nag2007
10-11 04:43 PM
There used to be a time when the ability to apply for I485 even during retrogression. was of the highest priority for IV. Now majority of the IV members (hopefully) belong to post I485 filing group. Now the amount of green cards for employment category, exemptions from quota for family members, US degree holders etc, and country quota may be the higher priority issues if one goes by the numbers.
You mean to say that "Those who have EAD with PD 2006/2007" needs green Card and you dont bother about PD 2000-2005 from Backlog who never got a chance to apply i-485 ?
Moral: Allow the people to suffer who are suffering and let others make merry(PD 2006-2007).
You mean to say that "Those who have EAD with PD 2006/2007" needs green Card and you dont bother about PD 2000-2005 from Backlog who never got a chance to apply i-485 ?
Moral: Allow the people to suffer who are suffering and let others make merry(PD 2006-2007).
wallpaper Mercedes-Benz is launching the
xyzgc
10-22 06:25 PM
Sanju,
There are two issues that I have posted on this thread.
1. Interpretation/understanding a post.
2. RED DOT issue ( this is not my priority) . If you read the post keenly.
You, .. your self have made a mistake in Interpretating / understanding the post and reacted overly on the second issue by cornering the actual post.
Do you call this as a Interpretation issue?. Did you get what am I saying. First , read and understand what others meant to be. Don't JUMP on it.
If IV cannot fix this RED DOT issue, how could some one believe in IV would fight for FIXING broken immigration system?.
Perspective is not always matters, there are times .... some thing else matter too. Which is called "Self Respect"
When few people are spending time and knowledge on sharing their thoughts/ideas, how good it would to use F***words against them?.
There are many BAD words ... that some members have used against of my friends. Who no more wanted to participate in IV?.
Did you get what am I saying?
Dude, even I agree that this dot system is misused like lot of facilities we misuse. But pls don't highlight something really trivial in red...I nearly went blind, what has IV's dot system got to do with fixing the immigration system? Take it easy, bro. Btw, if some one has given you reds for no reason at all, let me know. I'll fix it the best I can by giving you a green. no issues there but highlighting in red looks scary, particularly with your font size.
There are two issues that I have posted on this thread.
1. Interpretation/understanding a post.
2. RED DOT issue ( this is not my priority) . If you read the post keenly.
You, .. your self have made a mistake in Interpretating / understanding the post and reacted overly on the second issue by cornering the actual post.
Do you call this as a Interpretation issue?. Did you get what am I saying. First , read and understand what others meant to be. Don't JUMP on it.
If IV cannot fix this RED DOT issue, how could some one believe in IV would fight for FIXING broken immigration system?.
Perspective is not always matters, there are times .... some thing else matter too. Which is called "Self Respect"
When few people are spending time and knowledge on sharing their thoughts/ideas, how good it would to use F***words against them?.
There are many BAD words ... that some members have used against of my friends. Who no more wanted to participate in IV?.
Did you get what am I saying?
Dude, even I agree that this dot system is misused like lot of facilities we misuse. But pls don't highlight something really trivial in red...I nearly went blind, what has IV's dot system got to do with fixing the immigration system? Take it easy, bro. Btw, if some one has given you reds for no reason at all, let me know. I'll fix it the best I can by giving you a green. no issues there but highlighting in red looks scary, particularly with your font size.
Rajk
09-10 02:26 PM
A Google search on Yates memo returned this link http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/ac21-51205.pdf.
I was particularly interested in wage difference issue, and above memo (Section I, Question 5) is vague in this regard. It states something like "Substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is same or similar". It is not clearly defined what is "substantial discrepancy". But if you take a look at Murthy's website at http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html, it conveys that wage difference is usually not an issue.
I was particularly interested in wage difference issue, and above memo (Section I, Question 5) is vague in this regard. It states something like "Substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is same or similar". It is not clearly defined what is "substantial discrepancy". But if you take a look at Murthy's website at http://www.murthy.com/news/n_yatmay.html, it conveys that wage difference is usually not an issue.
