.jpg)
H1Girl
03-09 12:38 PM
...
Wonder why India EB3 is lagging so far behind and virtually crawling at a snail's pace.
I wouldn't wonder...It's all supply and demand. We have to understand that...
Wonder why India EB3 is lagging so far behind and virtually crawling at a snail's pace.
I wouldn't wonder...It's all supply and demand. We have to understand that...
wallpaper Apple Wallpapers
go_gc_way
12-27 10:52 PM
Thanks Pappu.
IV members :
Need help !! .. finding regional web sites. As an example
atlantadesi.com in Atlanta.
I have listed cities below , can IV members help find regional web site of the cities below, then we can post in the sites .. We need to take these action items with a SENSE OF URGENCY, just like we MADE CALLS in Lame duck. PREPARATION IS IMPORTANT, INCREASING MEMBERSHIP WILL HELP SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS APART FROM FUNDING.
LET'S COMPLETE THIS EFFORT ASAP.
I am bumping this thread , with a classified in atlantadesi.com
Cities ,I am looking for most popular regional web sites.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
IV members :
Need help !! .. finding regional web sites. As an example
atlantadesi.com in Atlanta.
I have listed cities below , can IV members help find regional web site of the cities below, then we can post in the sites .. We need to take these action items with a SENSE OF URGENCY, just like we MADE CALLS in Lame duck. PREPARATION IS IMPORTANT, INCREASING MEMBERSHIP WILL HELP SOLVE MANY PROBLEMS APART FROM FUNDING.
LET'S COMPLETE THIS EFFORT ASAP.
I am bumping this thread , with a classified in atlantadesi.com
Cities ,I am looking for most popular regional web sites.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
h1techSlave
02-05 05:51 PM
like minded folks, please post your ideas.
2011 Apple Halloween
chanduv23
09-28 02:33 PM
Hi Chandu,
Not all GC holders are against the aspiring GC seekers. In fact, I am promoting IV actively to many older GC holders and exposing how bad the system is now when compared to their days. [Say from 10 years ago]. I am trying my best to help many, who are in line with what ever little knowledge I gained during this process. I will be happier one and only if this broken system is fixed and the process is made transparent. I only wish that this will happen during my life time :p
Thanks
PS: I did not had IV during the time when I started my GC process :mad:
Sorry about the generalization. I was refering to Senthil1 kind of folks, not folks like you. Thanks for all the support. My friend got a green card as recently as a month back, he struggled for a long time before he got one, I asked him if he wants to come for the rally and he told me "MRRRRRRRR I GOT MY GREEN CARD, YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG PERSON FOR THE RALLY" and the same person told me "SOMETHING MUST HAPPEN TO THESE ROTTEN CONSULTING COMPANIES, THEY ARE RUINING THE SYSTEM" he got his GC from a small consulting company and after getting his GC he says these companies must not exist - he wants to shut thee door behind him
Not all GC holders are against the aspiring GC seekers. In fact, I am promoting IV actively to many older GC holders and exposing how bad the system is now when compared to their days. [Say from 10 years ago]. I am trying my best to help many, who are in line with what ever little knowledge I gained during this process. I will be happier one and only if this broken system is fixed and the process is made transparent. I only wish that this will happen during my life time :p
Thanks
PS: I did not had IV during the time when I started my GC process :mad:
Sorry about the generalization. I was refering to Senthil1 kind of folks, not folks like you. Thanks for all the support. My friend got a green card as recently as a month back, he struggled for a long time before he got one, I asked him if he wants to come for the rally and he told me "MRRRRRRRR I GOT MY GREEN CARD, YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG PERSON FOR THE RALLY" and the same person told me "SOMETHING MUST HAPPEN TO THESE ROTTEN CONSULTING COMPANIES, THEY ARE RUINING THE SYSTEM" he got his GC from a small consulting company and after getting his GC he says these companies must not exist - he wants to shut thee door behind him
more...
sanju_dba
08-10 02:45 PM
Count me in!
SGP
08-12 04:30 PM
I feel frustrated at some peoples' unwillingness to admit that EB3 needs IV's help now more than ever. They are saying that nothing much can be done for EB3, as INS merely corrected its wrong interpretation in visa allocation
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
I Agree with you. Count me in.
But, if we are all willing to put our hearts and minds to it we can surely come up with new ideas that will help our cause. Surely, laws are written so that justice can happen. So if justice is not happening, the law would have some answer, somewhere.
Let me put forward my idea.
The INA language says that until EB2 is not current, there will be no spillover to EB3. Agreed. But I would contend that this statement is on a year to year basis. That is, if in the year 2002 (for example) all EB2 has been satisfied, then the spillovers should go to year 2002 EB3.
Is this something IV can point out and fight for? Can EB3 members put their money and efforts in this direction? Let me know if this sounds worthwhile
I Agree with you. Count me in.
more...
.soulty
02-13 08:16 PM
think of the first matrix scene with neo in the underground train station, columns, seats, phone booth... dirt and aging on the walls, floating pieces of paper and rubbish on the ground, insects... its about making a mood, a scene.. use your imagination.
2010 apple wallpaper hd black.
GCVivek
03-21 02:33 PM
There is no requirement for any company to sponsor green cards for any employee. A job is granted to you based on requirement of the company. Once that requirement no longer exists, the company can (and should) lay off the employee. This applies to H1 extensions and filing of GC.
GC filing is completely based on the company needing your service. Unless you totally excel and become indispensible to the company, they do not need to keep you. This is unlike a secure Govt. job in most 3rd world countries.
The conclusion is that this list would include ALL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (and some Govts jobs). However, the list is not of rogue companies but simply companies that are run well.
There is nothing wrong in what I have posted to invite defamation suit.We should be filing defamation suit against them for not filing green cards as promised.Whatever my friend said I posted here.
GC filing is completely based on the company needing your service. Unless you totally excel and become indispensible to the company, they do not need to keep you. This is unlike a secure Govt. job in most 3rd world countries.
The conclusion is that this list would include ALL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (and some Govts jobs). However, the list is not of rogue companies but simply companies that are run well.
There is nothing wrong in what I have posted to invite defamation suit.We should be filing defamation suit against them for not filing green cards as promised.Whatever my friend said I posted here.
more...
reddymjm
09-09 02:26 PM
I would like to see all EB3 AS DONORS.
hair Apple-wallpaper in 45
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 06:39 PM
Me and 10 of my friends at work have sent the email.
My wife and the wife's of friends have sent too.
My wife and the wife's of friends have sent too.
more...
styrum
01-18 12:43 PM
This is obvious that it is the "Green Card" and/or temporary visas stamped in the passports of tourists and other short-term visitors that were meant in this law. Then it makes sense, of course: visitors usually don't have any form of identification other than their passport with a visa and immigrants have a small plastic "green card".
When this law was being written apparently nobody was keeping in mind that there would be "temporary aliens" who are not tourists but people like us, who have lived in the country for many years but don't have an easy to carry "alien registration card" (official for GC) yet. It is absolutely understandable if you recall the CIR discussion in the congress: if any regular person listened to the debate he would be absolutely convinced that with respect to the immigration issue the only categories of people that exist are 1. Legal permanent residents, who have all the rights, same as citizens and no problems. 2. People who want to immigrate to US but currently live outside the country and "are waiting in line" 3. Illegals.
We don't exist!
When this law was being written apparently nobody was keeping in mind that there would be "temporary aliens" who are not tourists but people like us, who have lived in the country for many years but don't have an easy to carry "alien registration card" (official for GC) yet. It is absolutely understandable if you recall the CIR discussion in the congress: if any regular person listened to the debate he would be absolutely convinced that with respect to the immigration issue the only categories of people that exist are 1. Legal permanent residents, who have all the rights, same as citizens and no problems. 2. People who want to immigrate to US but currently live outside the country and "are waiting in line" 3. Illegals.
We don't exist!
hot apple wallpapers. squirt apple
Positive
11-12 05:00 PM
Please do not start another big argument over this. IV stands for all of us who are stuck in this mess- regardless of nationality or category. We can blame USICS or fellow country men or whoever we please for the situation we are in. The reality is that even in this mess, most of us are better of than many we know.
If EB2 I / C folks think that quarterly spill over is not happening while the law says otherwise, they have the right to bring their point of view & IV should do something about it. Doing nothing is not a solution. The effects of spill over remains same on EB3 regardless how they do it - quarterly / half yearly / annually.
Let us stay together and support IV
If EB2 I / C folks think that quarterly spill over is not happening while the law says otherwise, they have the right to bring their point of view & IV should do something about it. Doing nothing is not a solution. The effects of spill over remains same on EB3 regardless how they do it - quarterly / half yearly / annually.
Let us stay together and support IV
more...
house Real Macintosh Apple Logo
StarSun
02-02 08:28 AM
Members who have pledged airline miles or stay in the registration form, please use this thread.
tattoo 22 schöne Apple Wallpaper
harsh
12-12 04:54 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
All of the documents in this link are written by
"Micheal Aytes /s/,
Acting Associate Director, Domestic Operations
U.S. of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Department of Homeland Security"
I wonder if he is the person we should be talking to. Although the document does not indicate which city he works in. He should at leats be able to tell us who in USCIS makes these decisions if he is not the right person.
Also I was not able to find anything about not allowing concurrently to file 140/485 applications. Where was this information published? Does anyone know?
more...
pictures Apple Wallpapers
rangaGCPlease
07-18 11:52 PM
Hi, I see that several June 1st filers who mailed on 31st may have received RD's. So same logic should apply for July 2nd filers who mailed on 30th june. I dont see any difference between the two scenarios. Any rejected july 2nd applns should have already reached, unless they are lost in return mail :(. Otherwise the scenario is exactly identical to June 1st filers.
dresses apple 5
rajkr
06-11 01:21 PM
Dude, we are not suggesting or even thinking that we should move away from main agenda, thats there and thats where IV advocacy days aimed at. Its part of the game. You cant sail the sea without winning over turbulences. these are not if and if nots.
Other If's you are trying to post are not in the works, if they are then its same path. You cant turn a blind eye to something that is already happening.
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
Other If's you are trying to post are not in the works, if they are then its same path. You cant turn a blind eye to something that is already happening.
If you really believe that this bogus bill will become a Law, then also see the real picture, that is why I posted the other Ifs.
This Bill is titled as "Employ America Act". By having the GC, you are not an American. If you do not know the rule here it is, GC is a "Privilege", and it is not a "Right". So if this Bill passes all these people with alerady having GC will also need to pack their Bags and Go. That is the reality, dude.
So again and again do not fall over it. If you respond to this Bill, and Vote "No" against it, you are trying to send wrong messages to the originators of the bill, that we are scared. Why you guys are making everyone scared, when there is nothing to be scared about.
more...
makeup Free Apple Wallpapers
ajju
01-18 06:30 PM
Are you not authorized to work until new EAD or copy of EAD will suffice... I know everything else is easy to replace.... but USCIS documents takes months...
Should a copy of EAD + DL be sufficient to keep in wallet?? I've lost my wallet once.. so its a scary thought...
Should a copy of EAD + DL be sufficient to keep in wallet?? I've lost my wallet once.. so its a scary thought...
girlfriend Apple Wallpapers nr.2 by
pappu
07-01 10:22 PM
Info on the lawsuit by AILA:
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
==============
USCIS VISA BULLETIN/
VISA AVAILABILTY LAWSUIT
Frequently Asked Questions about Participating in this Lawsuit
AILF is considering filing a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its rejection of otherwise properly filed adjustment of status applications for the alleged reason that a visa was not available, even though the Visa Bulletin from the Department of State (DOS) states that a visa was available at the time of filing.
Any foreign national who is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and whose adjustment of status application has been or will be returned or rejected solely on this basis may be eligible to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If you are considering being a participant in this lawsuit, you may find the following frequently asked questions and answers helpful.
Q: What is AILF?
A: The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees and to securing fair and just application and administration of the U.S. immigration laws. In order to achieve these goals, AILF sometimes files lawsuits involving various aspects of immigration law.
Q: What is this lawsuit about?
A: This lawsuit will be filed by plaintiffs who have been harmed because USCIS rejected or returned or is expected to reject or return a properly submitted adjustment of status application for the alleged reason that no visa was immediately available even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that a visa was available at that time.
To be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, a foreign national must show that a visa number is “immediately available.” USCIS regulations state that the DOS Visa Bulletin is used to determine whether a visa number is immediately available. This Bulletin is published once a month and lists the visa availability dates for all categories of immigrants for the following month. Thus, for example, the July 2007 bulletin, listing visa availability dates for the entire month of July, was published in June 2007.
AILF has learned that USCIS has refused to allow certain adjustment of status applications to be filed even though the DOS Visa Bulletin states that visa numbers are available for the immigrant category at that time. USCIS rejected these applications because DOS informed it in an internal communication that no visa numbers remained for that category of immigrants. To date, this has happened only in the employment-based “other worker” category. We anticipate that it may happen in a number of other types of employment-based immigrant categories beginning in July 2007.
We believe USCIS violated the law when it failed to apply the visa availability dates listed in the Visa Bulletin, as required by a federal regulation, and instead rejected properly filed adjustment applications. Through this lawsuit, we will challenge the rejection of adjustment of status applications on this basis. We will ask the court to order USCIS to accept the rejected adjustment applications and treat them as being filed as of the date they originally would have been filed had USCIS not rejected them.
Q: What is a “plaintiff” and how do I know if I am eligible to be a “plaintiff” in this lawsuit?
A: A plaintiff is a person who files a lawsuit against someone else. We are still determining the categories of plaintiffs but an eligible plaintiff for this lawsuit may include:
[other worker category]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in the “other worker” category for receipt by USCIS in June 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
[other employment-based categories]
A foreign national who:
Submitted an adjustment of status application in any employment-based category other than “other worker” for receipt by USCIS in July 2007; and
Is otherwise eligible for adjustment of status; and
Did not receive a receipt notice, cancelled check, or notice of approval of the adjustment application.
Q: Why should I be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
2
A: If the lawsuit is successful, USCIS should accept your adjustment application and treat it as if it had been filed as of the date that you originally tried to file it. Because your adjustment application will then be considered to be pending before the agency, you may be eligible for interim benefits, including an employment authorization document, advance parole, and others.
What the lawsuit will not do is make a visa number immediately available to you if none is available. If the visa numbers have in fact been used for the current fiscal year, the court does not have the authority under the law to make a new number available to you. However, if the court orders that USCIS accept your adjustment application as of the date that you originally tried to file it, you will be at an earlier place in line when visa numbers become available again in the next fiscal year, October 1, 2007. Additionally, as mentioned, you may be eligible for interim benefits while you are waiting.
Q: What is likely to happen because of the suit?
A: Lawsuits are uncertain by nature. We cannot predict the exact outcome. However, other efforts to resolve these problems with USCIS have not succeeded. For this reason, we believe that a lawsuit is the only remaining possible way to resolve these problems.
Q: Will being a plaintiff in this lawsuit hurt my chances for permanent residence?
A: If an individual is otherwise legally entitled to have an application granted, the government cannot lawfully deny that application on the basis that the person is participating or participated in a lawsuit. If we believed the government was taking such action, we would complain to the lawyers representing the government and to the judge handling the case. In our experience, this retaliation has not happened.
Please be aware, though, that USCIS is likely to examine plaintiffs’ adjustment of status applications more closely than it otherwise might. It may ask the plaintiffs questions and ask for additional information about their adjustment applications or immigration status. See below regarding “discovery.”
Q: How much time must plaintiffs spend on this lawsuit?
A: Plaintiffs will have to provide us with the information and documentation we need in order to prepare the lawsuit. AILF will do most of the work in the lawsuit on paper. Depending on how the case proceeds, the government and its attorneys may want to ask the plaintiffs some questions about their case, either through written questions and answers or in person. This is called “discovery.” One type of discovery is a “deposition,” which is an interview where parties are asked questions about their cases.
Depositions are possible but not common in this type of case. In the event that discovery and/or depositions were required, an AILF attorney or an attorney working with us would assist plaintiffs to comply with any discovery requests, and would appear with plaintiffs at any deposition at no charge (see below). At a later stage, a plaintiff may be required to be present at
3
a hearing or a trial and possibly be asked to testify about their particular case, but this is quite rare.
Q: Will it cost me anything to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: AILF and any co-counsel will not charge any attorney’s fees for representing individuals in this lawsuit. AILF and any co-counsel also will pay the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuit, such as filing fees, copying, long distance calls, travel expenses for AILF attorneys and staff, depositions, transcripts, etc. In the unlikely event that an individual should be required to be present at a deposition, hearing or a trial, we may ask that he/she pay their own travel and lodging expenses, if any. Those expenses would be reimbursed if the lawsuit is successful and we recover costs.
Q: Will anyone know that I am a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A: Lawsuits are public information, and are available as a public court document. Many courts now have lawsuits and other documents available electronically, accessible via the internet. Also, USCIS will, of course, know the identity of the plaintiffs. We also will discuss plaintiffs’ cases with any other lawyers working with us on the lawsuit. It also is possible that the media – newspapers, radio, or TV reporters – will see the court documents and decide to do a story on the lawsuit.
Q: What should I do if I am eligible and interested in being a plaintiff in the lawsuit?
A: Please quickly submit the Questionnaire for Potential Plaintiffs and send us the documents requested. If you do not have the Questionnaire, please send an email to visabulletin@ailf.org, and we will send it to you. You may also fax a request to AILF LAC at (202) 742-5619. Please indicate this is a question about the visa bulletin litigation.
If you have any questions that are not answered by this FAQ or the questionnaire, please send them to visabulletin@ailf.org or fax to (202) 742-65619, and we will respond. Thank you!
===============
hairstyles apple wallpapers.
dkshitij
07-12 04:33 PM
if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits.
Why don't we then see quarterly spillover?
Why don't we then see quarterly spillover?
singhsa3
03-04 10:21 AM
Same letter sent to wall street journal and left a voicemail for one of the reporters.
Except the opening said:
We don�t claim that my proposition here will make the housing crisis go away or bring the economy out of recession. What I am proposing in this letter is to think out of box and let us make our share of contribution to the economy.
Except the opening said:
We don�t claim that my proposition here will make the housing crisis go away or bring the economy out of recession. What I am proposing in this letter is to think out of box and let us make our share of contribution to the economy.
adurthy
10-16 01:56 PM
I support flower campaign , when do u propose , let do atleast a week before thanks giving.
0 comments:
Post a Comment