glus
01-16 09:59 AM
If you entered on AP and your I485 is pending, you cannot fell out-of-status as you are being considered in "Adjustment of status" status. This is somehow a special kind of a status. The only problem one may have is if the I-485 is denied for any reason. At that point you fell out of status. That's the reason many choose to enter on h1 instead AP. Then, even if I485 is denied, a person who entered on H1 is still in H1 legal status. Hence, it is generally advisable to enter and maintain an non-immigrant status while i485 is pending.
Regards,
I am not an attorney. If you need a legal advise, seek an immigration attorney.
Regards,
I am not an attorney. If you need a legal advise, seek an immigration attorney.
wallpaper ethenny frankel pregnant
garybanz
01-08 02:29 PM
I will participate in this wholeheartedly. One suggestion to the admin: perhaps we can post this in other websites also like ? I know a lot of people use that site for posting problems etc and whoever is not in IV might also get to know about it.
I hear that the guy who runs is not very helpful, but it will be great if we can have a link on Sheela Murthy's web site. She might like to help us out.
I hear that the guy who runs is not very helpful, but it will be great if we can have a link on Sheela Murthy's web site. She might like to help us out.
Vikul
10-03 12:41 AM
Got my receipt today. Till friday i wasn't in there sytem, they told me to call after 1 month n today my company lawyers got the receipt. So guys hold on.... :-)
vikul
vikul
2011 house Bethenny Frankel
puddonhead
06-18 12:58 PM
>> I disagree. By not reporting the fraud at workplace, it puts rest of workforce not at level playing field.
Hmmm.. Level playing field. You mean the field where you set the rules? UAW did that in GM - you know?
If there is someone who can do my job cheaper or better or more efficiently - by all means it should go to him. I need to then find something where I am good at. Thats what competition is! Of course - this "efficiency" can not come by illegal behavior. Illegal behavior (like the L1 fraud) has other hidden problems.
So on your question about "l1 fraud": by all means I am for reporting it. However, there is another overriding concern for ALL OF US - how will the economy behave? I dont want to worsen things by "reporting fraud" at a mass scale right now and create trouble for companies that are already suffering. I will do that when that will be beneficial for the US Economy (translation - "all of us - even citizens").
I am not for tolerating or condoning illegal behavior - however, I am all for moderating my responses and prioritizing the fights. I am also for not behaving like the UAW members.
>> You are right. If you are not impacted by fraud, one will be least interested in reporting the fraud. Only when you get impacted, the fraud appears real and serious.
You are reading between the lines too literally - so much so that you misinterpret everything like the bible-thumpers. Impact "me" = Impact "us" = Impact "everybody in the US - including the US Citizens".
>> Taking your example further, due to budget constraints, the manager will be more inclined to replace workers to L1 workers to save cost. Do you want this? This will impact people in short term.
Same answer as the first question.
It's a pretty nuanced position. I hope I have been able to explain it properly.
Hmmm.. Level playing field. You mean the field where you set the rules? UAW did that in GM - you know?
If there is someone who can do my job cheaper or better or more efficiently - by all means it should go to him. I need to then find something where I am good at. Thats what competition is! Of course - this "efficiency" can not come by illegal behavior. Illegal behavior (like the L1 fraud) has other hidden problems.
So on your question about "l1 fraud": by all means I am for reporting it. However, there is another overriding concern for ALL OF US - how will the economy behave? I dont want to worsen things by "reporting fraud" at a mass scale right now and create trouble for companies that are already suffering. I will do that when that will be beneficial for the US Economy (translation - "all of us - even citizens").
I am not for tolerating or condoning illegal behavior - however, I am all for moderating my responses and prioritizing the fights. I am also for not behaving like the UAW members.
>> You are right. If you are not impacted by fraud, one will be least interested in reporting the fraud. Only when you get impacted, the fraud appears real and serious.
You are reading between the lines too literally - so much so that you misinterpret everything like the bible-thumpers. Impact "me" = Impact "us" = Impact "everybody in the US - including the US Citizens".
>> Taking your example further, due to budget constraints, the manager will be more inclined to replace workers to L1 workers to save cost. Do you want this? This will impact people in short term.
Same answer as the first question.
It's a pretty nuanced position. I hope I have been able to explain it properly.
more...
pd052009
03-31 12:12 PM
How do you guys know that 12K visas will be allotted in one single month(May)? From USCIS point of view, won't it make sense to keep some numbers as reserve, if the EB1 picks up in the 2nd half?
Thanks for the info....I believe it will be either Dec 2006 or Jan 2007
Thanks for the info....I believe it will be either Dec 2006 or Jan 2007
sc3
08-20 07:39 PM
Dear Mr. <insert ombudsman's name here>,
SUB: Visa allocation for employment based third preference workers
I am one of the thousands of employment based third category worker waiting for the priority dates to be current since many years. As you must be well aware that the backlog for EB3 category, and in particular for the Indian chargeability category has been lagging behind by almost 7 years, part of which is due to heavy subscription for the category.
All through the years, heavy demand in EB3 category was in part alleviated by the spill-over visas from other categories. This was mainly due to unused visas in employment based first category, and to a lesser extent from employment based second category. For FY2008, the long standing spill-over utilization rules seems to have been changed, resulting in a drastic reduction of visas available to EB3 category.
While I am not aware of an official guidance or a memo that details the impetus behind the change, it is widely accepted in the immigrant community that AC21 legislation played a major role in the change of rules.
The immigrant community is confused by this new reading as the confluence of AC21 along with pre-existing legislations does not make the spill-over of EB1 into EB3 disappear. AC21 legislations clarifies that the visa numbers in one category must have no consumers within the same category before it be released for use by other category. That is any number within EB2 will not be granted to EB3 unless there is no demand with EB2 for that number [Do we need this additional clarification?].
Spill-over from EB1 is dictated by the original text of section <$insert section here>, which seems to state that both Eb2 and EB3 should simultaneously benefit from the additional numbers. This reading is supported by the hypothesis that the EB5 spill-over which is mentioned in EB1 has not further mention in EB2 or EB3, but still the numbers from EB5 spills further down into EB2 and EB3 when Eb1 does not fully utilize the numbers.
Furthermore, in the Visa bulletin for July 2008, it is mentioned that the spill-over numbers are required to be assigned to the longest pending case first. I assume, though not explicitly stated, that this assumes per-country caps to be reached first.
Given the current trend in the priority dates for EB3, it is very clear that the spill-over from EB1 is being denied for EB3 preference, and this is causing tremendous hardships to people who have been waiting for long periods of time. I am sure that you agree that waiting for 7 years for a green card is extremely unfortunate.
I hope you to hear back about your views on the spill-over allocation, and hopefully see some action that will alter the spill-over rules to allocate unused EB1 numbers to alleviate the wait times being seen by employment based third preference workers.
Thanking you,
Sincerely
SUB: Visa allocation for employment based third preference workers
I am one of the thousands of employment based third category worker waiting for the priority dates to be current since many years. As you must be well aware that the backlog for EB3 category, and in particular for the Indian chargeability category has been lagging behind by almost 7 years, part of which is due to heavy subscription for the category.
All through the years, heavy demand in EB3 category was in part alleviated by the spill-over visas from other categories. This was mainly due to unused visas in employment based first category, and to a lesser extent from employment based second category. For FY2008, the long standing spill-over utilization rules seems to have been changed, resulting in a drastic reduction of visas available to EB3 category.
While I am not aware of an official guidance or a memo that details the impetus behind the change, it is widely accepted in the immigrant community that AC21 legislation played a major role in the change of rules.
The immigrant community is confused by this new reading as the confluence of AC21 along with pre-existing legislations does not make the spill-over of EB1 into EB3 disappear. AC21 legislations clarifies that the visa numbers in one category must have no consumers within the same category before it be released for use by other category. That is any number within EB2 will not be granted to EB3 unless there is no demand with EB2 for that number [Do we need this additional clarification?].
Spill-over from EB1 is dictated by the original text of section <$insert section here>, which seems to state that both Eb2 and EB3 should simultaneously benefit from the additional numbers. This reading is supported by the hypothesis that the EB5 spill-over which is mentioned in EB1 has not further mention in EB2 or EB3, but still the numbers from EB5 spills further down into EB2 and EB3 when Eb1 does not fully utilize the numbers.
Furthermore, in the Visa bulletin for July 2008, it is mentioned that the spill-over numbers are required to be assigned to the longest pending case first. I assume, though not explicitly stated, that this assumes per-country caps to be reached first.
Given the current trend in the priority dates for EB3, it is very clear that the spill-over from EB1 is being denied for EB3 preference, and this is causing tremendous hardships to people who have been waiting for long periods of time. I am sure that you agree that waiting for 7 years for a green card is extremely unfortunate.
I hope you to hear back about your views on the spill-over allocation, and hopefully see some action that will alter the spill-over rules to allocate unused EB1 numbers to alleviate the wait times being seen by employment based third preference workers.
Thanking you,
Sincerely
more...
h1b_forever
09-14 08:28 AM
:(
2010 is ethenny frankel pregnant
DreamGC
09-10 09:30 AM
I called the following Representatives and left a message for all of them.
Lamar S. Smith, Texas (202) 225-4236 Left Message
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin (202) 225-5101 Left Message
Howard Coble, North Carolina (202) 225-3065 Left Message
Elton Gallegly, California (202) 225-5811 Left Message
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia (202) 225-5431 Left Message
Steve Chabot, Ohio (202) 225-2216 Left Message
Dan Lungren, California (202) 225-5716 Left Message
Chris Cannon, Utah (202) 225-7751 Left Message
Ric Keller, Florida (202) 225-2176 Left Message
Darrell Issa, California (202) 225-3906 Left Message
Mike Pence, Indiana (202) 225-3021 Left Message
Randy Forbes, Virginia (202) 225-6365 Left Message
Tom Feeney, Florida (202) 225-2706 Left Message
Trent Franks, Arizona (202) 225-4576 Left Message
Louie Gohmert, Texas (202) 225-3035 Left Message
Jim Jordan, Ohio (202) 225-2676 Left Message
Lamar S. Smith, Texas (202) 225-4236 Left Message
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin (202) 225-5101 Left Message
Howard Coble, North Carolina (202) 225-3065 Left Message
Elton Gallegly, California (202) 225-5811 Left Message
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia (202) 225-5431 Left Message
Steve Chabot, Ohio (202) 225-2216 Left Message
Dan Lungren, California (202) 225-5716 Left Message
Chris Cannon, Utah (202) 225-7751 Left Message
Ric Keller, Florida (202) 225-2176 Left Message
Darrell Issa, California (202) 225-3906 Left Message
Mike Pence, Indiana (202) 225-3021 Left Message
Randy Forbes, Virginia (202) 225-6365 Left Message
Tom Feeney, Florida (202) 225-2706 Left Message
Trent Franks, Arizona (202) 225-4576 Left Message
Louie Gohmert, Texas (202) 225-3035 Left Message
Jim Jordan, Ohio (202) 225-2676 Left Message
more...
smitha
07-09 10:09 PM
I exactly know where your statements about 2005-2006-2007 coming from. Your basic assumptions is that 2005-2006-2007 guys are those who just came to US 2-3 yrs back and now want their GC asap whereas you are waiting in line for 6-7 years...right?
Ma'm with all due respect, that is not correct for most of the cases. There are several people who has to re-file their labor for several reasons (employer greedy, company overtaken, laid-off, company gone bankrupt etc etc.). That does not mean that 2005-2006-2007 guys are asking that they should get GC before 2001-2004 people. What most of the people need is an ability to file for AOS so that they can indepenedent of the clutches of their employers.
I'm sure if you widen your horizon, you will be able to understand the plight of all your brothers and sisters stuck in this retrogression.
For your information
Smitha
EB2 India
PD-2005-May
I140 approved-Sept 2006
I have MS in EE from US and working since 2001,filed my GC in 2005 May(PERM).
However can you please tell me anyone who got GC in Eb2/Eb3(India) in 1-2 yr in the last 15 yrs?
Exactly that is now 2006-2007 PD guys are expecting to happen a miracle, right? I mean, apply 485,EAD ASAP.
If you guys really care about 2002-2003-2004 guys, then please please wait for OCT 07 bulletin and after that you can do anything you want. If they will retrogress the dates, then please fight but not before that.