2011 Mercedes Benz SLK-Class 55
Jaime
08-31 05:34 PM
i meant to ask this earlier
if you are unable to make it to DC- and if it's for any reason that we can help with at all- please let me know. you can pm if you want.
Thanks so much man! Actually I was all set for Sept 13 but have a work appointment on Sept 18, yet I am even thinking of cancelling that to attend. I don't care how expensive it is. This is historic, just like Martin Luther King's Civil Rights movement! We can make history! It's an investment in our future!
if you are unable to make it to DC- and if it's for any reason that we can help with at all- please let me know. you can pm if you want.
Thanks so much man! Actually I was all set for Sept 13 but have a work appointment on Sept 18, yet I am even thinking of cancelling that to attend. I don't care how expensive it is. This is historic, just like Martin Luther King's Civil Rights movement! We can make history! It's an investment in our future!
more...
SK2007
10-12 10:46 AM
My labor was filed on July 2004 and I have not received an approval yet.
I got an RFE last week stating that Employeer has to again prove the RIR status of the application.
So Lawyer has started the advertisement process again.
I am in similar situation, My PD is AUG04, EB2(Traditional), stuck at PBEC, I got an RFE saying they have only the first page of the application. My lawyer just sent all the paper work. I am currently on my 10th year on H1B. Lost my first LC to sep 11 and since then stuck with PBEC. I guess these things happen thats all. I am hopeing they will start I-140 premium process again.
I got an RFE last week stating that Employeer has to again prove the RIR status of the application.
So Lawyer has started the advertisement process again.
I am in similar situation, My PD is AUG04, EB2(Traditional), stuck at PBEC, I got an RFE saying they have only the first page of the application. My lawyer just sent all the paper work. I am currently on my 10th year on H1B. Lost my first LC to sep 11 and since then stuck with PBEC. I guess these things happen thats all. I am hopeing they will start I-140 premium process again.
amoljak
05-15 07:49 AM
This is just some cheap theatrics by Durbin Grassley in preparation to attach their anti H1B restrictionist bill to CIR. Read more here: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3944
more...
LostInGCProcess
10-26 08:28 PM
Hi Guys,
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
This is very strange. However, I would like to know the reason that prompted you to inquire about your case status. What was the status that was showing on-line? Is it "application received and pending", the same usual statement?
I am EB2 I with a priority date of April 2006 (Direct labor applied and approved from employer A, I 140 applied and approved from Employer A, Filed 485 from Employer A itself)
Moved to Employer B using EAD in 2009 January. (Almost after 18 months after getting EAD)
10/15/2009 i called the TSC and asked the representative to know whether my case is pre approved or not. the representative told me that he does not have any of that data and opening a SR will let us know. i opened one SR on the same day.
I got a mail just now, with the following text in it.
"The status of your request is
Your case is on hold because your appear to be inadmissible under the current law
Rather than denying your application based on inadmissibility, we are placing your case on hold while the Department of Homeland security considers additional exercises of the security of Homeland security discretionary exemption authority.
Such an exercise of the exemption authority might allow us to approve the case."
What does this mean, any one has some idea about it.
This is very strange. However, I would like to know the reason that prompted you to inquire about your case status. What was the status that was showing on-line? Is it "application received and pending", the same usual statement?
2010 the Mercedes SLK
drirshad
06-05 05:06 AM
Things seems to be so messy that Ron has very cleverly avoided any speculation about the coming up visa bulletin.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5185
Ron Gotcher cannot predict the July 2008 visa bulletin, following is what he says.
Historically, about 40% of all immigrant visas/adjustment approvals take place in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (July - September). The law prohibits the issuance of more than 27% of the quota in any of the first three quarters. All visas that are unused (ordered but not issued) must be returned for use in the fourth quarter. This is why we see most visas being issued in the July - September interval.
This year, there is anecdotal evidence that the government may have violated the law and issued more visas in the first three quarters than permitted by statute. No one really knows if this is true or just the result of inartful language used by government officials. No one has released any absolute numbers as to actual issuances.
If the government did violate the law, then all bets are off and there is no way to anticipate what might be in the works.
If they did not violate the law, however, we can infer certain things from what we have seen thus far. We know that the CIS has enough AOS applications in the existing inventory (backlog) to fill the annual quota four times over. If they were processing with any degree of efficiency, cutoff dates would be backlogged worse that what they were at the start of the fiscal year last October. They aren't.
Because the CIS isn't processing cases at a rate sufficient to exhaust the annual quota, the State Department has had to move cutoff dates forward in order to attract more applicants to file overseas with consulates. This allows the State Department to step up and process immigrant visa applications and help exhaust the quota.
We know that CIS processing has been deficient this year because we have seen forward cutoff date movement. If the CIS were processing large numbers of cases, not only would forward cutoff date movement be wholly unnecessary, it would be grossly irresponsible.
Given the forward movement earlier in the year, I certainly expected to see substantial movement in June. That did not happen. Why it didn't happen is unknown. It could be that the CIS, wishing to avoid a repeat of last year, dropped everything an adjudicated a massive number of cases. I doubt that happened because we haven't seen any evidence of it. Had they approved a huge number of cases in a short period of time, it would have been all over the Internet.
It could also be that, once again, the CIS has solemnly promised the State Department that they really will adjudicate a huge number of cases this time and all those other years where they made the same promise and then failed to follow through don't really count because this time they really mean it.
Whatever the reason for the lack of movement in June, July will tell us what is going to happen for the balance of the fiscal year. If there is no substantial movement in July, then we are unlikely to see much movement in August or September. If there is substantial movement in July, however, we can probably expect to see a retrogression in September.
The July visa bulletin should be out around Monday, July 14th. Let's see what happens.
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5185
Ron Gotcher cannot predict the July 2008 visa bulletin, following is what he says.
Historically, about 40% of all immigrant visas/adjustment approvals take place in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (July - September). The law prohibits the issuance of more than 27% of the quota in any of the first three quarters. All visas that are unused (ordered but not issued) must be returned for use in the fourth quarter. This is why we see most visas being issued in the July - September interval.
This year, there is anecdotal evidence that the government may have violated the law and issued more visas in the first three quarters than permitted by statute. No one really knows if this is true or just the result of inartful language used by government officials. No one has released any absolute numbers as to actual issuances.
If the government did violate the law, then all bets are off and there is no way to anticipate what might be in the works.
If they did not violate the law, however, we can infer certain things from what we have seen thus far. We know that the CIS has enough AOS applications in the existing inventory (backlog) to fill the annual quota four times over. If they were processing with any degree of efficiency, cutoff dates would be backlogged worse that what they were at the start of the fiscal year last October. They aren't.
Because the CIS isn't processing cases at a rate sufficient to exhaust the annual quota, the State Department has had to move cutoff dates forward in order to attract more applicants to file overseas with consulates. This allows the State Department to step up and process immigrant visa applications and help exhaust the quota.
We know that CIS processing has been deficient this year because we have seen forward cutoff date movement. If the CIS were processing large numbers of cases, not only would forward cutoff date movement be wholly unnecessary, it would be grossly irresponsible.
Given the forward movement earlier in the year, I certainly expected to see substantial movement in June. That did not happen. Why it didn't happen is unknown. It could be that the CIS, wishing to avoid a repeat of last year, dropped everything an adjudicated a massive number of cases. I doubt that happened because we haven't seen any evidence of it. Had they approved a huge number of cases in a short period of time, it would have been all over the Internet.
It could also be that, once again, the CIS has solemnly promised the State Department that they really will adjudicate a huge number of cases this time and all those other years where they made the same promise and then failed to follow through don't really count because this time they really mean it.
Whatever the reason for the lack of movement in June, July will tell us what is going to happen for the balance of the fiscal year. If there is no substantial movement in July, then we are unlikely to see much movement in August or September. If there is substantial movement in July, however, we can probably expect to see a retrogression in September.
The July visa bulletin should be out around Monday, July 14th. Let's see what happens.
more...
maximus777
11-25 03:12 PM
Thanks much!
hair of the new SLK Mercedes
TwinkleM
02-17 10:19 PM
Still your I 140 info does not show up. Also, my pd is of april 2006. But I -140 not approved yet, pending since june 2006. Ur new update is only giving me a good hope.
more...
bigboy007
10-29 03:01 PM
your id rightly tells your attitude...we are talking about USCIS delays and you are talking about something else...Join twitter to tweet nonsense, but don't kill a valid topic here.
I think everyone of us are trying to start and dive in to discussion which never ends... Just becoz someone throwing stone doesnt everyone of us has to take up stones. Our problem in discussion in here is reg EAD or our GC's we need a fix if any one still in EAD not received please stand up and post in my thread ...
I think everyone of us are trying to start and dive in to discussion which never ends... Just becoz someone throwing stone doesnt everyone of us has to take up stones. Our problem in discussion in here is reg EAD or our GC's we need a fix if any one still in EAD not received please stand up and post in my thread ...
hot 2009 Mercedes Benz Slk 2look
lost
11-11 09:09 AM
Will it be on Friday?
more...
house mercedes benz slk
lskreddy
06-13 12:26 PM
Every one has his own vantage point. Mark K has his own and the others who represented for legal immigration has their own. Mark K's argument to only allow the so called 'Einstein caliber" people speaks volumes about how he has simplified the problem.
Sitting on a high position in an immigration research facility does not necessarily mean that he is abreast with the technological needs. From his arguments, he certainly has proven that he has very little or no idea of where the resource needs are.
Everyone of us are here because there is room for us to work. If his research shows that there are more US people who will fill our shoes, then I am sure the market needs would govern the numbers. For all the anti's who cite articles about how low paid we are, how less qualified we are, they should research to complete the full circle. They leave it half-hearted, its not as if they don't know, they just want to stick on to the rhetoric.
Even to entertain Mark K's idea about bringing the so called cream of the crop, there has to be proven ways to identify who these people are. One way of doing it is to allow people to come here on F1, prove their worth in research, work for a few years. One does not become an EB1 qualified before he steps into the country, he probably climbs his way up to that qualification. Some may succeed, some may fail. To selectively choose the best and expel the rest would mean disaster for the country. These are human lives we are talking about, not parts in a process control factory where you can chuck as and when you need as it does not meet 'specifications'.
He has blinders on, and that will never change. You can't debate a person who has already decided on what the outcome. The most amusing part personally for me is that most of the anti-legal folks accuse the entire industry of conspiring to screw their own. I can see how one or two companies to do that, but to underline that the entire system is geared towards raping their own is blasphemous to say the least.
Sitting on a high position in an immigration research facility does not necessarily mean that he is abreast with the technological needs. From his arguments, he certainly has proven that he has very little or no idea of where the resource needs are.
Everyone of us are here because there is room for us to work. If his research shows that there are more US people who will fill our shoes, then I am sure the market needs would govern the numbers. For all the anti's who cite articles about how low paid we are, how less qualified we are, they should research to complete the full circle. They leave it half-hearted, its not as if they don't know, they just want to stick on to the rhetoric.
Even to entertain Mark K's idea about bringing the so called cream of the crop, there has to be proven ways to identify who these people are. One way of doing it is to allow people to come here on F1, prove their worth in research, work for a few years. One does not become an EB1 qualified before he steps into the country, he probably climbs his way up to that qualification. Some may succeed, some may fail. To selectively choose the best and expel the rest would mean disaster for the country. These are human lives we are talking about, not parts in a process control factory where you can chuck as and when you need as it does not meet 'specifications'.
He has blinders on, and that will never change. You can't debate a person who has already decided on what the outcome. The most amusing part personally for me is that most of the anti-legal folks accuse the entire industry of conspiring to screw their own. I can see how one or two companies to do that, but to underline that the entire system is geared towards raping their own is blasphemous to say the least.
tattoo mercedes-slk-02 Mercedes SLK:
shivapb80
06-05 10:01 AM
actually that is not what i understand...though we should wait for
1. some lawyer to come up with clarifications.
2. updates to the adjudicator field manual.
i think this still upholds the memorandum with regards to porting off on unapproved i-140. if you notice the case they have cited "Matter of Al Wazzan" is date Oct, 2005 where as the favourable Yates memo came out in Dec 2005.
what i understand is that they are just reiterating that porting off on unapproved i-140 is not automatic and requires that the adjudicator decide on the pending i-140 first before deciding wether the porting off is protected under AC21 or not.
but again...i myself am waiting for clarifications from immigration law websites like murthy.com and immigration-law.com etc.
1. some lawyer to come up with clarifications.
2. updates to the adjudicator field manual.
i think this still upholds the memorandum with regards to porting off on unapproved i-140. if you notice the case they have cited "Matter of Al Wazzan" is date Oct, 2005 where as the favourable Yates memo came out in Dec 2005.
what i understand is that they are just reiterating that porting off on unapproved i-140 is not automatic and requires that the adjudicator decide on the pending i-140 first before deciding wether the porting off is protected under AC21 or not.
but again...i myself am waiting for clarifications from immigration law websites like murthy.com and immigration-law.com etc.
more...
pictures 2010 Mercedes SLK with diesel
MahaBharatGC
12-02 10:24 AM
Santa,
Thanks for your response.
Education evaluation was not done for bachelors because the Labor only required masters. My attorney is planning to use 2 years of my experience to compensate for the additional 1 year of bachelors degree
H1Girl,
Thanks for your response.
Even my attorney says the argument of USCIS could be "building blocks" argument i.e. In US, for masters, 4 year bachelors is required. But, I only have a 3 year bachelor degree.
My suggestion to you is to get your Bachelors also evaluated. Whether it requires for job or not but you need to demonstrate at least 16 years of education. So, you need to get evaluated how each degree you possess equivalent to US qualifications.
Thanks for your response.
Education evaluation was not done for bachelors because the Labor only required masters. My attorney is planning to use 2 years of my experience to compensate for the additional 1 year of bachelors degree
H1Girl,
Thanks for your response.
Even my attorney says the argument of USCIS could be "building blocks" argument i.e. In US, for masters, 4 year bachelors is required. But, I only have a 3 year bachelor degree.
My suggestion to you is to get your Bachelors also evaluated. Whether it requires for job or not but you need to demonstrate at least 16 years of education. So, you need to get evaluated how each degree you possess equivalent to US qualifications.
dresses Carlsson Mercedes-Benz SLK
nolud
02-11 04:08 PM
I received a letter from uscis/DHS on Jan 28.
It was in response to my request about my wifes I-485 being in namecheck for a long time.
The response stated:
"The review of our records indicate that the investigation into your background has been completed. The processing of your case has been delayed because the requirement review is still in process."
Does this mean that the namecheck has been completed?
What is "requirement review"?
Did anyone else get this type of letter?
Wifes Case dates:
PD - Jul 2003
Interview Date - Jan 4 2006
Type - Family based ( on marriage )
Info Pass - Sep 2007
Last FP - Oct 2007
LUD - 10/2007 ( probably because of FP )
Current Status:
On October 7, 2003, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Note: If this is the wrong forum/area, please advise where is this question best suited for...
Thanks to ALL
It was in response to my request about my wifes I-485 being in namecheck for a long time.
The response stated:
"The review of our records indicate that the investigation into your background has been completed. The processing of your case has been delayed because the requirement review is still in process."
Does this mean that the namecheck has been completed?
What is "requirement review"?
Did anyone else get this type of letter?
Wifes Case dates:
PD - Jul 2003
Interview Date - Jan 4 2006
Type - Family based ( on marriage )
Info Pass - Sep 2007
Last FP - Oct 2007
LUD - 10/2007 ( probably because of FP )
Current Status:
On October 7, 2003, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case. Please follow any instructions on this notice. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when yours will be done. This case is at our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Note: If this is the wrong forum/area, please advise where is this question best suited for...
Thanks to ALL
more...
makeup mercedes slk amg 55
ca_immigrant
10-30 08:46 PM
what an unnecessary hassle.....good that all is ok for your case !!
girlfriend the current Mercedes SLK
Marphad
12-30 04:42 PM
my PD is april 2001
and still waiting , & when we call ins we get a letter
still in processing time :(
what can we do?
I am surprised to see People with April 2001 PD still waiting. Do you know the reason of getting stuck as your PD is current for some time.
and still waiting , & when we call ins we get a letter
still in processing time :(
what can we do?
I am surprised to see People with April 2001 PD still waiting. Do you know the reason of getting stuck as your PD is current for some time.
hairstyles Mercedes SLK 320
willwin
02-20 01:33 PM
As everyone knows that AOS for those who already in US and CP is for those who are outside US (theoretically). It is a personal choice for a person in US to file either 485 or opt for CP. The reason for CP was a popular choice due to 485 processing delay between 2001 and 2005. Between 2001 and 2004 all EB categories were current for all countries. No one heard of term retrogression in that period. No one was worried about EB2 or EB3. However due to severe processing delay (partially due to increased security check due to 911) in 485 applications during that period, it was taking about 2 years for 485 approvals. During those entire 2 year period visa numbers were current and did not fluctuate as it is happening now. Therefore people opted to go for CP, as US consulates in abroad were not busy. They scheduled the interview right away as PD was current for all categories, during that 5 year period. That�s why CP was popular choice that period. Now, in the retrogression climate and continuous fluctuation in PD (back and forth movement), opting CP is a blunder mistake. Furthermore, now (at least before July 2007 fiasco) 485 approvals are so fast. If PD was current, USCIS was approving 485 with in 2 months before July 07. Therefore one should not even think about CP, if already in US unless if you are in EB1 or EB2-ROW category. Therefore 485 is the only option available to enjoy subsidiary benefits like EAD/AP/AC21. If any one already filed CP, to switch back to AOS they must wait till visa number available to their PD again. It will be a long road, and it complicates. As already mentioned, there is no technical ground to award EAD/AP for CP persons if already in US. If IV goes and talk to USCIS, they will laugh. To achieve same result, one can lobby for administrative fix like awarding EAD/AP for a person whose 140 was approved and legally present in the US in a valid non-immigrant status. This may be possible.
Ramba, I agree with you for the most part.
Well, there are CP filers with PD as back as 2003 (not sure if there are any 2001/2002 filers left) and these people were not aware that in July 2007, DOS/USCIS would open the flood gates and put them in this plight.
Imagine this, if DOS/USCIS had not made the PD current for everyone during 2007, what do you think the 485 filers would be doing now? They would have had approved I140 or they would have filed one, but what more? Will be just waiting for PD to become current. When it becomes current (say after 2 years), the actual processes (of going through name check, USCIS delay, FP etc) start and may take atleast a year going forward. But, when PD becomes current, guys in CP queue would get their interview.
So, it wasn't that CP guys knew this before and still made a mistake - back in 2003!
Otherwise, I agree, with this unpredictable movement of PD back and forth, 485 would be a safer route with all the changes happening to 485 processes (faster name check, proposed EAD for 3 years etc).
Your post was highly diplomatic than most of your queue-mates. Appreciate that.
Ramba, I agree with you for the most part.
Well, there are CP filers with PD as back as 2003 (not sure if there are any 2001/2002 filers left) and these people were not aware that in July 2007, DOS/USCIS would open the flood gates and put them in this plight.
Imagine this, if DOS/USCIS had not made the PD current for everyone during 2007, what do you think the 485 filers would be doing now? They would have had approved I140 or they would have filed one, but what more? Will be just waiting for PD to become current. When it becomes current (say after 2 years), the actual processes (of going through name check, USCIS delay, FP etc) start and may take atleast a year going forward. But, when PD becomes current, guys in CP queue would get their interview.
So, it wasn't that CP guys knew this before and still made a mistake - back in 2003!
Otherwise, I agree, with this unpredictable movement of PD back and forth, 485 would be a safer route with all the changes happening to 485 processes (faster name check, proposed EAD for 3 years etc).
Your post was highly diplomatic than most of your queue-mates. Appreciate that.
lotus26
05-30 07:09 PM
Done
kode
02-22 08:12 PM
ehmm .. maybe because you never said that you wanted to participate in the battle ?? :sigh: