Consolidated NSC I-485 Tracker

[ho_jayega]

Thank you all for EAD/AP information.

Thank you for your support.

Thanks

I have applied myself for 2 H1-B extensions and got approvals. Compared to that filing an EAD is very simple. I highly recommend you do it yourself. Also when we were in school, F-1 we used to apply for EAD by ourself.

Also don't take a chance on getting it by your time-frame. Just apply at least 90 to 120 days before your expiration.

Also you can Pvt msg me, if you have any questions filling out the application forms.

 

[sathya10]

Yes go to local office.

My wife had similar problem. She just went to the local office with her notice.
They issued it to her right away.

They asked her to pay some amount. Carry cash..

Hi Just Watching,

My EAD case was approved on Decemeber 20 but I did not receive my EAD yet.

Is there anyway to get EAD card in local office or should I call USCIS to send me another copy of the card?

Thanks

 

[dstu]

Strange LUD

I've just found a new LUD on my I-140 approved 2 weeks ago. Is it anyhow related to processing of I-485 or just a system glitch? LUD on I-485 is unchanged since July.

 

[nylc4yr]

I think it happens to everyone. I guess it is some kind of follow-up action.

I've just found a new LUD on my I-140 approved 2 weeks ago. Is it anyhow related to processing of I-485 or just a system glitch? LUD on I-485 is unchanged since July.

 

[ho_jayega]

Do YOu mean for everyrenewall we need to do FP !!!

Hi nelsona,
I like the comment and thank you for encouraging me.
do I just need to file AP/EAD (i.e. 131 and 765) renewal or any other renewal alongwith?
While filling 485 my lawyer filled following,

I-485
I-134
G-325A
G-28
I-131
I-765

THanks

I have e-filed my AP/EAD renewals for 3 years now (6 times for wife and I) without problems.

All it costs is the filing fees, plus a scheduled trip to the nearest ASC for photo and FP.

Getting a lawyer to file an AP/EAD renewal is like getting a plumber to replace your empty toilet paper roll.

 

[mas06]

I've just found a new LUD on my I-140 approved 2 weeks ago. Is it anyhow related to processing of I-485 or just a system glitch? LUD on I-485 is unchanged since July.

It happend to me and at the same time there were 2 LUDs on my I-485. I called 2 weeks after that and I was told that yes there was some work done on the I-485 (12/29, 1/3) but it was placed on hold for security check. For others, there were no I-485 LUDS, so it may be just QC function. Try to call in few days.

 

[antonioa77]

no more WOM to clear namecheck

for people who r stuck for a long time in namecheck and were thinking of filin a lawsuit, this is not applicable anymore. this is a very bad news. check immigration-law.com

01/22/2007: Mandamus Action No Longer Panacea to Natulization Backlog?

Some of those who applied for the citizenship (naturalization) faced the clog of security check delays, in some cases even for years. There was enough blame to go around between the DHS and the FBI as to who was responsible for the backlog. As the USCIS acknowledged, the USCIS somehow accelerated the processing of some security-clogged cases when the applicants brought a mandamus action before the federal courts asking the federal court to mandate the USCIS to process the applications. It more or less opened a flood gate of mandamus actions by the involved applicants causing a tremendous burden on the agency and the U.S. Attorneys in terms of the resources and time.
The news have recently surfaced that the U.S. Attorneys would fight out rather than back down or settle in such lawsuits. It is a bad news for those who suffer from terrible delays in naturalization because of the so-called security check backlog. In the first place, it will become very expensive to litigate. Additionally, the outcome of success in such litigation may not necessarily lead to the quick fix any more of the naturalization delays.

 

[nelsona]

Hi nelsona,

do I just need to file AP/EAD (i.e. 131 and 765) renewal or any other renewal alongwith?
While filling 485 my lawyer filled following,

I-485
I-134
G-325A
G-28
I-131
I-765

THanks

Only the I-131 (AP) and i-756 (EAD) are needed. The others were filed in connection with your I-485 submission.

Do it online and file concurrently and you will have no problem. They even give you your case number right then.

 

[dreamer_ny]

I just got my AP approval emails but didnt get the approval emails for my spouse. Shouldn't both applications get approved together?

 

[gmr]

Stuck in NameCheck

Hi,
Today I had an InfoPass appointment. I was told that the name check is still pending for me and my spouse. It has been more then 9 months since I had filed my 485. Kind of worried that I will be stuck for couple more years in this name check. Does anyone know the average time for the name check clearance? Please let me know. And if NC is pending more than 9 months should we assume that it will take atleast couple more years. Please share any info you have

Thanks,
GMR

PD 2000
140/485----concurrent on APril 10 2006
140 approved on Aug 2006 ---with in correct PD
140 amended with right PD -----Dec 2006
485 pending------as of Jan 23 2007 for me & my spouse

 

[antonioa77]

Hi,
Today I had an InfoPass appointment. I was told that the name check is still pending for me and my spouse. It has been more then 9 months since I had filed my 485. Kind of worried that I will be stuck for couple more years in this name check. Does anyone know the average time for the name check clearance? Please let me know. And if NC is pending more than 9 months should we assume that it will take atleast couple more years. Please share any info you have

Thanks,
GMR

PD 2000
140/485----concurrent on APril 10 2006
140 approved on Aug 2006 ---with in correct PD
140 amended with right PD -----Dec 2006
485 pending------as of Jan 23 2007 for me & my spouse

namecheck clearance is open ended. u can get it tomorow and maybe in 5 years. it is a luck thing simply.

