AMKumar
07-06 10:54 AM
Man, in frustration people do not even know what to say and what not! Be very careful of what you spin and what you say. From the looks of it, this stuff has every chance of spinning out of control and it may have already started the ball rolling.Think about it for a second!. Once it goes that way, trust me, we will all live to regret that.
Yes, DHS approved upwards of 25000 GCs over the weekend, leading up to July 2nd. And some people are pissed off at that, err..why?
Remember, those 25000 are one of us. Once,they too were in line for Labor certifications, I-140s, medical exams and all that crap. And some of them were in the so called "FBI Name check" black-hole for an extended period of time. We should be rejoicing in the fact that most of those backlogs got cleaned up. Instead we have people questioning the validity of those newly approved GCs.My dear friends, god willing, we will all have GCs one day and tell me, how would you feel if someone else comes screaming at you just because he did not get one too.
Putting a "security lapse" spin on this could be very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost. I hope one of those anti-immigrant lobbies do not pick it up and start running with that. I prey that they do not revoke those already approved GCs, because if they do, then those poor 25000 souls will go through much more agony than what we are going through now.
It's very tough to get the genie back in the bottle once it is out, so think before you start popping that cork.
~AMK
Yes, DHS approved upwards of 25000 GCs over the weekend, leading up to July 2nd. And some people are pissed off at that, err..why?
Remember, those 25000 are one of us. Once,they too were in line for Labor certifications, I-140s, medical exams and all that crap. And some of them were in the so called "FBI Name check" black-hole for an extended period of time. We should be rejoicing in the fact that most of those backlogs got cleaned up. Instead we have people questioning the validity of those newly approved GCs.My dear friends, god willing, we will all have GCs one day and tell me, how would you feel if someone else comes screaming at you just because he did not get one too.
Putting a "security lapse" spin on this could be very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost. I hope one of those anti-immigrant lobbies do not pick it up and start running with that. I prey that they do not revoke those already approved GCs, because if they do, then those poor 25000 souls will go through much more agony than what we are going through now.
It's very tough to get the genie back in the bottle once it is out, so think before you start popping that cork.
~AMK
wallpaper drew barrymore balayage. drew
krishnam70
01-14 12:11 PM
Think NSC needs to wake up about this AP delays. Lots of travel plans cancelled or moved to later dates to deal with this inordinate delays. Is it time for another flower campaign?
ras
10-16 05:47 PM
Added some missing in's and to's, etc. if it appears appropriate, you may keep the changes.
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Issue/Background:
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring it to your attention the hardship faced by I 485 applicants because of inappropriate denials by USCIS with out adhering to AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many applicants have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485 applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing a NOID or an RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS the change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees and psychological stress, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are adhered to when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this could be added to the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant could be issued a NOID/RFE instead of out rightly denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
2011 drew barrymore balayage. le
ajay
03-22 12:23 AM
I am in a bind now, appreciate any advice,
I am planning on using my EAD to switch to another job in a couple of months. Meanwhile I have booked tickets for May 26th to send my son to India for the summer. He has H4 stamped in his passport valid till 2010.
My question is
**Can my son come back on H4 even though I use my EAD to change jobs ?
**Does he need to have advance parole ? Even if I apply for AP tomorrow, chances are very slim that he will get it before he leaves on May 26th.
Thanks in Advance
I am planning on using my EAD to switch to another job in a couple of months. Meanwhile I have booked tickets for May 26th to send my son to India for the summer. He has H4 stamped in his passport valid till 2010.
My question is
**Can my son come back on H4 even though I use my EAD to change jobs ?
**Does he need to have advance parole ? Even if I apply for AP tomorrow, chances are very slim that he will get it before he leaves on May 26th.
Thanks in Advance
more...
ssss
08-08 04:05 PM
Feb 2005 EB3 India
sukhwinderd
09-02 01:00 PM
thats when i came here. filed first one in 2001. layoff.
second one in 2005 (eb3) still waiting. there are about 40k
people ahead of me. so about 14 years of wait assuming
3k EB3 GCs for india per year.
by that my daughter will be old enough to file my family based GC
and i might get that sooner than my EB3 GC ;-)
second one in 2005 (eb3) still waiting. there are about 40k
people ahead of me. so about 14 years of wait assuming
3k EB3 GCs for india per year.
by that my daughter will be old enough to file my family based GC
and i might get that sooner than my EB3 GC ;-)
more...
rmutyala
07-20 11:03 AM
Webb (D-VA), Nay :(
The guy who defeated George Allen, (remember the Macaca slur?)
The guy who defeated George Allen, (remember the Macaca slur?)
2010 Drew Barrymore
gc_chahiye
07-23 04:02 PM
this is a 2004 EB3 approval! This is the first one I am seeing from 2004. So looks like they have really cleaned the pipes here, and things should be better going forward.
The nicest thing of this whole fiasco is that they seem to have ignored country-limits and approved as many as possible. Last year they did only 9.8K EB Indians (teh final count was 17k, but that was due to ScheduleA). THis year (2007) if they have gotten 20-30K India applications out, the dates should move better in the future.
Eagerly awaiting 2 USCIS stats:
1. per-country per-category EB approvals in 2007
2. number of 485 applications received by August 17th
The nicest thing of this whole fiasco is that they seem to have ignored country-limits and approved as many as possible. Last year they did only 9.8K EB Indians (teh final count was 17k, but that was due to ScheduleA). THis year (2007) if they have gotten 20-30K India applications out, the dates should move better in the future.
Eagerly awaiting 2 USCIS stats:
1. per-country per-category EB approvals in 2007
2. number of 485 applications received by August 17th
more...
conundrum
04-30 03:13 PM
The member from Chicago is mainly concerned about the family based limits. He wants to know what the limit is or if there is a cap in the first place
hair Drew Barrymore amp; Will
nixstor
04-30 03:03 PM
Lofgren asked one of the best Q of the day.
What is CIS doing to improve utilization rate of visa numbers this year?
Aytes says USCIS and DOS are talking every week to improve utilization.
Time will tell what happened
turned over to Steve King ranting is going to start. Talking about his own numbers :)
What is CIS doing to improve utilization rate of visa numbers this year?
Aytes says USCIS and DOS are talking every week to improve utilization.
Time will tell what happened
turned over to Steve King ranting is going to start. Talking about his own numbers :)
more...
nitinboston
06-11 12:32 PM
Instead of ruining our life running after GC, here are few options
1) if you really want to live in a developed country, move to Canada or Australia. their process is much simpler and faster
2) cash out your investments and move to India. you might end up back in US on L1 :)
3) since some of us have had babies here, wait till they can sponsor you.
i have personally done 2 of the above. I have a Canadian PR and i have established contacts in India in case i need a job there. What am i doing here? saving as much money as i can, and waiting for the right opportunity in Canada or India. GC can kiss my ......., i got better things to do in life.
1) if you really want to live in a developed country, move to Canada or Australia. their process is much simpler and faster
2) cash out your investments and move to India. you might end up back in US on L1 :)
3) since some of us have had babies here, wait till they can sponsor you.
i have personally done 2 of the above. I have a Canadian PR and i have established contacts in India in case i need a job there. What am i doing here? saving as much money as i can, and waiting for the right opportunity in Canada or India. GC can kiss my ......., i got better things to do in life.
hot drew barrymore balayage.
485Mbe4001
06-10 12:32 PM
From Ron Gotchers site:-
Something is seriously out of whack. EB3 is "unavailable." EB3 "other workers" however have a cutoff date. The applicable statute provides:
"
Quote:
203(b)(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.--
203(b)(3)(A) In general.--Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
. . .
203(b)(3)(B) Limitation on other workers.--Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii). "
That's not a set aside for "other workers" - it is a limit. In other words, "other workers are not guaranteed 10,000 visas each year, they are limited to no more than 10,000 visas out of the 28.6% of the overall quota that is guaranteed to EB3 applicants.
How can "other workers" have a cutoff date when the rest of EB3 is unavailable?
Something is seriously out of whack. EB3 is "unavailable." EB3 "other workers" however have a cutoff date. The applicable statute provides:
"
Quote:
203(b)(3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers.--
203(b)(3)(A) In general.--Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
. . .
