vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
wallpaper to get a Company Profile
somegchuh
06-11 12:49 PM
I assume you mean "Be prepared for some grilling ....".
I don't see why US would care if I am returning back in a week with a valid GC. I can imagine canadians asking me if I have abandoned my canadian PR status or not.
For some grilling by both CBP in the US and also their Canadian counterpart. You should've surrendered the Canadian PR or US GC based on where you wanted to live permanently. It's not illegal to be a PR of both countries, but if the Canadians know and if you've claimed any sort of health insurance in Canada, they'll send you a bill for it. All this is not to scare you, but first hand experience of my cousin who lives on the border and works for a Detroit based company.
I don't see why US would care if I am returning back in a week with a valid GC. I can imagine canadians asking me if I have abandoned my canadian PR status or not.
For some grilling by both CBP in the US and also their Canadian counterpart. You should've surrendered the Canadian PR or US GC based on where you wanted to live permanently. It's not illegal to be a PR of both countries, but if the Canadians know and if you've claimed any sort of health insurance in Canada, they'll send you a bill for it. All this is not to scare you, but first hand experience of my cousin who lives on the border and works for a Detroit based company.
Bhaskar_80
06-10 04:16 PM
Mr. gnutin,
I really appreciate your help on this regard.
Thanks a lot!
I really appreciate your help on this regard.
Thanks a lot!
2011 Company Profile (PDF
yestogc
08-20 01:33 PM
Apology from USCIS :):o:D.................... this is not going to happen
more...
Milind123
07-26 12:02 PM
USCIS - Direct Filing Addresses for Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (12/03/09 N version) (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=eb7b5cdc2c463110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
USCIS Phoenix or Dallas Lockbox, based on where you live.
I think this box is applicable to you
Based on a pending or approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. (Note: You cannot concurrently file form I-485 and form I-140 at a USCIS Lockbox facility at this time. Refer to the Filing Instructions on Form I-140 if you want to file the forms concurrently.)
(You must include a copy of the Form I-797C Notice of Action, showing that your Form I-140 was accepted or approved.)
Please note the addresses were revised fairly recently (12/03/2009). Your lawyer may not be aware of that.
USCIS Phoenix or Dallas Lockbox, based on where you live.
I think this box is applicable to you
Based on a pending or approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. (Note: You cannot concurrently file form I-485 and form I-140 at a USCIS Lockbox facility at this time. Refer to the Filing Instructions on Form I-140 if you want to file the forms concurrently.)
(You must include a copy of the Form I-797C Notice of Action, showing that your Form I-140 was accepted or approved.)
Please note the addresses were revised fairly recently (12/03/2009). Your lawyer may not be aware of that.
xyz2005
10-23 02:43 PM
the problem is my company is not willing to give me any documents unless i loose my job. Also when you mentioned ASAP, do i have to get a job within # of days
any suggestions.
So many options:
a. switch over to a "similar" job with another company on transfered H1B to new company.
b. before getting laid off with current company, if you are on H1B and have unused EAD then you can switch to EAD by filing appropriate papers so that before termination you are on EAD and no more on H1B. Under this scenario, if u r laid off then you can look for a job (similar job to ur green card) and that might mean u can take some days to find one. See idea is when ur green card is being adjudicated you should be on same or similar job and you should be able to show salary and title and job responsibilities on new companies letter head. If you think your case is not going to be adjudicated soon ..that means you can change many jobs in between by using your EAD and only by when it comes to adjudication make sure you are with same and similar job.
Again check with knowledgeable attorney before acting. These are my 2 cents
best regards
any suggestions.
So many options:
a. switch over to a "similar" job with another company on transfered H1B to new company.
b. before getting laid off with current company, if you are on H1B and have unused EAD then you can switch to EAD by filing appropriate papers so that before termination you are on EAD and no more on H1B. Under this scenario, if u r laid off then you can look for a job (similar job to ur green card) and that might mean u can take some days to find one. See idea is when ur green card is being adjudicated you should be on same or similar job and you should be able to show salary and title and job responsibilities on new companies letter head. If you think your case is not going to be adjudicated soon ..that means you can change many jobs in between by using your EAD and only by when it comes to adjudication make sure you are with same and similar job.
Again check with knowledgeable attorney before acting. These are my 2 cents
best regards
more...
thomachan72
01-05 05:02 AM
@sanju_dba - Sorry to disappoint you. We did think about making a documentary, but in the end we all figured that a lot more people might be interested in a narrative feature film. Perhaps we are wrong, but it was just a decision that our team collectively made.
@waitingnwaiting - Thanks for your honest feedback. You are right about a lot of things. All I can say is, I've been in this country for over 10 years still waiting for a green card like a lot of people. I just wanted to do something to make more people aware of the issues. I'm passionate about film making so I figured way I can do it is to make a film about stories based on my personal experience. Now, I don't know how the audience will perceive the film or if it will change their mind. But one thing's for sure, we all have given our best to this film and attempted to tell stories that have affected our lives.
Thanks again for the comments.
I am sure everybody here will watch this one and hopefully we can get some senators also to watch this. Its great that you actually did this before somebody on the other side made a movie.
@waitingnwaiting - Thanks for your honest feedback. You are right about a lot of things. All I can say is, I've been in this country for over 10 years still waiting for a green card like a lot of people. I just wanted to do something to make more people aware of the issues. I'm passionate about film making so I figured way I can do it is to make a film about stories based on my personal experience. Now, I don't know how the audience will perceive the film or if it will change their mind. But one thing's for sure, we all have given our best to this film and attempted to tell stories that have affected our lives.
Thanks again for the comments.
I am sure everybody here will watch this one and hopefully we can get some senators also to watch this. Its great that you actually did this before somebody on the other side made a movie.
2010 provider Company Profile
d100763
06-22 09:26 PM
VDAMINATOR!
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
more...
bheemi
07-31 05:41 PM
Unless you use AP to travel outside, you can work on EAD and status of H4 is not going to be affected..So dont fear, just pose the question to lawyer in immigration-law.com. Or else you can search in the advanced q/a in that website u may find answer..
hair Embed related Company profile
houston2005
03-05 09:30 PM
We cannot justify the opposition to price increase as INS expects the fees to be paid by employer. So if needed employers can oppose not the employees. Only fees the candidates expect to pay is citizenship fees and all other immigration related fees should be paid by Employers as they are sponsoring gc
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
more...
sanjose
07-18 01:12 AM
Hmm.. let us think through this(may seem crazy). Is there anything called "dual permanent residency" ? I don't think so. Yes, there is dual citizenship - but that has to follow permanent residency in those countries.The permanent residency of one of the countries has to be lost if you spend 183 days in the other country. Well, assuming that one would retain his GC after all this trial and tribulation, just surrender the Canadian PR and be a normal guy with a GC; no problem at all !! (Hope the canadian pr surrender doesn't take a decade, just like getting a GC).
hot Company Profile : Clean Earth
RenaissanceGirl
10-21 02:59 PM
I've been using Painter Classic/7 on and off. The interface is a little hard to get around, since it bears little resemblance to other graphic software. However, I discovered it is more oriented towards traditional art.
And I agree with Ed - not much use for it if you don't have a tablet... unless you're really good with a mouse.
And I agree with Ed - not much use for it if you don't have a tablet... unless you're really good with a mouse.
more...
house Company Profile
santb1975
03-09 11:06 PM
I talked to attorney Murthy about this issue a few weeks ago. My 140 was approved July 2007. The salary I currently make 485 is 10K less than the salary mentioned on my Labor. I work for a speciality Pharma company with steady revenues. They are a public company as well. Two years ago my company Attorney(Fragomen) and my HR said that should not be a problem since GC is for a future position etc. When I checked with Attorney Murthy she said that is true but if you get a strict immigration officer he can say that the prevailing wage determination for your job was done two years ago and you are still not making that money. She said it is better to make the $$ mentioned on my labor now. I am going to ask my company attorney the same question and see what he says. I have a lot of respect for my company's attorney
tattoo Template Company Profile
HOPE_GC_SOON
05-04 10:49 AM
Hi Immi2006:
thanks for the update and analysis. But My 140 is approved in less than 20 days.. I donot work for MNC. Work for an American owned Company. Not sure, how much time it would take to reach 10/05 priority date for eb2.
Let us hope for the best.. :rolleyes:
Thanks,:)
THose are labour filed.
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
thanks for the update and analysis. But My 140 is approved in less than 20 days.. I donot work for MNC. Work for an American owned Company. Not sure, how much time it would take to reach 10/05 priority date for eb2.
Let us hope for the best.. :rolleyes:
Thanks,:)
THose are labour filed.
It is difficult to pull the 140 stats for the same labour. But I did a rough data extract from immigration.com based on what folks have mentioned, it seems like 140 is taking 8 months average presently, RFEs are in 40 % of cases, and also approved 140 seems to be like around 2000 in total for EB2, and EB3 categories for 2005 filings.. which means large numbers are still pending in Texas or Folks have not updated their data.
One thing that emerges clear from the data pattern :
Presently EB2 turn around time for Perm is approx 26 days, EB3 is 41 days average.
140 for EB2 from a MNC = 6 months, 140 for EB2 from a small company 8 months avg.
more...
pictures Company Profile
theperm
08-08 06:40 PM
where ever u r getting ur info from shree19772000 ...I soooooooooooooooo hope it is true !!! :D
dresses Company Profile
fromnaija
07-23 02:38 PM
I remember reading somewhere on USCIS website and this forum that FP taken in late 2007 (probably for all July 2007 filers) will last for the duration of AOS application...