 

[mas06]

Hi,
Today I had an InfoPass appointment. I was told that the name check is still pending for me and my spouse. It has been more then 9 months since I had filed my 485. Kind of worried that I will be stuck for couple more years in this name check. Does anyone know the average time for the name check clearance? Please let me know. And if NC is pending more than 9 months should we assume that it will take atleast couple more years. Please share any info you have

Thanks,
GMR

Hi GMR,

You have just joine the club where many of us are already established members. There is no logic in the NC processing time. So, you may be approved in few weeks or few more years. I believe that at least 40% of applications are past 6 months. It is presumed that country and religion do not matter but based on observation of many friends from "listed" countries, many of them are beyond their second year of waiting time. There is only one solution: Filing a Writ of Mandamus suit. This is usually not recommended before 1-2 yrs of agony time. Wish you a short stay in this club!

 

[antonioa77]

Hi GMR,

You have just joine the club where many of us are already established members. There is no logic in the NC processing time. So, you may be approved in few weeks or few more years. I believe that at least 40% of applications are past 6 months. It is presumed that country and religion do not matter but based on observation of many friends from "listed" countries, many of them are beyond their second year of waiting time. There is only one solution: Filing a Writ of Mandamus suit. This is usually not recommended before 1-2 yrs of agony time. Wish you a short stay in this club!

lawsuit doesn't work anymore. i posted this from immigrtion-law:

01/22/2007: Mandamus Action No Longer Panacea to Natulization Backlog?

Some of those who applied for the citizenship (naturalization) faced the clog of security check delays, in some cases even for years. There was enough blame to go around between the DHS and the FBI as to who was responsible for the backlog. As the USCIS acknowledged, the USCIS somehow accelerated the processing of some security-clogged cases when the applicants brought a mandamus action before the federal courts asking the federal court to mandate the USCIS to process the applications. It more or less opened a flood gate of mandamus actions by the involved applicants causing a tremendous burden on the agency and the U.S. Attorneys in terms of the resources and time.
The news have recently surfaced that the U.S. Attorneys would fight out rather than back down or settle in such lawsuits. It is a bad news for those who suffer from terrible delays in naturalization because of the so-called security check backlog. In the first place, it will become very expensive to litigate. Additionally, the outcome of success in such litigation may not necessarily lead to the quick fix any more of the naturalization delays.

 

[bigbang2001]

Anotnonia77 : Please do not jump to conclusions.

This is suggested and possible legislation change and not yet a law. Look at Yahoo newsgroup for "namecheck". There are several posting and an effort to defeat this move.

So if you are in a position to file WOM, it is better to do it now than delaying it as USCIS is moving in to "remove WOM as an option to expedite name check from FBI"

lawsuit doesn't work anymore. i posted this from immigrtion-law:

01/22/2007: Mandamus Action No Longer Panacea to Natulization Backlog?

Some of those who applied for the citizenship (naturalization) faced the clog of security check delays, in some cases even for years. There was enough blame to go around between the DHS and the FBI as to who was responsible for the backlog. As the USCIS acknowledged, the USCIS somehow accelerated the processing of some security-clogged cases when the applicants brought a mandamus action before the federal courts asking the federal court to mandate the USCIS to process the applications. It more or less opened a flood gate of mandamus actions by the involved applicants causing a tremendous burden on the agency and the U.S. Attorneys in terms of the resources and time.
The news have recently surfaced that the U.S. Attorneys would fight out rather than back down or settle in such lawsuits. It is a bad news for those who suffer from terrible delays in naturalization because of the so-called security check backlog. In the first place, it will become very expensive to litigate. Additionally, the outcome of success in such litigation may not necessarily lead to the quick fix any more of the naturalization delays.

 

[green ocean]

Yes, same story here

I've just found a new LUD on my I-140 approved 2 weeks ago. Is it anyhow related to processing of I-485 or just a system glitch? LUD on I-485 is unchanged since July.

Yes,

You are one of many who receive LUDs on their approved I-140 but nothing on their I-485s (including me - see signature, we also have the same dates). I have noticed this is common to the concurrent filing applicants. I am speculating that it is related to the fact that USCIS sends the approved I-140 to the National Visa Center, so that we, the lucky ones can get a visa number. Hopefully it is a good sign. Just sit down and pray along with the rest of us. Amen.

