brain_implosion
12-13 10:05 PM
HAs anyone used CC after primary 485 filed? I got married this year, spouse from non retrogressed country, but 485 filed in July 07. Does any one have exp with this?
wallpaper jessica alba diet and exercise
dilber
06-13 08:02 PM
I have asked this question before and have called around 4 reps so far. Do I just leave a message or ask for the Congressman / woman? The receptionists are probably not even writing down the messages.
Hi Aah_GC
I called all the representatives and I thought they were not taking down any thing and way it even useful. basically I was doubting like you did so to one of the aides I asked did he get down the numbers and he just repeated them right back. Also any further doubts I had are cleared now as I see a lot of reps we were targeting actually becoming co-sponsors to these bills. So I would suggest (and urge) you to definitely call every lawmakers in all the 2 calling items. I mean it can never hurt right??
Hi Aah_GC
I called all the representatives and I thought they were not taking down any thing and way it even useful. basically I was doubting like you did so to one of the aides I asked did he get down the numbers and he just repeated them right back. Also any further doubts I had are cleared now as I see a lot of reps we were targeting actually becoming co-sponsors to these bills. So I would suggest (and urge) you to definitely call every lawmakers in all the 2 calling items. I mean it can never hurt right??
needinfo80
09-08 11:47 PM
Got medical RFE at 485 stage.Here are RFE details :
The civil surgeon's signature on the supplement Form to I-693 submmitted with your application to adjust status is photocopy and is therefore unacceptable.Your original Supplement Form to I-693 is hereby returned to you in the enclosed sealed envelope.Take this letter and your enlclosed Supplemental Form I-693 to the civil surgeon who administered your vaccinations.ONLY THE CIVIL SURGEON SHOULD OPEN THE SEALED ENVELOPE.The civil surgeon must verify that he or she completed the Supplemental Form to I-693 and place it in a sealed envelope before returning it to you.
The medical examination report,Form I-693 submitted with your application to adjust status ,also contains a photocopied signature and is therefore unacceptable.Your orginal Form I-693 is hereby returned to you in the enclosed sealed envelope.Take this letter and your enclosed Form I-693 to civil surgeon who conducted your medical examination.ONLY THE CIVIL SURGEON SHOULD OPEN THE SEALED ENVELOPE.The civil surgeon must verify that he or she completed the medical examination recorded on the I-693 and must sign and date the form in the space provided.
Did anyone receive similar RFE?If yes,how did you handle this RFE?
Do I need to take the tests again?
Can doctor fill a new form based on the previous results.
Appreciate your help and guidance in this matter.
Thanks
The civil surgeon's signature on the supplement Form to I-693 submmitted with your application to adjust status is photocopy and is therefore unacceptable.Your original Supplement Form to I-693 is hereby returned to you in the enclosed sealed envelope.Take this letter and your enlclosed Supplemental Form I-693 to the civil surgeon who administered your vaccinations.ONLY THE CIVIL SURGEON SHOULD OPEN THE SEALED ENVELOPE.The civil surgeon must verify that he or she completed the Supplemental Form to I-693 and place it in a sealed envelope before returning it to you.
The medical examination report,Form I-693 submitted with your application to adjust status ,also contains a photocopied signature and is therefore unacceptable.Your orginal Form I-693 is hereby returned to you in the enclosed sealed envelope.Take this letter and your enclosed Form I-693 to civil surgeon who conducted your medical examination.ONLY THE CIVIL SURGEON SHOULD OPEN THE SEALED ENVELOPE.The civil surgeon must verify that he or she completed the medical examination recorded on the I-693 and must sign and date the form in the space provided.
Did anyone receive similar RFE?If yes,how did you handle this RFE?
Do I need to take the tests again?
Can doctor fill a new form based on the previous results.
Appreciate your help and guidance in this matter.
Thanks
2011 Jessica Alba#39;s Diet
amitga
02-09 08:01 PM
One day we will also get notice to leave US, just like doctors in UK have got.
more...
fran5477
02-19 09:44 AM
Sorry to read about your 485 being rejected. Mine was too, my lawyer sent the wrong fee. They tried a second and a third time and came rejected for incorrect fees. I have not tried the InfoPass because they state clearly that applications will be rejected for incorrect fees. I did a lot of crying and I am very angry at my lawyer. My PD is Jan 05. My daughter got robbed of the opportunity to work and who knows how long it will take. She will surely age-out. However, don't give up maybe things will change soon.
snowcatcher
01-29 07:41 PM
Hello all, If you are from Texas please reply to this thread to get together and activate our state chapter. Any ideas are welcome. So please post to this thread and see how we can contribute/Volunteer to make IV stronger.