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
USCIS is developing the Biometrics Storage System (BSS) w hich will allow the re-use of fingerprints and, if an application or petition has not been adjudicated within the fifteen month validity period, USCIS will be able to simply re-submit the stored fingerprints to the FBI, without any involvement of the applicant or petitioner. See 72 FR 17172 (Apr. 6, 2007) (establishing a new system of records).
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
DATES: The established system of
records will be effective May 7, 2007
unless comments are received that
result in a contrary determination.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
This must be for bad FP or for missing FP for self or any family member...
I posted the following at another forum on this topic:
USCIS is developing the Biometrics Storage System (BSS) w hich will allow the re-use of fingerprints and, if an application or petition has not been adjudicated within the fifteen month validity period, USCIS will be able to simply re-submit the stored fingerprints to the FBI, without any involvement of the applicant or petitioner. See 72 FR 17172 (Apr. 6, 2007) (establishing a new system of records).
It is from this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c9aecd408423b3f800b01aa0c83db a52
Further research showed that the BSS (Biometrics Storage System) actually went into effect on May 7, 2007.
DATES: The established system of
records will be effective May 7, 2007
unless comments are received that
result in a contrary determination.
This is from FR 17172 which you can find at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_register&position=all&page=17172
more...
makeup Catalogue - Company Profile
kirupa
01-19 11:17 PM
Added!
girlfriend Company Profile Page
ita
01-16 05:21 PM
They transferred me to the immigration sub committee's office after asking my name and the reason I was calling. I got the sub committee's VM again.
hairstyles Configure the company profile
makemygc
07-18 11:37 PM
Check with this:
If I filed my case previously without an application for employment authorization or advance parole, how do I apply now for those benefits?
If you failed to apply for work card or a travel document at the time you filed your adjustment of status application, you need to wait until you received a receipt for the I-485 petition. You can then apply for work and travel benefits by providing a copy of the receipt along with the other forms and supporting documentation.
As far as I remember there was case with one of the IV member whose EAD/AP checks got cashed although he filed on July 2nd. He was the only case of its type and I remember someone from the core clarifying that Aman or pappu helped that guy file his 485 case but his EAD was filed separately. I'm not sure how they manage to do that.
You may want to PM pappu or logiclife for that.
If I filed my case previously without an application for employment authorization or advance parole, how do I apply now for those benefits?
If you failed to apply for work card or a travel document at the time you filed your adjustment of status application, you need to wait until you received a receipt for the I-485 petition. You can then apply for work and travel benefits by providing a copy of the receipt along with the other forms and supporting documentation.
As far as I remember there was case with one of the IV member whose EAD/AP checks got cashed although he filed on July 2nd. He was the only case of its type and I remember someone from the core clarifying that Aman or pappu helped that guy file his 485 case but his EAD was filed separately. I'm not sure how they manage to do that.
You may want to PM pappu or logiclife for that.
m79
10-06 05:23 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
Hi
I am also in the same situation like you. My wife got AP and mine is still pending. Please let me know if you get yours approved.
Thank you.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
Hi
I am also in the same situation like you. My wife got AP and mine is still pending. Please let me know if you get yours approved.
Thank you.
stirfries
12-02 01:27 PM
Thanks SS777 !!!
I am optimistic as well !!! I am just hoping that I receive the documents by end of this week !
But at the same time, I wouldn't want to sit idle, just hoping !!! :)
I am going to try whatever options that might be available, to speed up the document receipt, if it is possible !!!
Probably, I can set up an appointment with InfoPass, sometime next week, and see what they have to say about this...
The scary part is, I have read several posts by other users who had reported the loss of document once it has been mailed out by USCIS. I hope I do not fall into that category and I want to be aware of the next course of action, if indeed, I fall into that category.
Cancelling my Tickets is the last option that I have in my mind !!!
The things that we have to go through to get a GC !!!! :)
My attorney finally received the AP documents on hand, 16 days after the online status had changed to "Document Production or Oath Ceremony".
At least, now I don't have to think about postponing my Tickets !!!
Hope it works out for all you folks !!!
Good Luck !!!
Thanks,
I am optimistic as well !!! I am just hoping that I receive the documents by end of this week !
But at the same time, I wouldn't want to sit idle, just hoping !!! :)
I am going to try whatever options that might be available, to speed up the document receipt, if it is possible !!!
Probably, I can set up an appointment with InfoPass, sometime next week, and see what they have to say about this...
The scary part is, I have read several posts by other users who had reported the loss of document once it has been mailed out by USCIS. I hope I do not fall into that category and I want to be aware of the next course of action, if indeed, I fall into that category.
Cancelling my Tickets is the last option that I have in my mind !!!
The things that we have to go through to get a GC !!!! :)
My attorney finally received the AP documents on hand, 16 days after the online status had changed to "Document Production or Oath Ceremony".
At least, now I don't have to think about postponing my Tickets !!!
Hope it works out for all you folks !!!
Good Luck !!!
Thanks,
No comments:
Post a Comment