 

[mas06]

lawsuit doesn't work anymore. i posted this from immigrtion-law:

01/22/2007: Mandamus Action No Longer Panacea to Natulization Backlog?

Dear Antonioa,

Yes, I am aware of that. I have no doubt that they will fight back this litigations but WOM is still legitimate. At this point, they may able to get the judges to dismiss some cases based on technical issues, settle some very old ones, ask for extensions or finally bring to court. The last option, as difficlut as is for the plaintiff, it is difficult for them also. They just can not bring all the thousands cases to the court. As it stands now, WOM cases will still be allowed to file and I really doubt that this is going to change. One proof of what I am saying is: USCIS has just stopped interviews for N-400 cases before NC is cleared trying to limit the litigation (according to 1447b). If such banning law on WOM was imminent, why would they do that?
Saying all of that, I am still not a proponent for WOM if your case is less than 2 years old. Simply, it is difficult to make a good case, if it ever goes to court.

 

[mas06]

Anotnonia77 : Please do not jump to conclusions.

This is suggested and possible legislation change and not yet a law. Look at Yahoo newsgroup for "namecheck". There are several posting and an effort to defeat this move.

So if you are in a position to file WOM, it is better to do it now than delaying it as USCIS is moving in to "remove WOM as an option to expedite name check from FBI"

I agree with you. I do not think USCIS is able to remove WOM as a way for NC expedite. As you have said, this has to involve the legisltaion not the executive branch. In other words, the congress has to remove WOM from the law. The defnition of WOM is to force a federal agency to make a decision by the law. The agency can not remove that law but they may able go around it; to issue further RFEs or ask for more time or simply deny the petition due to any technical reason.

 

[antonioa77]

I agree with you. I do not think USCIS is able to remove WOM as a way for NC expedite. As you have said, this has to involve the legisltaion not the executive branch. In other words, the congress has to remove WOM from the law. The defnition of WOM is to force a federal agency to make a decision by the law. The agency can not remove that law but they may able go around it; to issue further RFEs or ask for more time or simply deny the petition due to any technical reason.

so the effect of WOM will be much less. so it is much risky to apply for WOM. this is the whole purpose of doing that. the strategy is to fight back and make it hard for applicants. in this way, less applicant will try to sue them.

 

[igor_ch]

>> The last option, as difficlut as is for the plaintiff, it is difficult for them also

I do not agree... Initially, it will be difficult for them, but as the time goes, there will be a body of common law accumulated around these cases in each of the district courts. Once they have precedents, where judges refused issuing a WOM based on various criteria, US district attorneys should be able to refer previous decisions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis ) to request a summary judgment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment ) or another form of pre-trial case dismissal. Only cases that do not fall into the previous denials would reach the courtroom or be settled, these cases should have a different fact pattern than cases that faced denials in the courtroom before. You can see that it will be very important for people to professionally defend their cases once US District Attorneys start fighting back, otherwise all the lost precendent cases will hurt those who follow.

On the positive side, this will shift attention from USCIS to the real troublemaker - FBI.

This is my totally unprofessional opinion. Constructive feedback is welcome.

Dear Antonioa,

Yes, I am aware of that. I have no doubt that they will fight back this litigations but WOM is still legitimate. At this point, they may able to get the judges to dismiss some cases based on technical issues, settle some very old ones, ask for extensions or finally bring to court. The last option, as difficlut as is for the plaintiff, it is difficult for them also. They just can not bring all the thousands cases to the court. As it stands now, WOM cases will still be allowed to file and I really doubt that this is going to change. One proof of what I am saying is: USCIS has just stopped interviews for N-400 cases before NC is cleared trying to limit the litigation (according to 1447b). If such banning law on WOM was imminent, why would they do that?
Saying all of that, I am still not a proponent for WOM if your case is less than 2 years old. Simply, it is difficult to make a good case, if it ever goes to court.

 

[mas06]

>> The last option, as difficlut as is for the plaintiff, it is difficult for them also

I do not agree... Initially, it will be difficult for them, but as the time goes, there will be a body of common law accumulated around these cases in each of the district courts. Once they have precedents, where judges refused issuing a WOM based on various criteria, US district attorneys should be able to refer previous decisions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis ) to request a summary judgment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment ) or another form of pre-trial case dismissal. Only cases that do not fall into the previous denials would reach the courtroom or be settled, these cases should have a different fact pattern than cases that faced denials in the courtroom before. You can see that it will be very important for people to professionally defend their cases once US District Attorneys start fighting back, otherwise all the lost precendent cases will hurt those who follow.

On the positive side, this will shift attention from USCIS to the real troublemaker - FBI.

This is my totally unprofessional opinion. Positive feedback is welcome.

This is actually a very good point. I did not think about it before, yet you may also think that on the other hand, successful cases may be precedent for some judges or plaintiff attorneys to quote. It is getting more difficult for sure.