immigrationmatters30
04-06 09:13 PM
You read my mind.
Guys,
Also I have analyzed that people who have a date in 2008 somehow predict that the dates might move to 2008 and people who have a PD of July predict that dates will move to August . This is just an observation and nothing more , and if you go through the threads thats exactly what you will see.
Guys,
Also I have analyzed that people who have a date in 2008 somehow predict that the dates might move to 2008 and people who have a PD of July predict that dates will move to August . This is just an observation and nothing more , and if you go through the threads thats exactly what you will see.
wallpaper pictures Rod Blagojevich (Photo by rod blagojevich trial.
ksiddaba
07-11 11:04 AM
Please don't undercut the Flower campaign. We need to give time for this to percolate through the main stream media. Please please please don't start delivering all kinds of things to USCIS. My two cents!
PS: I did participate in the flower campaign early on so please don't post stuff saying I am a naysayer etc.
PS: I did participate in the flower campaign early on so please don't post stuff saying I am a naysayer etc.
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
2011 Is Rod Blagojevich, the
gc_nebraska
08-17 12:49 PM
All,
Received CPO mail today for self, wife but then after 30 mins the status changed to 'deceison' .
Does this mean I am greened?
EB2 - India PD DEC 22 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Aug 21 2007.
Opened SR on 08/11/2010
Received CPO mail today for self, wife but then after 30 mins the status changed to 'deceison' .
Does this mean I am greened?
EB2 - India PD DEC 22 2005. NSC
I-485 receipt date: Aug 21 2007.
Opened SR on 08/11/2010
more...
truthinspector
08-21 07:52 AM
When I cancelled in Mar-09 , my experience was different. The CS was humble and only persuaded me not to leave. But the cancellation process went smooth.
FYI...I heard from some of my friends that Vonage is good as long as you are its customer. Once you call CS and tell them you are leaving...they play all sorts of dirty tricks.
FYI...I heard from some of my friends that Vonage is good as long as you are its customer. Once you call CS and tell them you are leaving...they play all sorts of dirty tricks.
JazzByTheBay
09-24 09:03 AM
In essence what the memo seems to state is that I can have another employer file an I-140 petition, and if approved, simply substitute the I-140 in my existing I-485.
Is that right?
jazz
It is possible to use your new approved 140(EB2). Your date are current and do request USCIS and go in front of GC line. Good luck.
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
Is that right?
jazz
It is possible to use your new approved 140(EB2). Your date are current and do request USCIS and go in front of GC line. Good luck.
You can request USCIS with reference to this citation/pdf.
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/seminars/august2002_citation2c.pdf
Please make a token contribution to IV.
more...
lotsofspace
01-10 11:37 AM
It is not popular to say so but I have this doubt too.
Currently at least there is no requirement to notify and you only need to prove you still have a similar job OFFER (not necessarily working) if and when there is an RFE.
Only good thing happened to us in last decade, as far as I can remember, is AC21 and concurrent filing.
All these immigration laws are designed to keep us indebted/bonded to the employer. They might see this as a liberating provision and try to chain us back. This may or may not happen, but just my paranoid reaction,.
Hope AC21 don't go away like labor substitution has. :(
i don't what is the problem you have with AC21? it works just fine and nobody has a problem with it.
if you ask them to mess with it, and it seems to have no problem, they will either make it worse or take it away.
i think you guys are far too risk averse and want everything guaranteed in black and white. it does not work that way and we are not so important in the scheme of things anyway.
Currently at least there is no requirement to notify and you only need to prove you still have a similar job OFFER (not necessarily working) if and when there is an RFE.
Only good thing happened to us in last decade, as far as I can remember, is AC21 and concurrent filing.
All these immigration laws are designed to keep us indebted/bonded to the employer. They might see this as a liberating provision and try to chain us back. This may or may not happen, but just my paranoid reaction,.
Hope AC21 don't go away like labor substitution has. :(
i don't what is the problem you have with AC21? it works just fine and nobody has a problem with it.
if you ask them to mess with it, and it seems to have no problem, they will either make it worse or take it away.
i think you guys are far too risk averse and want everything guaranteed in black and white. it does not work that way and we are not so important in the scheme of things anyway.
2010 rod blagojevich funny.
ameryki
09-18 02:56 PM
anyone looking to start off with 2 free months of vonage pm me.
more...
sheela
09-28 07:00 PM
I doubt the USCIS has any rules regarding processing queue. Some people are waiting 10+ years, others receive approvals in 2 months.
My understanding on this is - after I-485 uscis works on RD and if your FP/NC is cleared PD is looked at for preference in each category but uscis won't wait guy stuck in nc for 10 yr to make way for your gc. If you are lucky you may get it sooner than you expect
My understanding on this is - after I-485 uscis works on RD and if your FP/NC is cleared PD is looked at for preference in each category but uscis won't wait guy stuck in nc for 10 yr to make way for your gc. If you are lucky you may get it sooner than you expect
hair Rod Blagojevich, left, talks
abhijitp
07-31 02:59 PM
Pappu, special thanks for researching this topic, and posting updates regularly.
Last week I too consulted a high profile (about $200 per 15 minutes... you should be able to guess, I am not sure I am alowed to mention the name) lawyer to discuss this issue. To give you a brief background, my lawyer did not include the Employment Verification letter
1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got last week.
Thanks!
Last week I too consulted a high profile (about $200 per 15 minutes... you should be able to guess, I am not sure I am alowed to mention the name) lawyer to discuss this issue. To give you a brief background, my lawyer did not include the Employment Verification letter
1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got last week.
Thanks!
more...
glus
01-16 07:24 AM
I am not sure if I am correct, but I have heard it is totally up to you what form to use when re-entering the U.S. If one posseses a valid H1 and AP, it is up to him what to use. Many people choose to use H1 to enter to safeguard status while I485 is pending. I may be wrong; but I could swear I read about this some time ago.....
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
hot Edition Rod Blagojevich is
nk2006
09-10 09:54 AM
We should all feel proud that many co-sponsors are a result of efforts of IV and its members.When members ask proof of success, this is one of them.
Well done IV for the work so far - but we have to continue this push. Any idea on which other members we should call.
Note: I spoke with a few members to encourage them to call, there seems some confusion in their understanding of which congressmen we should call first. Calling the current co-sponsors may not be necessary but calling other members might still result in adding more co-sponsors (if we are able to convince them).
Friends, October bulletin is out and we are again seeing the retrogession. So forget about the talk that all dates will become current - it wont happen unless there is a change in law and past visa numbers are recaptured. This bill is our biggest and only hope until for atleast another year. Lets do our part and hope for the best (believe me - all it takes is less than an hour of your time).
Well done IV for the work so far - but we have to continue this push. Any idea on which other members we should call.
Note: I spoke with a few members to encourage them to call, there seems some confusion in their understanding of which congressmen we should call first. Calling the current co-sponsors may not be necessary but calling other members might still result in adding more co-sponsors (if we are able to convince them).
Friends, October bulletin is out and we are again seeing the retrogession. So forget about the talk that all dates will become current - it wont happen unless there is a change in law and past visa numbers are recaptured. This bill is our biggest and only hope until for atleast another year. Lets do our part and hope for the best (believe me - all it takes is less than an hour of your time).
more...
house Rod Blagojevich (credit: John
mamit
02-10 09:27 AM
This is what I did -
1. Had my lawyer followup with consulate -they respond quickly to that.
2. Letter from congressman - congressman called consulate and i got a written reply from congressman on status in less than a week
3. Email followup with consulate
4. Calls to DOS - have to be on hold for a bit though..
Interview - Jan 3; 221g (pink) Phd in bio; additional info submitted - Jan 7th; consulate sent info to DOS - Jan 14th; DOS clearance - Jan 31st. Visa issued - Feb 6th...
Bpositive, thanks very much for the verification. At first, I thought my friend was just scaring me by suggesting the senator/congressman route, but seeing your case now I feel foolish as I should've been doing this in early January. I will check my status tomorrow (monday) with the Delhi consulate once more, and then, if need be (fingers crossed), will talk to my boss in Houston about your suggestions regarding congressman's letter. By the way, what if I call DOS tomorrow and they say the I've been cleared, would it still make sense to have congressman approach them? Too many questions, I know, but I guess you know this feeling. Thanks again.
1. Had my lawyer followup with consulate -they respond quickly to that.
2. Letter from congressman - congressman called consulate and i got a written reply from congressman on status in less than a week
3. Email followup with consulate
4. Calls to DOS - have to be on hold for a bit though..
Interview - Jan 3; 221g (pink) Phd in bio; additional info submitted - Jan 7th; consulate sent info to DOS - Jan 14th; DOS clearance - Jan 31st. Visa issued - Feb 6th...
Bpositive, thanks very much for the verification. At first, I thought my friend was just scaring me by suggesting the senator/congressman route, but seeing your case now I feel foolish as I should've been doing this in early January. I will check my status tomorrow (monday) with the Delhi consulate once more, and then, if need be (fingers crossed), will talk to my boss in Houston about your suggestions regarding congressman's letter. By the way, what if I call DOS tomorrow and they say the I've been cleared, would it still make sense to have congressman approach them? Too many questions, I know, but I guess you know this feeling. Thanks again.
tattoo Rod Blagojevich Convicted Of
nat23
04-05 05:19 PM
Let's assume the date moves to Aug 07 by September of this year.
What will happen after that? I mean what would be the rate of movement
What will happen after that? I mean what would be the rate of movement
more...
pictures Rod Blagojevich
thescadaman
08-27 10:35 PM
Initially I ignored this thread as some advertisement. Then I noticed that this thread was staying visible for several days. I got curious and started reading it and following the posts - Got convinced - Purchased the plan 2 days ago and I got my Vonage adapter today. I can now make long distance calls and calls to India all inclusive the 25 plus taxes.
This is super cool!
I called customer support and asked then to show me exactly where it says ALL India calls including cellphones are inclusive in free minutes. The support was nice and showed me this link
Vonage - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.vonage.com/how_vonage_works_faq/?lid=faq_vonage_world&refer_id=WEBSR0706010001W1)
Quote
Are calls to mobile numbers free with Vonage World?
Vonage World includes free unlimited calling to cell phones in the Bahamas, Brunei, Canada, China, Guam, Hong Kong, India, Macau, Malaysia, Puerto Rico, Saipan, San Marino, Singapore, Thailand, the United States and the US Virgin Islands. See included country list
Unquote
Thanks everyone for sharing this good offer for real.
This is super cool!
I called customer support and asked then to show me exactly where it says ALL India calls including cellphones are inclusive in free minutes. The support was nice and showed me this link
Vonage - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.vonage.com/how_vonage_works_faq/?lid=faq_vonage_world&refer_id=WEBSR0706010001W1)
Quote
Are calls to mobile numbers free with Vonage World?
Vonage World includes free unlimited calling to cell phones in the Bahamas, Brunei, Canada, China, Guam, Hong Kong, India, Macau, Malaysia, Puerto Rico, Saipan, San Marino, Singapore, Thailand, the United States and the US Virgin Islands. See included country list
Unquote
Thanks everyone for sharing this good offer for real.
dresses the Rod Blagojevich trial
nuke
09-24 02:58 PM
Current visa bulletin states following.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Question: What does the line 'Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620.' means???
2. Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%, or 7,320.
Question: What does the line 'Section 202 prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based preference limits, i.e., 25,620.' means???
more...
makeup Rod Blagojevich, Superstar
Saralayar
01-08 01:08 AM
I am surprised to see this thread active this long. Earlier I have with help of Saralayar and other members have bring this point to attention. But at that time no one was supporting Idea.
I see increasing support for the Idea as GC journey become longer and longer.
Earlier I have pointed following points that I want to bring to remind if we want to get real support for this idea of early CITIZENSHIP AFTER GREEN CARD
(1) I-140 and I-485 must be approved.
(@) Time should be considered only after getting GC
(3) For getting closer for political support our proposal should be close to Existing laws for FAMILY BASED and MARRIAGE BASED CITIZENSHIPS
So we should argur that if YOU HAVE MASTER AND ABOVE IN STEM FILEDS YOu can get CITIZEN SHIP 5 yrs from date of Approval of I-140 ( which make it closer to fmaily based) and THREE YEARS from Date of Approval of I-485 (closer to marriage based citizens). You can get earlier of two . But when you get Citizenship your I-485 must be approved for ATLEAST 1 year.
The above requirements can get closer to Marriage and family based and also help 90% of IV members.
Adding the clause for the EDUCATIONAL THING might be able to get more political support also
Thanks
Core IV can consolidate the valueable points like this for the argument.
I see increasing support for the Idea as GC journey become longer and longer.
Earlier I have pointed following points that I want to bring to remind if we want to get real support for this idea of early CITIZENSHIP AFTER GREEN CARD
(1) I-140 and I-485 must be approved.
(@) Time should be considered only after getting GC
(3) For getting closer for political support our proposal should be close to Existing laws for FAMILY BASED and MARRIAGE BASED CITIZENSHIPS
So we should argur that if YOU HAVE MASTER AND ABOVE IN STEM FILEDS YOu can get CITIZEN SHIP 5 yrs from date of Approval of I-140 ( which make it closer to fmaily based) and THREE YEARS from Date of Approval of I-485 (closer to marriage based citizens). You can get earlier of two . But when you get Citizenship your I-485 must be approved for ATLEAST 1 year.
The above requirements can get closer to Marriage and family based and also help 90% of IV members.
Adding the clause for the EDUCATIONAL THING might be able to get more political support also
Thanks
Core IV can consolidate the valueable points like this for the argument.
girlfriend Rod Blagojevich and his wife,
Techieforever
08-13 11:32 AM
Hello guys
Today I had an infopass appointment but it was not at all helpful (The chinese guy whom I talked had no idea at all).. could any body please tell me how to open SR (Any help is greatly appreciated guys)
thanks
Today I had an infopass appointment but it was not at all helpful (The chinese guy whom I talked had no idea at all).. could any body please tell me how to open SR (Any help is greatly appreciated guys)
thanks
hairstyles Rod Blagojevich, Patti
ab_tak_chappan
08-21 12:04 AM
You sure are one of those cry babies :D:D
Good luck buddy with your endeavors!
Well sir, let me disabuse you of that notion. Eb3-other workers is ahead of EB3, and that in itself flies in the face of your assertions.
Why should USCIS approach oldest priority first? Well because that is how the law is. The law only affords you the initial set of numbers all the spill-over numbers from another category is supposed to be used in a FIFO manner.
You have made other comments about being cry-babies etc, I could respond to that in more than kind, but I will not, because I refuse to get distracted beyond sane arguments. And BTW: respect, not unlike trust, is to be gained, not asked to be followed.
Good luck buddy with your endeavors!
Well sir, let me disabuse you of that notion. Eb3-other workers is ahead of EB3, and that in itself flies in the face of your assertions.
Why should USCIS approach oldest priority first? Well because that is how the law is. The law only affords you the initial set of numbers all the spill-over numbers from another category is supposed to be used in a FIFO manner.
You have made other comments about being cry-babies etc, I could respond to that in more than kind, but I will not, because I refuse to get distracted beyond sane arguments. And BTW: respect, not unlike trust, is to be gained, not asked to be followed.
vkrishn
09-11 02:05 AM
Got an InfoPass scheduled, and created a SR. This is taking way too long, and now April + May approvals are rolling in...
jazz
I am sure you will get it. Response to a SR takes about 10-15 days. I opened my second SR on Aug 30th and got the response today. I was approved on Sep 7th.
