time, it is also due to lengthy background check delay by FBI, where USCIS has no control. For example, in 2003 they could approve about 64,000 485s only. It is partially due to USCIS inefficiency and partially due to lengthy FBI check. There are 300,000 (AOS+ Naturalization applicants) cases are pending with FBI for name check. Out of which, about 70,000 cases are pending more than 2 years. Out of 300,000 victims of name check delay, how many are really threat to the country? Perhaps none or may be few! Remember that lot of Indians also victims of name check and all the victims of name check delay already living in USA.
The big problem is the timing when USCIS takes the visa number for a 485 applicant. Till 1982, INS took visa number for a 485 applicant as soon as they receive the application. Visa number assigned to a 485 applicant without processing his/her application. He/She may not be a qualified applicant to approve 485. Still they assign to them. If they found, the applicant is ineligible, they suppose to return the number back to DOS. However, this practice was modified after 1982. USCIS is taking visa number only at the time of approval of 485, after processing the 485 for a lengthy period. For some people, particularly victims of name check, 485 processing time vary between 2 to 5 years. Though, it is a good practice it is not the ideal or efficient process, due to name check delay. Let us assume about 150,000 are victim of name check in 2003. If they assigned all the numbers to these 150,000 applicants at the time they filed 485, the 88,000 visa numbers might have not been lost in 2003. Now what happens, those who filed 485 in 2003 (victim of name check delay) will take EB numbers from 2007 or 2008 quota, if FBI clears his/her file in 2007 or 2008. This will push back those who are going to file 485 in 2007 or 2008.
That why, ombudsman in his 2007 yearly report to Congress recommended to practice the old way of assigning visa number to 485 applicants, to minimize the loss of visa numbers.
Now lets come to July Visa bulletin mess.
Because of tight holding of visa cutoff dates for EB3 and EB2 for the first 8 months of 2007 (From Oct 2006 to May 2007) USCIS approved only 66,000 485s. For the next 4 months they have about 60K to 70K numbers available. If they approve the pending 485s with slower speed or old cut off dates, there is a potential estimated loss of 40,000 EB visas by Sep 2007. Thats why, based on ombudsman recommendation, DOS moved considerably the cut off date for June. When they took inventory in May, there are about 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications were pending due to non-availability of visa numbers. The �documentarily qualified 485 applications� mean the application filed long time back and processed by USCIS and cleared the FBI name and criminal check, and found eligible for green card. Apart from 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications, there is thousands of 485 applications (documentarily not yet qualified) pending due to name check. When DOS checked with USCIS they found only 40,000 documentarily qualified 485 applications (in all EB categories put together) are pending. However, the available visas are more than 40,000 (60to 70K). Then they made with out consulting properly with USCIS they made �current� for all EB categories. This is how they determine �current� or �over-subscribed� and how they establish cutoff dates.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is considered �Current.�
Whenever the total of documentarily qualified applicants in a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for the particular month, the category is considered to be �oversubscribed� and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
There is nothing wrong with DOS to make all categories �current� for a July bulletin as per they definition of demand vs supply estimation to meet the numerical limitations per year. Perhaps the DOS did not aware of other impact of making all categories �current� ie fresh guys entering into I-485 race. Because of �current� there will be additional tons and tons of new filings. The rough estimation is about 500K to 700K new 485s and same amount of EAD and AP applications will be filed in July. But the available number is just 60K, and there are already 40K documentarily qualified 485s are pending more than 6 months to 3 years to take the numbers from remaining 60K pool. That leaves just 20K to fresh 485 filings. If 700K new 485 filed in July, it will choke the system. People have to live only in EAD and AP for next 5 to 10 years.
For example, an EB3-Indian whose LC approved through fast PERM on July 30th 2007, can apply 140 and 485 on July 31st 2007 as per July visa bulletin. For his PD, it will take another 10 years for the approval of 485. During this 10 year period, he/she has to live in EAD and AP and need to go for finger print every 15 month.
Therefore by making �current� for all EB categories is a billion dollar mistake by both DOS and CIS first part.. Another mistake is timing of rectifying mistake. USCIS and DOS and law firms should have discussed immediately about the potential chaos about making current and rectified move the cut-off to reasonable period to accommodate additional 20K 485s. If they modified the VB, with in couple of days after July 13, then there wont be a this much stress, time and wastage of money.
There is nothing wrong in issuing additional advisory notice or modified visa bulletin to control the usage of visa numbers. The only mistake both USCIS and DOS is made is the timing of issuance of modified visa bulletin or advisory notice. It indicates poor transparency in the system and bad customer service. Now, they used all 140K visas this year. Assigning remaining 20K visa numbers to already pending 485s which are not yet documentarily (name check delayed cases) qualified is not the violation of law. It was old practice. In fact, ombudsman recommends it. They have the trump card which is Ombudsman report and recommendations. Therefore they are immune to lawsuit. Therefore, filing the law-suit is not going to help. The only two mistakes I see is 1) making all categories as �current� in June 13 and second is modifying VB only on July 2.
My recommendation is to IV is capitalize the situation in constructive way. Law suit only bring media attention with the expense of money and time. The constructive approach is getting an immediate interim relief by legislation to recapture unused visas in previous years to balance the supply vs demand difference.
pictures of William Shakespeare
"...I dont think you need to worry.. for you knwo what I am saying ..."
this is turning out be very hilarious form:):). Good way to get rid of GC frustation.:o
May be hilarious for you, not for me. You would understand the situation if you were in my shoes.
this is turning out be very hilarious form:):). Good way to get rid of GC frustation.:o
May be hilarious for you, not for me. You would understand the situation if you were in my shoes.
dresses William Shakespeare in ten
Visa Bulletin for May 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4805.html)
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
Hey Pappu,
What do you conclude of this? Their has to be some rational reason behind them not moving EB2I, it is hard to grasp that they are still working on 2004-2005 PD's. Is their something we can do bring them in more transparency.
I believe earlier they screwed up and now they are on apposite extreme end, scrutinizing every element.
makeup Shakespeare family tree - part
Hi Guys when are you meeting in Durga temple Let me know I can come with some of my friends
Sekar
Sekar
girlfriend About William Shakespeare
Thanks to IV Core and Nixstor in particular for following up on the FOIA subject that has been brought up in several threads over the past couple of weeks (including one by me as well !) and take this up as an action item and providing guidance for the IV members on how to do the same.
I did not realize it was this simple! Will surely send the letter by this weekend.
Btw, How will we receive the receipt numer?? Are we supposed to attach a return (prepaid stamped) envelope or something?? Or we will just get a letter from the National Center after they receive our request?
I did not realize it was this simple! Will surely send the letter by this weekend.
Btw, How will we receive the receipt numer?? Are we supposed to attach a return (prepaid stamped) envelope or something?? Or we will just get a letter from the National Center after they receive our request?
hairstyles william-shakespeare
THIS IS THE TIME - SET YOURSELVES FREE - MARCH TO WASHINGTON
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
I have no intention of playing spoilsport if you are taking some good faith initiative. In fact, if there is some campaign launched on this - I will probably even contribute (well - if you are doing something in good faith for a community then I have a moral obligation to support it if it is not harmful for the community).
However, this part "I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis" souonds wishful to me based on my understanding of what the immigration law says. I spent some time going over the law a couple of years ago - so its possible that my memory may be failing me. If you can show some place in the Immigration law that actually supports this reinterpretation then I will correct myself.
You are absolutely right in pointing out the need to really see the law. I just dived into it. I will try to study it more thoroughly, as there are possibly multiple places we could explore in the language; not just this one. If I get more ideas I will come back and post them here.
I request all members to participate in the other thread discussing the various provisions of the INA
However, this part "I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis" souonds wishful to me based on my understanding of what the immigration law says. I spent some time going over the law a couple of years ago - so its possible that my memory may be failing me. If you can show some place in the Immigration law that actually supports this reinterpretation then I will correct myself.
You are absolutely right in pointing out the need to really see the law. I just dived into it. I will try to study it more thoroughly, as there are possibly multiple places we could explore in the language; not just this one. If I get more ideas I will come back and post them here.
I request all members to participate in the other thread discussing the various provisions of the INA