Thank you
Thank you
more...
kartikiran
06-17 11:11 AM
As part of this intiative, members who have gone through with service errors from USCIS can help and save others who might have to go through the same ordeal.
Please note, if you feel you have been a victim of USCIS service errors, sharing it here will enable IV to discuss these with USCIS and probably work on establishing a channel where USCIS can also help resolve applicants problems faster.
But the success of this initiative comes with how many of the past service errors we are able to collect.
So I hope members who have experienced a frustrating ordeal due to USCIS Service errors and had spent thousands of dollars for attorney fees to resolve those, can at least mention their ordeal here free of cost.
Every mention helps IV to get this initiative move forward.
Please note, if you feel you have been a victim of USCIS service errors, sharing it here will enable IV to discuss these with USCIS and probably work on establishing a channel where USCIS can also help resolve applicants problems faster.
But the success of this initiative comes with how many of the past service errors we are able to collect.
So I hope members who have experienced a frustrating ordeal due to USCIS Service errors and had spent thousands of dollars for attorney fees to resolve those, can at least mention their ordeal here free of cost.
Every mention helps IV to get this initiative move forward.
2010 Jessica Alba
the_jaguar
01-25 05:42 PM
TOI = Tabloid of India
more...
abqguy
01-19 05:15 PM
lmao :D
hair jessica alba diet and exercise
maine_gc
04-20 11:44 AM
Thanks for the reply.
We are not in Chicago. Their POE is in Chicago. I may have to go to the local USCIS office and clarify it.
I am also checking with the Attorney.
We are not in Chicago. Their POE is in Chicago. I may have to go to the local USCIS office and clarify it.
I am also checking with the Attorney.
more...
Ramba
10-31 11:11 AM
They usually issue the I-94 till the validity of the Petition or expiry of the Passport in some cases. In my case i had a valid stamp from May 2004 till Jan 2006, but I had a new H1 from a new employer in Oct 2004 which was approved till Jan 2007 and when I entered US in may 2005 I was issed a new I-94 till Jan 2007 even though the stamp will expire in Jan 2006.
Hope this helps.
Well. In non-immigrant visa admissions at POE, ICE officers has their own "power" in determining the period of stay. Even if anyone has 10 year visa stamp, they can admit only for 10 days if they want; no one can argue/challange it at POE. Further truth is; even they can deny admission to GC holder if they want or if they found something fishy. Nothing is guarentee at POE as well as in consulate for getting non-immigrant visa. So, the departure date in latest I-94 is the important date to comply with (to leave US or extend on time).
Hope this helps.
Well. In non-immigrant visa admissions at POE, ICE officers has their own "power" in determining the period of stay. Even if anyone has 10 year visa stamp, they can admit only for 10 days if they want; no one can argue/challange it at POE. Further truth is; even they can deny admission to GC holder if they want or if they found something fishy. Nothing is guarentee at POE as well as in consulate for getting non-immigrant visa. So, the departure date in latest I-94 is the important date to comply with (to leave US or extend on time).
hot Jessica Alba Diet and Exercise
greencard_fever
08-04 04:45 PM
call USCIS and ask them about the problem. If you get a good IO, they will open a ticket to consolidate. Try until, you get someone who sounds knowledgeable. Then take a infopass at your local office after a week to see if that helps any. I did that and took a infopass for this friday to check at local office. My PD is nov 2004. I will keep you posted.
I have checked with one of my co-worker who has two different A#'s too..is this is common..any way i am going to call USCIS and ask them
I have checked with one of my co-worker who has two different A#'s too..is this is common..any way i am going to call USCIS and ask them
more...
house Jessica Alba#39;s Work Out
hoolahoous
03-18 10:51 AM
i am switching job using ac21. my current employer trusts immigration attorneys. and as expected attorneys suggested (since they get paid) that company should withdraws both H1 and I-140 after I leave. I know I am safe, however USCIS will definitly send me an RFE at time of processing my application and I will have to answer that. So I am trying to put my side to them saying that if it is optional, they should not.
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
tattoo Jessica Alba Diet and Exercise
matreen
09-05 05:40 PM
Please don't give incorrect answers.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
All three corporation types (C-Corp, S-Corp, and LLC) have limited liability to its shareholders.
The main difference in these corp types are
1. How much record keeping is done
2. The way taxes are computed and filed with IRS
3. The kind of expenses allowed to deduct
4. C-Corp and LLC can carryover profits to next year(s), but S-Corp has to pass on profit (or loss) to the shareholders at the end of every calendar year.
For S-Corp, the shareholders must be Permanent Resident or US Citizen.