203(b)(3)(B) Limitation on other workers.--Not more than 10,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in any fiscal year may be available for qualified immigrants described in subparagraph (A)(iii). "
That's not a set aside for "other workers" - it is a limit. In other words, "other workers are not guaranteed 10,000 visas each year, they are limited to no more than 10,000 visas out of the 28.6% of the overall quota that is guaranteed to EB3 applicants.
How can "other workers" have a cutoff date when the rest of EB3 is unavailable?
more...
house house New Season Balayage drew barrymore balayage. ciara hairstyles gallery.
polapragada
09-14 05:45 PM
Keep aside porting the PD between EB3 to EB2.
Just try this
Say, you wanted to buy tickets to a show or travel, there are more than one counter which is issuing tickets. You have to choose some line at random. Obviously like the people Pallavi79 choose a line which is shorter in length. After some time person observed that other line is moving fast so wanted to jump to that line. Thats fine. If you try to jump into middle of the other line based on your time entered into 1st line. If you are demanding the position...Think the situation??
And after some time if you see EB3 row is runnign fast you will jump back there? Is this a game you think??
Just try this
Say, you wanted to buy tickets to a show or travel, there are more than one counter which is issuing tickets. You have to choose some line at random. Obviously like the people Pallavi79 choose a line which is shorter in length. After some time person observed that other line is moving fast so wanted to jump to that line. Thats fine. If you try to jump into middle of the other line based on your time entered into 1st line. If you are demanding the position...Think the situation??
And after some time if you see EB3 row is runnign fast you will jump back there? Is this a game you think??
tattoo drew barrymore balayage. Drew Barrymore coloration
thomachan72
06-04 11:37 AM
OK here is a question.
Person working for past 4 years in the US.
Applied LC this February (2/26/07)
wants to go to canada, work there for a year and then reenter may be next year.
According to the new point based GC system--
1) Will the person get points for the 4 years of work in the US? (those 4 years were continuous, however, the person applies for GC after the canadian break of lets say 1 year)
Person working for past 4 years in the US.
Applied LC this February (2/26/07)
wants to go to canada, work there for a year and then reenter may be next year.
According to the new point based GC system--
1) Will the person get points for the 4 years of work in the US? (those 4 years were continuous, however, the person applies for GC after the canadian break of lets say 1 year)
more...
pictures tattoo drew barrymore balayage. drew barrymore balayage. skin and alayage
leo2606
07-14 08:35 PM
first day (not ended yet) looks very good.
Close to $600.00.
All, Please forward this link to your friends new or inactive members.
Close to $600.00.
All, Please forward this link to your friends new or inactive members.
dresses textured alayage lob and
lskreddy
04-30 04:06 PM
Lofgren may have really good intentions to help several of us by introducing these 'sensible' administrative fixes but with meetings/discussions like these, they would get no where. Lofgren seems to be a very soft-spoken person and if she is the moderator (or even a mediator) in these discussions, there is just no way the train will stay on the track.
No wonder, the govtrack/thomas websites say, this is the first step in the process. They get discussed (or its lack of) and may get killed right away.
Besides just beating their own drum and saying ga-ga about their efficiency and sometimes throwing words like "we have opportunities" to improve, the discussion was a disaster.
On the other hand, it may be that most of them have already made their mind up as to what to do and this is just a charade. The discussion is a way to show their due diligence. The decision is obscure akin to the anything related to the process..
No wonder, the govtrack/thomas websites say, this is the first step in the process. They get discussed (or its lack of) and may get killed right away.
Besides just beating their own drum and saying ga-ga about their efficiency and sometimes throwing words like "we have opportunities" to improve, the discussion was a disaster.
On the other hand, it may be that most of them have already made their mind up as to what to do and this is just a charade. The discussion is a way to show their due diligence. The decision is obscure akin to the anything related to the process..
more...
makeup OMBRE HAIRwant want want.
ash0210
06-05 02:43 PM
You will get EAD immaterial of I-140 approval...I got my EAD approximately in 3 months & my I-140 was approved after 9 months after filing ( this 9 month includes one RFE on my I-140)..
In short, You/your son will get EAD immaterial of your I-140 approval...
I am talking to my immigration attorney right now to get all paperwork filed concurrently.
My attorney say's EAD's are generally approved within 90 days. Will that be before my I-140 is approve or doesn't that matter?
Regards to all,
Bodran
In short, You/your son will get EAD immaterial of your I-140 approval...
I am talking to my immigration attorney right now to get all paperwork filed concurrently.
My attorney say's EAD's are generally approved within 90 days. Will that be before my I-140 is approve or doesn't that matter?
Regards to all,
Bodran
girlfriend drew barrymore balayage.
swo
07-20 06:41 PM
...welcome to the new nightmare, someone did say something about the grass been green on the other side..now that we are on the other side we wait for 485 to be current while we renew EAD/AP each year, fingerprint every 15 months and aviod the namecheck black hole...maybe this is what they(uscis) wanted after all...a steady income stream...good luck :)
Funny! And we screamed to be there :)
Funny! And we screamed to be there :)
hairstyles Drew Barrymore, Rachel Bilson
vbkris77
12-10 04:17 PM
HOW IS THE PER-COUNTRY LIMIT CALCULATED?
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (AC21), removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop. Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
In my view CIS is not processing the applications fast enough to be using the benefits of INA Section 202(a)(5). We need to understand reasons behind this. Per the official bulletin, it is clear that if CIS can process them fast enough, we could see a movement of EB2 till end of the 2005. How many times should CIS pre-adjudicate before actually approving the EB AOS applications?
State made a good start to give an explanation for these dates. But they still didn't consider DOL application volume and CIS processing bottlenecks in processing AOS cases. IV needs to ask CIS on processing capacities of AOS applications. If they can't process them fast enough, They need to open up the AC-140 process for India (it is available only for Bombay) centers to get the cases approved by state department in a much faster way.
Section 201 of the INA sets an annual minimum Family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000, while the worldwide annual level for Employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 sets the per-country limit for preference immigrants at 7% of the total annual Family-sponsored and Employment-based preference limits, i.e. a minimum of 25,620.
- The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap, meaning visa issuances to any single country may not exceed this figure. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however. The per-country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the visa numbers by applicants from only a few countries.
- INA Section 202(a)(5), added by the American Competitiveness Act in the 21st Century (AC21), removed the per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of such numbers available. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)has occasionally allowed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large amounts of Employment First and Second preference numbers which would have otherwise gone unused.
WHAT ARE THE PROJECTIONS FOR CUT-OFF DATE MOVEMENT IN THE FAMILY PREFERENCES?
Cut-off date movement in most categories continues to be greater than might ordinarily be expected, and this is anticipated to continue for at least the next few months. This is because fewer applicants are proceeding with final action on their cases at consular posts abroad, and the volume of CIS adjustment cases remains low. Once large numbers of applicants begin to have their cases brought to final action, cut-off date movements will necessarily slow or stop. Moreover, in some categories cut-off date retrogression is a possibility. Therefore, readers should be aware that the recent rate of cut-off date advances will not continue indefinitely, but it is not possible to say at present how soon they will end.
WHY DID MOST EMPLOYMENT CUT-OFFS REMAIN UNCHANGED IN RECENT MONTHS?
Many of the categories were "unavailable" at the end of FY which resulted in excessive demand being received during October and November. Coupled with the fact that CIS Offices have been doing an excellent job of processing cases, this has had an impact on cut-off date movements. Some forward movement has begun for January as we enter the second quarter of the fiscal year.
In my view CIS is not processing the applications fast enough to be using the benefits of INA Section 202(a)(5). We need to understand reasons behind this. Per the official bulletin, it is clear that if CIS can process them fast enough, we could see a movement of EB2 till end of the 2005. How many times should CIS pre-adjudicate before actually approving the EB AOS applications?
State made a good start to give an explanation for these dates. But they still didn't consider DOL application volume and CIS processing bottlenecks in processing AOS cases. IV needs to ask CIS on processing capacities of AOS applications. If they can't process them fast enough, They need to open up the AC-140 process for India (it is available only for Bombay) centers to get the cases approved by state department in a much faster way.
nk2006
10-17 04:19 PM
{someone sent me a PM (with a red-dot to boot :) asking what is the plan?}
As explained in the first post of this thread the current plan: is to write to ombudsman, service center etc and explain why this I485 denial is wrong. The letter format and addresses are provided in the same post. I request members to email ombudsman the letter - since their office got some attention on this issue its best time to send more. All you have to do is paste the letter and add your personal info and send email - take a few more minutes to print it and send hard-copy as well, just in case if they ignore emails.
As explained in the first post of this thread the current plan: is to write to ombudsman, service center etc and explain why this I485 denial is wrong. The letter format and addresses are provided in the same post. I request members to email ombudsman the letter - since their office got some attention on this issue its best time to send more. All you have to do is paste the letter and add your personal info and send email - take a few more minutes to print it and send hard-copy as well, just in case if they ignore emails.
uma001
05-19 09:59 AM
This is the reply I got form Nevada Senator
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I value the opinions of every Nevadan and am grateful to those who take the time to inform me of their views.
America is a nation of immigrants but also a nation of laws. The national security of the United States depends on an immigration policy that first and foremost secures our borders. Our immigration policy also must demand accountability from those who hire illegal workers by creating a national employee verification system that employers would be required to use to verify the legal status of their employees and imposing severe penalties for employers who hire illegal workers. We should welcome those who want to enter the country legally, learn English, maintain employment, pay taxes, and contribute to our communities. We should not have to accept those who are not working full time; who have committed a crime or may present a danger to American citizens or legal immigrants; or who go on, or are likely to go on, public assistance or become dependent on any other government program.
I think we can all agree that our current immigration system is broken and that our schools, hospitals, and law enforcement are bearing the weight of its failures. Our prison system is overcrowded, and costs incurred from incarcerating criminal aliens continue to rise. The Department of Justice estimates that one in five federal prisoners, and more than one in ten state prisoners in Nevada, are non-U.S. citizens. That is why I support the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiatives that give state and local law enforcement the necessary tools to stem illegal behavior, such as the expansion of the Rapid Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer (REPAT) program. The REPAT program paroles non-violent criminal aliens serving state sentences so they can be deported. In Nevada, 2,560 criminal aliens were flagged for removal in Fiscal Year 2008 and 2,183 in Fiscal Year 2009. Reform is necessary and should be in America's best interests and not encourage additional illegal behavior.
Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. If you should have any further questions or comments or would like to sign up for my monthly newsletter, please feel free to write or e-mail me via my website at John Ensign, United States Senator of Nevada: Home (http://ensign.senate.gov).
Sincerely,
JOHN ENSIGN
United States Senator
JE/RD
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration reform. I value the opinions of every Nevadan and am grateful to those who take the time to inform me of their views.
America is a nation of immigrants but also a nation of laws. The national security of the United States depends on an immigration policy that first and foremost secures our borders. Our immigration policy also must demand accountability from those who hire illegal workers by creating a national employee verification system that employers would be required to use to verify the legal status of their employees and imposing severe penalties for employers who hire illegal workers. We should welcome those who want to enter the country legally, learn English, maintain employment, pay taxes, and contribute to our communities. We should not have to accept those who are not working full time; who have committed a crime or may present a danger to American citizens or legal immigrants; or who go on, or are likely to go on, public assistance or become dependent on any other government program.
I think we can all agree that our current immigration system is broken and that our schools, hospitals, and law enforcement are bearing the weight of its failures. Our prison system is overcrowded, and costs incurred from incarcerating criminal aliens continue to rise. The Department of Justice estimates that one in five federal prisoners, and more than one in ten state prisoners in Nevada, are non-U.S. citizens. That is why I support the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiatives that give state and local law enforcement the necessary tools to stem illegal behavior, such as the expansion of the Rapid Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer (REPAT) program. The REPAT program paroles non-violent criminal aliens serving state sentences so they can be deported. In Nevada, 2,560 criminal aliens were flagged for removal in Fiscal Year 2008 and 2,183 in Fiscal Year 2009. Reform is necessary and should be in America's best interests and not encourage additional illegal behavior.
Once again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. If you should have any further questions or comments or would like to sign up for my monthly newsletter, please feel free to write or e-mail me via my website at John Ensign, United States Senator of Nevada: Home (http://ensign.senate.gov).
Sincerely,
JOHN ENSIGN
United States Senator
JE/RD