Hi All,
just wondering if this means I could celebrate ?? (but then after 5 yrs
of jumping through all DOL & USCIS hoops, I might just be a little too
tired to rejoice !! )
Here's a short summary:
->Aug 2001 Labour RD, EB3, CSC
->became a victim of mass rejections and Carson memo didn't help either,
hence remanded to traditional
->Jun 2004, Subsitute labor (with copy of approved labor), EB-3 priority date of AUg 2000
->140/485 RD Sept 2004
->RFE recd: Mar 2005, W-2 and some minor clarification about EB2/Eb-3
->Went into the "awaiting for original labor" blackhole
->Hit by rettrogressions
-> In the meantime, to make things interesting, I changed jobs
(on unapproved 140/485, but pending more than 180 days), hoping yates
memo would apply
-> Apr 06, Applied for EAD/AP renewal for self and spouse (EAD expiring next month)
-> May 5, 06, Recd DENIAL OF 140/485
-> Jun 3, Applied MTR (note: old company helped out a great deal here...not only have they not withdrawn 140, they also instructed their lawyers to supportthe MTR)
-> Jun 9, recd notice of re-opening of 140/485 processing
-> Spoke to local congresswomans office and explained precarious position(should have done this loooong back!!)
->Congresswoman office helped in securing EAD approval immediately, Got EAD approval email yesterday (Jun 15)
Now...I just got the I290B receipt number from the lawyer and plugging it into the system says "This case has been approved. On June 12, 2006, an approval notice was mailed."
So what does this mean ???
Is this USCIS's sick sense of humor and they're saying that just the 290B petition was approved, as reflected by the re-opening of the 140/485 ???
(but the denied cases were re-opened Jun 9 while the 290B approval is
dated 12 Jun ??)
Or does it mean that I may have reason to celebrate soon ???
someone please shed some light...appreciated
phuket
ps: btw, according to the lawyers, the denial was definitely in error
and that the adjudicating officer did not take a proper look at the
RFE response that had been sent earlier...it was something about
EB-2/EB3 confusion
just wondering if this means I could celebrate ?? (but then after 5 yrs
of jumping through all DOL & USCIS hoops, I might just be a little too
tired to rejoice !! )
Here's a short summary:
->Aug 2001 Labour RD, EB3, CSC
->became a victim of mass rejections and Carson memo didn't help either,
hence remanded to traditional
->Jun 2004, Subsitute labor (with copy of approved labor), EB-3 priority date of AUg 2000
->140/485 RD Sept 2004
->RFE recd: Mar 2005, W-2 and some minor clarification about EB2/Eb-3
->Went into the "awaiting for original labor" blackhole
->Hit by rettrogressions
-> In the meantime, to make things interesting, I changed jobs
(on unapproved 140/485, but pending more than 180 days), hoping yates
memo would apply
-> Apr 06, Applied for EAD/AP renewal for self and spouse (EAD expiring next month)
-> May 5, 06, Recd DENIAL OF 140/485
-> Jun 3, Applied MTR (note: old company helped out a great deal here...not only have they not withdrawn 140, they also instructed their lawyers to supportthe MTR)
-> Jun 9, recd notice of re-opening of 140/485 processing
-> Spoke to local congresswomans office and explained precarious position(should have done this loooong back!!)
->Congresswoman office helped in securing EAD approval immediately, Got EAD approval email yesterday (Jun 15)
Now...I just got the I290B receipt number from the lawyer and plugging it into the system says "This case has been approved. On June 12, 2006, an approval notice was mailed."
So what does this mean ???
Is this USCIS's sick sense of humor and they're saying that just the 290B petition was approved, as reflected by the re-opening of the 140/485 ???
(but the denied cases were re-opened Jun 9 while the 290B approval is
dated 12 Jun ??)
Or does it mean that I may have reason to celebrate soon ???
someone please shed some light...appreciated
phuket
ps: btw, according to the lawyers, the denial was definitely in error
and that the adjudicating officer did not take a proper look at the
RFE response that had been sent earlier...it was something about
EB-2/EB3 confusion