I have corporation of my own and this is C-Corp (due to kind of expenses I can deduct and/or write-off). I did all the incorporation work myself without any help from CPA. Incorporation is pretty straight forward and very easy. There are good books in Nolo Press on Corporate Incorporation.
____________________________________
Proud Indian American and Legal Immigrant
Thanks, nice reply.
Question: I am on EAD and inovked AC21 and working with new employer. I am planning to register a company confused which one to go with LLC or C Corp., by the way I live in California, San Jose. I heard that if you register a LLC in California every year you have to around $800 tax fee, weather you do a business or not, is it true?
If I go with C-Corp, shall I liable to $800 as well, any ideas??
What is the deference between LLC and C-Corp? I know every state has deferent laws but I would appreciate if someone can answer my questions from California state.
Thanks in advance.
more...
pictures Will Jessica diet and exercise
dealsnet
11-09 10:13 AM
You can check all LUD and all statistics by google. Add your case after log into google. see the link for details
http://imminav.com/gadgets.php
http://imminav.com/gadgets.php
dresses Jessica Alba#39;s diet and
pasupuleti
09-25 05:08 PM
I got denied by discover credit card due to not having a green card.
They said, it is just their policy that they won't give credit cards to
people who don't have green cards.
I could't co-sign my friends student loan application as i did't have a green card. They said, i have to be Permanent legal resident to co-sign.
Though i have a mortgage now, my first mortagage application got denied on same grounds.
Apparently fannie mae guildelines stipulates that H1B(foriegn investment) needs to put 60% down to get a mortgage loan.
But most of the lenders do mortgages anyways even for the people who does't have a ssn:).
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
They said, it is just their policy that they won't give credit cards to
people who don't have green cards.
I could't co-sign my friends student loan application as i did't have a green card. They said, i have to be Permanent legal resident to co-sign.
Though i have a mortgage now, my first mortagage application got denied on same grounds.
Apparently fannie mae guildelines stipulates that H1B(foriegn investment) needs to put 60% down to get a mortgage loan.
But most of the lenders do mortgages anyways even for the people who does't have a ssn:).
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
more...
makeup jessica alba diet and exercise
santb1975
04-15 04:36 PM
Team IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18387
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18387
Hi folks,
Just got back from UK on Friday after a month of family time, medicals and our embassy interview! Wanted to let you all know that we were approved and happily back in the US!!
Congrats on the latest admin wins and movements in campaigns/projects. I wanted to say a huge thank you but not farewell to the many kind folks who kept my spirits high in the short time I have been with IV:
abhijitp, needhelp, digital2k, paskal, gsc999, waiting4gc, pappu, chanduv23, santb1975, nolaindian32, walking dude, ja1hind, logiclife and many more. All of you rock and America is very lucky to have such genuine and brilliant people like you. I wish you the very best for your own journey.
I will be around for sure, just have to concentrate on securing some work and life for a bit, finally!
my best :)
girlfriend jessica alba sexy bikini
Lucky7
12-05 06:38 AM
with this type of money and job, you should have filed for EB2.. why EB3
At the time i was 2 semesters away from my Masters plus the mess my previous attorney had caused, my new attorney felt comfortable filing under EB3 because he felt i would have problems at the I-140 stage if i did not compete my Masters by that time.
In 2001 my attorney expected to have my GC by 2003 the latest and he was not counting on this mess with DBEC.
Hope all of us are through with this nightmare by end of 2007.
At the time i was 2 semesters away from my Masters plus the mess my previous attorney had caused, my new attorney felt comfortable filing under EB3 because he felt i would have problems at the I-140 stage if i did not compete my Masters by that time.
In 2001 my attorney expected to have my GC by 2003 the latest and he was not counting on this mess with DBEC.
Hope all of us are through with this nightmare by end of 2007.
hairstyles like Jessica Alba and Uma
retropain
09-01 11:08 AM
What's particularly interesting is the number of 'scare words' used in this selected testimony on aspects of the CIR bill. Its a lot like Loo Dobbs "War" on the middle class. Its clear CIS, Nusa, FAIR provide the script to him on immigration matters. I knew Loo wasn't that creative in the first place
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
amsgc
12-11 12:50 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
485Mbe4001
10-22 05:54 PM
what is the significance of three ??? in your question. one is used the other 2 are unused.
You have answered your own question...if Latvia had 2600 visas in EB3 FY 2006 and only 500 visas were used then 2100 are unused. They are transferred to people from other countries.
You have answered your own question...if Latvia had 2600 visas in EB3 FY 2006 and only 500 visas were used then 2100 are unused. They are transferred to people from other countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment