Many of us even have not received the finger printing notice while the applictaion is pending for more than 180 days. I did not get a badge to enter a airport facility without doing finger printing check with FBI. Hence, getting the permission to enter united states without finger printing is a far cry. I think having a mass approval for all the applications is nearly impossible. Just a guess.
breaking news, check it out, guys
- Thread starter davli024
- Start date
still a good news
Hi,
The context Murthy was talking about in the chat session was AC21 portablility. The statement means if I485 is pending more than 180 days and I140 was approved at some point of time , then GC is approvable, provided all other requirements are met like security clearance, similar job, FP etc. Still it is a good news because even if employer withdraws I140, GC process will continue...
Hi,
The context Murthy was talking about in the chat session was AC21 portablility. The statement means if I485 is pending more than 180 days and I140 was approved at some point of time , then GC is approvable, provided all other requirements are met like security clearance, similar job, FP etc. Still it is a good news because even if employer withdraws I140, GC process will continue...
gheewalabhai888
Registered Users (C)
The wording of the chat doesn't tell you
are approvable if pending for 180 days. It tells specifically that they are going to mass approve with quick glance. May be just read the names outloud and if it sounds like a terrorist then RFE otherwise approve !
This is the only way that can be done, even in that case they need to Hire and Train a bunch of people which they can keep on moving to another new fiscal year plan. Just will be interesting to see what they come up with. Seems like majority of are very anxious and excited. Calm down guys more likely nothing will happen this Friday, but something could be seen in the next 2 to 3 weeks as Ms. Murthy has said 2 to 3 weeks. Doesn't hurt to have a positive feeling of the outcome.
are approvable if pending for 180 days. It tells specifically that they are going to mass approve with quick glance. May be just read the names outloud and if it sounds like a terrorist then RFE otherwise approve !
This is the only way that can be done, even in that case they need to Hire and Train a bunch of people which they can keep on moving to another new fiscal year plan. Just will be interesting to see what they come up with. Seems like majority of are very anxious and excited. Calm down guys more likely nothing will happen this Friday, but something could be seen in the next 2 to 3 weeks as Ms. Murthy has said 2 to 3 weeks. Doesn't hurt to have a positive feeling of the outcome.
I think Ms. Murthy's comments are more or less related to this previous chat question on the same day(6/30)
Chat User : Are there any AC21 denials, provided all AC21 Memo rules are followed?
Attorney Murthy : Yes, there are some AC21 denials that we are starting to see and hear about from others, as well, where the service centers are not following the mandate or guidance of the Legacy INS Memos. Even Dea Carpenter, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for BCIS, was surprised when she heard that the BCIS was denying certain I-485 cases if the original sponsoring employer revoked the I-140 petition after the I-485 had been pending for over 180 days, since that contradicts the language of AC21.
It appears to me that what she was trying to say is, BCIS is going to come up with a memo that requires the adjudicators to approve a case if the case is pending for over 180 days and all other requirements are met even if the original sponsor revokes the I-140. Without this clear guidelines, some adjudicators have denied some AC21 cases because the original I-140 was revoked, even when all the other requirements(similar job etc) are met.
As I said earlier, it would be nice to get all the cases older than 180 days approved immediately but that doesn't seem to be the case.
cmr
12/11
12/14
Chat User : Are there any AC21 denials, provided all AC21 Memo rules are followed?
Attorney Murthy : Yes, there are some AC21 denials that we are starting to see and hear about from others, as well, where the service centers are not following the mandate or guidance of the Legacy INS Memos. Even Dea Carpenter, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for BCIS, was surprised when she heard that the BCIS was denying certain I-485 cases if the original sponsoring employer revoked the I-140 petition after the I-485 had been pending for over 180 days, since that contradicts the language of AC21.
It appears to me that what she was trying to say is, BCIS is going to come up with a memo that requires the adjudicators to approve a case if the case is pending for over 180 days and all other requirements are met even if the original sponsor revokes the I-140. Without this clear guidelines, some adjudicators have denied some AC21 cases because the original I-140 was revoked, even when all the other requirements(similar job etc) are met.
As I said earlier, it would be nice to get all the cases older than 180 days approved immediately but that doesn't seem to be the case.
cmr
12/11
12/14
I hope this is not what Ms. Murthy was referring to - in other words, I'm hoping for more...
http://www.elirich.com/july8.pdf
http://www.elirich.com/july8.pdf
gheewalabhai888
Registered Users (C)
After reading cmr and orca's posts,
I feel that Ms. Murthy may be referring to AC21.
I feel that Ms. Murthy may be referring to AC21.
I think this is exactly what she meant to say. I think the memo is going to provide a clear guideline of what should happen in AC21 cases when the original I-140 is revoked after 180 days of filing I-485.
In other words these cases should not be denied inspite of the revoking of I-140(provided it is revoked after 180 days) if all the the other criteria are satisfied.
In other words these cases should not be denied inspite of the revoking of I-140(provided it is revoked after 180 days) if all the the other criteria are satisfied.
Have U guys read this article on Murthy.com
--------------
MurthyBulletin and MurthyDotCom readers inquire regularly and are surprised, and sometimes amazed, to learn that the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), passed in October 2000, still has no regulations interpreting this law or guiding us on the application of the law to specific circumstances. At various sessions of the June 2003 AILA Annual Conference in New Orleans, several government officials provided insight into the process necessary to issue even proposed regulations which are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Prior to March 1, 2003, drafted proposed regulations potentially would have to be circulated through various agencies and officials within Legacy INS and any other agencies or departments impacted by the regulations. Now, since March 1, 2003, with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security overseeing immigration functions, a drafted proposed regulation may need to circulate through the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel's office, the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS), the U.S. Department of State (DOS), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and any other potentially concerned agencies or departments. Each person who reviews the circulated drafted proposed regulations might possibly have comments to add to the drafted proposed regulations. Whenever anyone adds or subtracts anything from the drafted proposed regulations, the revised version now must be re-circulated to all the relevant parties. In addition, the same process is required for Policy Memos. These memos do not carry the force of law inherent in the regulations, but are often relied upon in the absence of regulations, as we have all seen.
As a result of this wide circulation process, it takes drafted proposed regulations several months, and often years, to undergo review prior to publication as proposed and/or interim regulations. Once comments are made by the public, a process that is legally required, the draft final regulations, with or without any modifications based on the comments, must be re-circulated following the same review process as with the initial draft. Since the transition from Legacy INS to the DHS, BCIS, CBP, and ICE is still underway, and multiple departments continue to sort their roles in the immigration process, proposed regulations for laws such as AC21 may still be somewhere in the distant future, rather than just around the corner, as we would have liked.
Sometimes delays in implementing regulations actually can help foreign nationals, however. Dea Carpenter, who was recently appointed the interim Chief Legal Advisor to BCIS on June 17, 2003, brought this fact to the attention of AILA attorneys who were complaining about the delay in issuing regulations. During the Conference she indicated that the absence of regulations can provide attorneys with greater flexibility in creatively, arguing how a particular law should be interpreted for the benefit of the client. As we have seen, there are often "loopholes" in the law, which regulations frequently "plug." While we all seek clarity, so that we can make decisions on a solid footing, those who are anxious to see regulations on laws such as AC21 would do well to remember the adage, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." Although we are unhappy with the lack of clarity, we may be better off now, as long as our arguments are successful, since the BCIS is of the opinion that AC21 was passed in a different political and economic climate. Ultimately, the interpretations may not be as favorable as we hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not think BCIS is going to take any stand on AC21. AC21 is a broken law. Approval of AC21 cases will be like approval of F1 visas during early 90s at the American consulates in India. If u r are lucky or ur F1 application is immpecable(No clear science behind the definition of immpecable application. U R at the mercy of consular's interpretation) U may get it else U will be denied (The golden excuse...U will not return back).
I also cannot fathom that BCIS will mass approve all the I-485 cases that have been pending for >180 days.
At best, BCIS will start processing I485 cases which they have unofficially stopped for the last 5 months.
But again,I tend to be very pessimistic when it comes to BCIS.
I appreciate all the postings on this forum. Please keep up the good work.
--------------
MurthyBulletin and MurthyDotCom readers inquire regularly and are surprised, and sometimes amazed, to learn that the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), passed in October 2000, still has no regulations interpreting this law or guiding us on the application of the law to specific circumstances. At various sessions of the June 2003 AILA Annual Conference in New Orleans, several government officials provided insight into the process necessary to issue even proposed regulations which are published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Prior to March 1, 2003, drafted proposed regulations potentially would have to be circulated through various agencies and officials within Legacy INS and any other agencies or departments impacted by the regulations. Now, since March 1, 2003, with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security overseeing immigration functions, a drafted proposed regulation may need to circulate through the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel's office, the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security (BTS), the U.S. Department of State (DOS), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and any other potentially concerned agencies or departments. Each person who reviews the circulated drafted proposed regulations might possibly have comments to add to the drafted proposed regulations. Whenever anyone adds or subtracts anything from the drafted proposed regulations, the revised version now must be re-circulated to all the relevant parties. In addition, the same process is required for Policy Memos. These memos do not carry the force of law inherent in the regulations, but are often relied upon in the absence of regulations, as we have all seen.
As a result of this wide circulation process, it takes drafted proposed regulations several months, and often years, to undergo review prior to publication as proposed and/or interim regulations. Once comments are made by the public, a process that is legally required, the draft final regulations, with or without any modifications based on the comments, must be re-circulated following the same review process as with the initial draft. Since the transition from Legacy INS to the DHS, BCIS, CBP, and ICE is still underway, and multiple departments continue to sort their roles in the immigration process, proposed regulations for laws such as AC21 may still be somewhere in the distant future, rather than just around the corner, as we would have liked.
Sometimes delays in implementing regulations actually can help foreign nationals, however. Dea Carpenter, who was recently appointed the interim Chief Legal Advisor to BCIS on June 17, 2003, brought this fact to the attention of AILA attorneys who were complaining about the delay in issuing regulations. During the Conference she indicated that the absence of regulations can provide attorneys with greater flexibility in creatively, arguing how a particular law should be interpreted for the benefit of the client. As we have seen, there are often "loopholes" in the law, which regulations frequently "plug." While we all seek clarity, so that we can make decisions on a solid footing, those who are anxious to see regulations on laws such as AC21 would do well to remember the adage, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." Although we are unhappy with the lack of clarity, we may be better off now, as long as our arguments are successful, since the BCIS is of the opinion that AC21 was passed in a different political and economic climate. Ultimately, the interpretations may not be as favorable as we hope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not think BCIS is going to take any stand on AC21. AC21 is a broken law. Approval of AC21 cases will be like approval of F1 visas during early 90s at the American consulates in India. If u r are lucky or ur F1 application is immpecable(No clear science behind the definition of immpecable application. U R at the mercy of consular's interpretation) U may get it else U will be denied (The golden excuse...U will not return back).
I also cannot fathom that BCIS will mass approve all the I-485 cases that have been pending for >180 days.
At best, BCIS will start processing I485 cases which they have unofficially stopped for the last 5 months.
But again,I tend to be very pessimistic when it comes to BCIS.
I appreciate all the postings on this forum. Please keep up the good work.
Last edited by a moderator:
The following is from my lawyer's reply:
This sounds incredible and unbelievable. I guess I had not heard this and I just got back from the American Immigration Lawyer Association (AILA) annual conference just a week ago where the BCIS where there. There is no mention of this on AILA's website. I believe it when I see it.
This sounds incredible and unbelievable. I guess I had not heard this and I just got back from the American Immigration Lawyer Association (AILA) annual conference just a week ago where the BCIS where there. There is no mention of this on AILA's website. I believe it when I see it.
Ac21/ question on concurrent
Experts
is there any legal opinion on if the 180 days clock starts after 485 ND or after 140 approval date in case of concurent filing
specifically
485 rd dec 2002
140 Approval July 2003
am i covered by 180 day rule????? i have posed this question but have got diff replies
THANKS!!!!!
Experts
is there any legal opinion on if the 180 days clock starts after 485 ND or after 140 approval date in case of concurent filing
specifically
485 rd dec 2002
140 Approval July 2003
am i covered by 180 day rule????? i have posed this question but have got diff replies
THANKS!!!!!
paulclarke1
Registered Users (C)
The Dream Is Over
It was a great midsummer day dream, back to reality.
It was a great midsummer day dream, back to reality.
blacklettercode
Registered Users (C)
Negative impact on her repuation
Considering the question asked in the chat session, Murthy's
answer did not seem to related to AC 21 rule. It turned out to be AC 21 related, as clarifed by one of posters who is her client.
I think this message has a negative impact on her reputation. Either she did not understand the question asked or she deliberately mislead the public to create some sensation effect.
Considering the question asked in the chat session, Murthy's
answer did not seem to related to AC 21 rule. It turned out to be AC 21 related, as clarifed by one of posters who is her client.
I think this message has a negative impact on her reputation. Either she did not understand the question asked or she deliberately mislead the public to create some sensation effect.
Guys, give her a break
Just because of our anxieties and tendency to grasp at straws we have taken a few sentences and interpreted it as something that we want to hear desperately.
She does take time off from her schedule to attend these chat sessions in person whcih is in itself a commendable service like the one Rajiv is doing with this forum.
Let us be magnanimous and give her the benefit of doubt. I do not see in her reply any thing that would lead to the word "automatic" - which is what everyone seem to be hung up about.
Among all of the hardships and traumatic times we are going through, beating up on people/institutions that are lending us a helping hand is unnecessary and wrong. I urge all of youll to refrain from slander. Thanks.
Just because of our anxieties and tendency to grasp at straws we have taken a few sentences and interpreted it as something that we want to hear desperately.
She does take time off from her schedule to attend these chat sessions in person whcih is in itself a commendable service like the one Rajiv is doing with this forum.
Let us be magnanimous and give her the benefit of doubt. I do not see in her reply any thing that would lead to the word "automatic" - which is what everyone seem to be hung up about.
Among all of the hardships and traumatic times we are going through, beating up on people/institutions that are lending us a helping hand is unnecessary and wrong. I urge all of youll to refrain from slander. Thanks.
I'll love this ...
Here is the excerpt from Murthy Chat on Murthy's site ...
Chat User: Hi, Ms. Murthy. Is there a chance that BCIS Headquarters will issue a rule stating that a person with the I-485 pending for over 180 days should obtain the I-485 approval? Thanks!
Attorney Murthy: Yes, I personally spoke with Efren Hernandez last week. He promised me that the BCIS will release such a memo by this Friday, July 11, 2003. I expect something to be released in about a week or two. The Memo or guidance will require BCIS examiners at the various Regional Service Centers to issue an approval of the I-485 if the I-140 has been previously approved and the I-485 has been pending in excess of 180 days.
If this happens, I guess all of us bored, tired, panicked, troubled and hopelessly waiting 485 approval seekers will visit their respective worship places and praise God.
Thanks
Here is the excerpt from Murthy Chat on Murthy's site ...
Chat User: Hi, Ms. Murthy. Is there a chance that BCIS Headquarters will issue a rule stating that a person with the I-485 pending for over 180 days should obtain the I-485 approval? Thanks!
Attorney Murthy: Yes, I personally spoke with Efren Hernandez last week. He promised me that the BCIS will release such a memo by this Friday, July 11, 2003. I expect something to be released in about a week or two. The Memo or guidance will require BCIS examiners at the various Regional Service Centers to issue an approval of the I-485 if the I-140 has been previously approved and the I-485 has been pending in excess of 180 days.
If this happens, I guess all of us bored, tired, panicked, troubled and hopelessly waiting 485 approval seekers will visit their respective worship places and praise God.
Thanks
gheewalabhai888
Registered Users (C)
It is proven and verified that it is nothing
more than a re-description of AC-21 in a memo format that adjudicators will get this friday or sometime in the next couple of years, so that they can stare at it and make sense when the cases found are ac-21 and are beyond 180 days.
more than a re-description of AC-21 in a memo format that adjudicators will get this friday or sometime in the next couple of years, so that they can stare at it and make sense when the cases found are ac-21 and are beyond 180 days.
Mystry solved
Ok guys just check the following link and all the mystry regarding approval after 180 days will be solved
http://www.murthy.com/UDrevapp.html
all of us back to square one....
Ok guys just check the following link and all the mystry regarding approval after 180 days will be solved
http://www.murthy.com/UDrevapp.html
all of us back to square one....
jahanpanah
Registered Users (C)
Regardless, this is a good news. Think of so many applicants who
may eventually benefit from this.
Its incredible that even in this environment of increased scrutiny
etc., BCIS is still taking a positive approach. Its sensible as well.
If one can change employer using AC21 and still continue the AOS
process, why should it matter if a previously approved I-140 is
revoked by the previous employer.
What I do not understand is why is I-140 even necessary. Due to
AC21, if the new employer is not required to file another I-140
then why was it important for the original sponsoring employer
to file the I-140 in the first place. It makes little sense to me as
I-140 is considered employer's petition.
The only logic I can think of is may be I-140 approval is considered
like provisional green card pending the decision on AOS.
Inspite of the million odd AOS applications backlog, the approach
towards green card from rules/regulation perspective is just
getting better and better.
It would certainly be plus if the AOS approval came in quickly as well.
Cheer up guys!!!
may eventually benefit from this.
Its incredible that even in this environment of increased scrutiny
etc., BCIS is still taking a positive approach. Its sensible as well.
If one can change employer using AC21 and still continue the AOS
process, why should it matter if a previously approved I-140 is
revoked by the previous employer.
What I do not understand is why is I-140 even necessary. Due to
AC21, if the new employer is not required to file another I-140
then why was it important for the original sponsoring employer
to file the I-140 in the first place. It makes little sense to me as
I-140 is considered employer's petition.
The only logic I can think of is may be I-140 approval is considered
like provisional green card pending the decision on AOS.
Inspite of the million odd AOS applications backlog, the approach
towards green card from rules/regulation perspective is just
getting better and better.
It would certainly be plus if the AOS approval came in quickly as well.
Cheer up guys!!!
from murthy's bulletin......
If the 485 is pending for 180 or more days, I140 revokal of the original employer doesn't effect the 485 application.
Does this mean that the revokal made is after 140 approval or even pending 140??
For ex: if a 485 app is pending more than 180 days, and if his originial employer's 140 is still pending, can the original employer still revoke/withdraw the 140 petition.
If the 485 is pending for 180 or more days, I140 revokal of the original employer doesn't effect the 485 application.
Does this mean that the revokal made is after 140 approval or even pending 140??
For ex: if a 485 app is pending more than 180 days, and if his originial employer's 140 is still pending, can the original employer still revoke/withdraw the 140 petition.