This is just a suggestion. If you like follow it, otherwise ignore.
Ma'm with all due respect, that is not correct for most of the cases. There are several people who has to re-file their labor for several reasons (employer greedy, company overtaken, laid-off, company gone bankrupt etc etc.). That does not mean that 2005-2006-2007 guys are asking that they should get GC before 2001-2004 people. What most of the people need is an ability to file for AOS so that they can indepenedent of the clutches of their employers.
I'm sure if you widen your horizon, you will be able to understand the plight of all your brothers and sisters stuck in this retrogression.
For your information
Smitha
EB2 India
PD-2005-May
I140 approved-Sept 2006
I have MS in EE from US and working since 2001,filed my GC in 2005 May(PERM).
However can you please tell me anyone who got GC in Eb2/Eb3(India) in 1-2 yr in the last 15 yrs?
Exactly that is now 2006-2007 PD guys are expecting to happen a miracle, right? I mean, apply 485,EAD ASAP.
If you guys really care about 2002-2003-2004 guys, then please please wait for OCT 07 bulletin and after that you can do anything you want. If they will retrogress the dates, then please fight but not before that.
This is just a suggestion. If you like follow it, otherwise ignore.
hair Eight months pregnant, the
shreiks
06-22 10:22 AM
My lawyer recommends to do independent filing without the spouse. He says you get 2 bites at the apple. When the dates becomes current,USCIS won't adjudicate immediately. We have time to add the derivative spouse later on.
Making AOS filing is not acceptable to USCIS and may trigger personal interviews and confusion. He also said take the spouse approved 140 and do an addendum to the 485 saying he/she is doing an independent 485 though we are married.
Making AOS filing is not acceptable to USCIS and may trigger personal interviews and confusion. He also said take the spouse approved 140 and do an addendum to the 485 saying he/she is doing an independent 485 though we are married.
more...
eb_retrogession
02-09 02:47 PM
Ease in immigration standards called for
The United Press International, February 8, 2006
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060208-105741-3392r
Washington (UPI) -- A leader of a semiconductor company wants the United States to ease immigrations standards to make it easier to hire and retain foreign nationals.
Intel Chairman Craig Barrett, appearing on a question-and-answer forum on FT.com, said a market-based approach to granting work visas should replace the current system, which sets numerical limits on such documents.
Several leaders of technology companies have made similar requests of U.S. officials, the Financial Times said Wednesday. The visa classification that allows foreign engineers and scientists to temporarily relocate to the United States has a limit of 65,000. Some 140,000 green cards, allowing permanent stays, are granted each year.
Barrett said the figures are too low, pointing out the work visa total has already been reached this fiscal year.
'These arbitrary caps undercut business' ability to hire and retain the number of highly educated people in the field where we need to maintain our leading position,' Barrett said on FT.com.
Barrett suggested, 'We should just staple a green card to every advanced degree granted to a foreign national from a U.S. university in science and engineering.'
The United Press International, February 8, 2006
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060208-105741-3392r
Washington (UPI) -- A leader of a semiconductor company wants the United States to ease immigrations standards to make it easier to hire and retain foreign nationals.
Intel Chairman Craig Barrett, appearing on a question-and-answer forum on FT.com, said a market-based approach to granting work visas should replace the current system, which sets numerical limits on such documents.
Several leaders of technology companies have made similar requests of U.S. officials, the Financial Times said Wednesday. The visa classification that allows foreign engineers and scientists to temporarily relocate to the United States has a limit of 65,000. Some 140,000 green cards, allowing permanent stays, are granted each year.
Barrett said the figures are too low, pointing out the work visa total has already been reached this fiscal year.
'These arbitrary caps undercut business' ability to hire and retain the number of highly educated people in the field where we need to maintain our leading position,' Barrett said on FT.com.
Barrett suggested, 'We should just staple a green card to every advanced degree granted to a foreign national from a U.S. university in science and engineering.'
hot 2010 Bethenny Frankel Pregnant
CADude
09-20 03:20 PM
doing something is better than nothing... Please send fax that will be more effective than email (my experience). Anyway wait continue...... :)
I just email senator Evan Bayh, Congressmen Dan burton and USCIS complaint dept.
Thanks for all your help
I just email senator Evan Bayh, Congressmen Dan burton and USCIS complaint dept.
Thanks for all your help
more...
house New mom Bethenny Frankel
sodh
07-11 02:10 AM
Thankyou IV for the flower campaign GET WELL LUCKY AKA EMILIO.
tattoo house Bethenny Frankel #39
pro
10-01 03:56 PM
Please......put some details and how did you deal with the MTR, so that it will be very useful for everybody around here.
Hi you can find all the details in this thread.
"Wrongfull denial by cis and PD is current."
Hi you can find all the details in this thread.
"Wrongfull denial by cis and PD is current."
more...
pictures hairstyles Bethenny Frankel
pvadiga
11-03 12:09 AM
Sent the letters. Thanks
dresses Bethenny Frankel: Spring Break
leoindiano
10-07 01:52 PM
USCIS decided to take our $604 and give me an my wife APs in 9 days! They seem really efficient when they have to take money from us. But really slow when they have to approve GC applications (EB2, PD of Dec 2004). USCIS just seems to be interested in 'extortion' payments to employ USCIS staff - more a lawless mafia than a organization upholding the law!
BPositive, Sorry to hear that, I am about to apply for AP. My PD is nov 2004, EB2 -I . I am next in line to loose the money. Did you apply online?
BPositive, Sorry to hear that, I am about to apply for AP. My PD is nov 2004, EB2 -I . I am next in line to loose the money. Did you apply online?
more...
makeup ethenny frankel pregnant
pappu
08-04 06:38 PM
http://triceiver.com/USCIS_Background_Security_Check_Immigration.aspx
USCIS Background Security Checks
Copyright � Triceiver.com
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts security checks on all applicants seeking immigration benefit. Both green card and citizenship applications are subject to such scrutiny. Regardless of whether you file I-485 or seek Consular Processing, employment or family based, your case will not be approved unless several levels of background checks have been cleared.
However, there are currently a vast number of applications stuck in this process, waiting from months to several years. This has created tremendous anxiety among people affected, largely due to concerns over an unknown future and the lack of communications offered by authorities.
Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of background checks. There are typically three types of investigations, but USCIS may conduct other reviews if necessary.
IBIS Name Check
According to USCIS, “The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) … combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns.” It is usually a rather quick process, as USCIS can access information from these multiple government agencies electronically. The result is usually available immediately. However, it is not uncommon for this process to take several months as reported by the immigration community.
FBI Fingerprint Check
After submitting an immigration petition, the applicant will receive a fingerprint notice. The applicant is required to go to a nearby USCIS facility and have fingerprints, signature and photo taken. The information is then transmitted to the FBI to check for any criminal records. This is another quick process, and result is usually sent back to the USCIS within 24 - 48 hours.
However, if one’s fingerprint matches a record, the FBI will forward an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. An immigration officer will then review the information to see what effects it may have on the particular case. In case of previous arrests or charges, it is important to consult an attorney to ensure the accuracy of information in I-485 Adjust of Status applications.
The USCIS finger print notices will contain a code number, which represents what information is to be collected:
Code 1: 10 fingerprints
Code 2: Thumb finger print, photo and signature
Code 3: 10 fingerprints, photo and signature (code 1 + code 2)
Do not miss the fingerprint appointment. If you can’t make it, call the phone number in the notice to reschedule. If you didn’t receive the notice and got a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), respond before the deadline to explain your situation. Sometimes you may want to do the fingerprints early, and most service centers will allow walk-in if they are not busy. But make sure you bring the notice, which will be stamped and given back to you as a receipt.
The USCIS may request a second or third fingerprint appointment during the I485 process. The reason is that fingerprint results do expire, and USCIS still lose or misplace files. It is not uncommon for an applicant to do a code 3 fingerprint check, then just a few months later asked to do another one. Sometimes the last fingerprint check is mainly for supplying a digital photo in order to produce the green card; unfortunately this is not always the case.
Fingerprint checks are performed by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) in West Virginia. Our "How to contact USCIS and FBI" page lists their main phone number, but it is only useful to check whether FP was completed (not the actual results). Also note that fingerprint check is totally different from the FBI name check discussed below.
FBI Name Check
The FBI name check has been the source of most delays in the background check process. It is often confused with fingerprint check, but in fact is a completely different process. The FBI compares an applicant’s name, as well as variations and fragments of the name, against a large collection of “administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement.” The USCIS Fact Sheet reported that 80% of inquiries found no match and initial responses take about 2 weeks to receive from the FBI. Most of the remaining 20% cases are resolved within six months, and only less than 1% of cases take longer than six months complete FBI name check.
However, despite the small percentage, the total number of cases delayed by name check is still significant. According to USCIS Ombudsman’s 2006 annual report, “as of May 2006, USCIS reported 235,802 FBI name checks pending, with approximately 65 percent (153,166) of those cases pending more than 90 days and approximately 35 percent (82,824) pending more than one year.” The 2007 report released in June showed similar percentages, but the total number was even more daunting: 106,738 cases have been pending for more than one year. The Ombudsman also pointed out that:
“FBI name checks….significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their intended national security objectives.” and
“Stakeholder organizations and USCIS personnel across the country also regularly raise the issue of FBI name check delays as the most pervasive problem preventing completion of cases.”
Although some cases, such as EAD, AP and I-140, don't require FBI name check before approval, all green card applications (mostly I-485) must go through this process. And that is what people concern the most. So for this reason we will be discussing FBI name check separately on the next page.
USCIS Background Security Checks
Copyright � Triceiver.com
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) conducts security checks on all applicants seeking immigration benefit. Both green card and citizenship applications are subject to such scrutiny. Regardless of whether you file I-485 or seek Consular Processing, employment or family based, your case will not be approved unless several levels of background checks have been cleared.
However, there are currently a vast number of applications stuck in this process, waiting from months to several years. This has created tremendous anxiety among people affected, largely due to concerns over an unknown future and the lack of communications offered by authorities.
Since 2002, USCIS has increased the number and scope of background checks. There are typically three types of investigations, but USCIS may conduct other reviews if necessary.
IBIS Name Check
According to USCIS, “The Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) … combines information from multiple agencies, databases and system interfaces to compile data relating to national security risks, public safety issues and other law enforcement concerns.” It is usually a rather quick process, as USCIS can access information from these multiple government agencies electronically. The result is usually available immediately. However, it is not uncommon for this process to take several months as reported by the immigration community.
FBI Fingerprint Check
After submitting an immigration petition, the applicant will receive a fingerprint notice. The applicant is required to go to a nearby USCIS facility and have fingerprints, signature and photo taken. The information is then transmitted to the FBI to check for any criminal records. This is another quick process, and result is usually sent back to the USCIS within 24 - 48 hours.
However, if one’s fingerprint matches a record, the FBI will forward an electronic copy of the criminal history (RAP sheet) to USCIS. An immigration officer will then review the information to see what effects it may have on the particular case. In case of previous arrests or charges, it is important to consult an attorney to ensure the accuracy of information in I-485 Adjust of Status applications.
The USCIS finger print notices will contain a code number, which represents what information is to be collected:
Code 1: 10 fingerprints
Code 2: Thumb finger print, photo and signature
Code 3: 10 fingerprints, photo and signature (code 1 + code 2)
Do not miss the fingerprint appointment. If you can’t make it, call the phone number in the notice to reschedule. If you didn’t receive the notice and got a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), respond before the deadline to explain your situation. Sometimes you may want to do the fingerprints early, and most service centers will allow walk-in if they are not busy. But make sure you bring the notice, which will be stamped and given back to you as a receipt.
The USCIS may request a second or third fingerprint appointment during the I485 process. The reason is that fingerprint results do expire, and USCIS still lose or misplace files. It is not uncommon for an applicant to do a code 3 fingerprint check, then just a few months later asked to do another one. Sometimes the last fingerprint check is mainly for supplying a digital photo in order to produce the green card; unfortunately this is not always the case.
Fingerprint checks are performed by the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) in West Virginia. Our "How to contact USCIS and FBI" page lists their main phone number, but it is only useful to check whether FP was completed (not the actual results). Also note that fingerprint check is totally different from the FBI name check discussed below.
FBI Name Check
The FBI name check has been the source of most delays in the background check process. It is often confused with fingerprint check, but in fact is a completely different process. The FBI compares an applicant’s name, as well as variations and fragments of the name, against a large collection of “administrative, applicant, criminal, personnel and other files compiled by law enforcement.” The USCIS Fact Sheet reported that 80% of inquiries found no match and initial responses take about 2 weeks to receive from the FBI. Most of the remaining 20% cases are resolved within six months, and only less than 1% of cases take longer than six months complete FBI name check.
However, despite the small percentage, the total number of cases delayed by name check is still significant. According to USCIS Ombudsman’s 2006 annual report, “as of May 2006, USCIS reported 235,802 FBI name checks pending, with approximately 65 percent (153,166) of those cases pending more than 90 days and approximately 35 percent (82,824) pending more than one year.” The 2007 report released in June showed similar percentages, but the total number was even more daunting: 106,738 cases have been pending for more than one year. The Ombudsman also pointed out that:
“FBI name checks….significantly delay adjudication of immigration benefits for many customers, hinder backlog reductions efforts, and may not achieve their intended national security objectives.” and
“Stakeholder organizations and USCIS personnel across the country also regularly raise the issue of FBI name check delays as the most pervasive problem preventing completion of cases.”
Although some cases, such as EAD, AP and I-140, don't require FBI name check before approval, all green card applications (mostly I-485) must go through this process. And that is what people concern the most. So for this reason we will be discussing FBI name check separately on the next page.
girlfriend ethenny frankel pregnant
rbkrao
09-13 03:33 PM
got PDA mail directly today saying the approval notice was mailed on Friday 10th Sep.
good luck to all waiting...
Thanks IV.
good luck to all waiting...
Thanks IV.
hairstyles Bobby frankel It through mymar
485Mbe4001
09-24 05:37 PM
My reasoning for less than 3k visas for EB3 I
Assume EB3 I has 2800 available per year
2800/12 = 233.33 per month.
The spread sheet shows that there are 135 pending with PD of March 01 or less. Which is less than 233 the PD did not cross April because there are 452 applications in april. A PD of April makes sense. Using calculation the PD will be July 2001 in Dec.
if you assume 8080 visas per year then there will be 673 visas availble per month and the PD should have crossed to May 2001 because the total pending 485s on May 1st are 587. If we go with your assumption then the PD in December will be at Jan 2002...I
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
Assume EB3 I has 2800 available per year
2800/12 = 233.33 per month.
The spread sheet shows that there are 135 pending with PD of March 01 or less. Which is less than 233 the PD did not cross April because there are 452 applications in april. A PD of April makes sense. Using calculation the PD will be July 2001 in Dec.
if you assume 8080 visas per year then there will be 673 visas availble per month and the PD should have crossed to May 2001 because the total pending 485s on May 1st are 587. If we go with your assumption then the PD in December will be at Jan 2002...I
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
desi3933
08-07 12:44 PM
...
...
I guess Mr. Sunshine will be out then, he said he is shit scared that he is going to loose his job...Dude, I say go home, NOW, aren't you ashamed about your sorry job....
I strongly disagree with you. No one has right to say to anyone else to go home.
We may not agree with SunnySurya for this lawsuit, but we should keep debate civilized. No personal attacks please.
___________________________
Permanent Resident since 2002
...
I guess Mr. Sunshine will be out then, he said he is shit scared that he is going to loose his job...Dude, I say go home, NOW, aren't you ashamed about your sorry job....
I strongly disagree with you. No one has right to say to anyone else to go home.
We may not agree with SunnySurya for this lawsuit, but we should keep debate civilized. No personal attacks please.
___________________________
Permanent Resident since 2002
aruny5
09-09 01:49 PM
called...
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
called these 5 representative during lunch time. Operator who picks the phone is taking messages by him / her self. I think they are getting lots of calls (most probably from NumbersUSA). These operators won't let you speak for more than 1 min.
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) 202-225-5811
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) 202-225-5431
Dan Lungren (R-CA) 202-225-5716
J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) 202-225-6365
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) 202-225-3035
called these 5 representative during lunch time. Operator who picks the phone is taking messages by him / her self. I think they are getting lots of calls (most probably from NumbersUSA). These operators won't let you speak for more than 1 min.
No comments:
Post a Comment