Things i did from Aug 1st:-
Congresswoman (Zoe Lofgren): Her office helped me getting the PD correct in the USCIS system. When i made requested Zoe's office to enquire about my case they told me that PD is Feb 2007 instead of Feb 2006. I gave them my I140 and her office contacted NSC and NSC corrected the PD.
Ombudsman: Sent Email on Aug 10th and got a reply on Aug 11th that they will enquire with USCIS. Got a call from USCIS that my case is in transit.
AP approved on 08/26 and Soft LUD's on 08/27 and 09/02.
Attorney made a enquiry on August 25th about I485 with USCIS and was told to waiti 30 days.
Sep 7th: I485 approved.
Check to make sure your category and PD are correct in the USCIS system. Just to make sure.
jazz
I am sure you will get it. Response to a SR takes about 10-15 days. I opened my second SR on Aug 30th and got the response today. I was approved on Sep 7th.
Things i did from Aug 1st:-
Congresswoman (Zoe Lofgren): Her office helped me getting the PD correct in the USCIS system. When i made requested Zoe's office to enquire about my case they told me that PD is Feb 2007 instead of Feb 2006. I gave them my I140 and her office contacted NSC and NSC corrected the PD.
Ombudsman: Sent Email on Aug 10th and got a reply on Aug 11th that they will enquire with USCIS. Got a call from USCIS that my case is in transit.
AP approved on 08/26 and Soft LUD's on 08/27 and 09/02.
Attorney made a enquiry on August 25th about I485 with USCIS and was told to waiti 30 days.
Sep 7th: I485 approved.
Check to make sure your category and PD are correct in the USCIS system. Just to make sure.
nk2006
11-08 08:38 PM
I am sorry if I am wrong, but do you think if IV CORE try to hold a meeting with top CIS officials on this issue, wouldn't that be more effective? Many members reported not getting proper response to letters. Who knows whether anyone @CIS has time & willingness to read and act on our letters? Why not take an active approach rather than passive one?
I agree, We still should send the letters though. I will send mine by monday Nov. 10. Meanwhile, if we can do the webfax or email, we may can have more members participate. just my 2 cents!
Thanks for planning to send the letters.
Actually this letter campaign is just one part of the whole exercize. There are other efforts to talk with USCIS officials but to get positive/quick results we need to make enough noise so that officials recognize that it is a problem affecting large number of people. We need to keep on sending letters.
As can be expected its not an easy task to establish a proper channel and talk to officials and make them agree that recent spate of denials are wrong and are not in accordance with AC21 regulations (as someone pointed out AC21 regulations are only guidelines and not rules - so we need to tread a careful path here). To establish this proper channel and also for strong negotiation in our favor - we need to bring attention to this issue. The best way for that is to write to them - of course we might receive some generic replies, its fine - but if we send hundreds of letters with same request/complaint it does will catch their attention and help us in speeding up the other steps that are thought of as part of this campaign.
But first thing is to write - its kind of disappointing to see the number of letters sent (or to be sent). It only takes a few minutes.
I agree, We still should send the letters though. I will send mine by monday Nov. 10. Meanwhile, if we can do the webfax or email, we may can have more members participate. just my 2 cents!
Thanks for planning to send the letters.
Actually this letter campaign is just one part of the whole exercize. There are other efforts to talk with USCIS officials but to get positive/quick results we need to make enough noise so that officials recognize that it is a problem affecting large number of people. We need to keep on sending letters.
As can be expected its not an easy task to establish a proper channel and talk to officials and make them agree that recent spate of denials are wrong and are not in accordance with AC21 regulations (as someone pointed out AC21 regulations are only guidelines and not rules - so we need to tread a careful path here). To establish this proper channel and also for strong negotiation in our favor - we need to bring attention to this issue. The best way for that is to write to them - of course we might receive some generic replies, its fine - but if we send hundreds of letters with same request/complaint it does will catch their attention and help us in speeding up the other steps that are thought of as part of this campaign.
But first thing is to write - its kind of disappointing to see the number of letters sent (or to be sent). It only takes a few minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment