MTR granted---how significant is it?

K

kanus

Registered Users (C)
There are probably very few people out there who can answer this....

I had my NIW I-140 denied outright a couple of months ago. It seemed like a pretty outrageous denial, and my attorney and several other attorney felt it was entirely inappropriate. We sent a letter directly to William Yates, and also filed a Motion to Reopen.

I have received the following e-mail:

"On November 22, 2004, this case was reopened on a BCIS motion, and the
case is now in process. It is taking between 90 and 485 days for us to
process this kind of case. We will mail you a decision as soon as
processing is complete."

How significant is this step? Is it pretty much routine that they grant the motion to reopen, and then re-evaluate the case from scratch, OR is the fact that they granted the motion actually a very good sign that the I-140 will be viewed in a favorable light?

Any insight would be appreciated.
 
kanus said:
There are probably very few people out there who can answer this....

I had my NIW I-140 denied outright a couple of months ago. It seemed like a pretty outrageous denial, and my attorney and several other attorney felt it was entirely inappropriate. We sent a letter directly to William Yates, and also filed a Motion to Reopen.

I have received the following e-mail:

"On November 22, 2004, this case was reopened on a BCIS motion, and the
case is now in process. It is taking between 90 and 485 days for us to
process this kind of case. We will mail you a decision as soon as
processing is complete."

How significant is this step? Is it pretty much routine that they grant the motion to reopen, and then re-evaluate the case from scratch, OR is the fact that they granted the motion actually a very good sign that the I-140 will be viewed in a favorable light?

Any insight would be appreciated.
Click to expand...


Hello

I am kinda in the same boat as you. My Case was reopened after I sent in the Motion. It was reopened more that 2 months back but there is no update after that. I contacted my senator and they said that the motion is still pending.

BTW which service center did you apply and also was this an MTR and an appeal or jsut an MTR?

Thanks
 
It's at VSC.

To tell you the truth, I'm not completely sure whether it's a straight MTR or MTR/appeal. This was one thing that I left to the attorney.

Our plan was if it wound up with AAO, we would probably withdraw and do another application in either EB-1 or NIW.

As far as details go ... I am MD Anesthesiologist, Ivy league trained. The reason for the denial was that at the time of application, my studies had not been published. However, I included about 12 letters from major players in anesthesiology, saying that they already knew my preliminary results, that the preliminary results were already big news, and that it would be a big deal when it was published.

Turned out it WAS a big deal (arguably the biggest international anesthesiology publication of 2004). However, USCIS denied me outright, saying there was no point in even asking for an RFE, as the work had not been published at the time of application.

The argument for the motion was that my research had already met the criteria at the time of application, even though it had not been published formally. We included the subsequent publication, which clearly showed that the work had been done at the time of application. Also a bunch of major articles/international awards/grants that derived from the work done before the application. Importantly, some pretty angry letters from referees, saying that they were quite offended that their statements were so summarily dismissed, and telling USCIS that they obviously didn't understand the way information is disseminated during the conduct of major clinical trials.

So, we'll see.... I mean, pretty much singlehandedly I've published information that should save the US health system hundreds of millions of dollars. You'd think they could at least give me an RFE!!

I have read elsewhere that if a motion to reopen is granted, approval is pretty much a formality, as by granting the motion they have acknowledged that you have surmounted the reason for denial.

But I have learnt over many years NEVER to trust that things will work out with USCIS. So much depends on which adjudicator happens to pick up your case, and which way the wind is blowing that day. The subjectiveness and arbitrariness of USCIS decisions would never be tolerated in even minor league sporting competition, yet our lives are regularly placed in turmoil becasue of it.

Good luck.
 
Hello

In fact I thought the same about appoval since the case was reopened. But after two months of LONG wait, my confidence level has gone down.

BTW did you get a notice of Action indicating that the case was reopened. Also did your LUD change on the motion and the actual I140 petition.

This is ofcourse not to lower you morale but just letting you know what happened with my case. Please keep me posted and i will do the same


Thanks
Ricky
 
Ricky,

I don't know all the details because much of this has gone through my attorney's office.

I got a LUD for the day after the e-mail says the case was reopened. I don't know anything about the actualy MTR, as I don't have the EAC number for that.

There is no change on either my or my wife's I-485.

There is a guy on this forum who goes by the name "unitednations" who seems to have a pretty good knowledge of this area. Maybe he will pick up on this thread. I know a fair bit about stuff, but not about MTR, as I've never had to look into it in any detail before.

Happy Thanksgiving!
 
Mtr

Hi Kanus,
Who is William Yates?
We are in the same boat: MTR pending, and we need it to be looked into immediately.
Happy Hols
newname16
 
unitednations said:
Rickey, is pretty knowledgeable on the MTR issue.

This is what I have found.

When a motion to reopen is granted it really means that they have agreed to re-look at the application. Generally, if one has filed a 290a then the MTR will live or die with the service center and will not be forwarded to AAO. Therefore, they have to re-take a look at it and that is probably why the message changed to re-opened.

On a 290b when there is a motion to reopen and appeal, the MTR is same process as 290a but if adjudicator will approve it before it goes to AAO then message changes to "reopened" and then shortly thereafter "approval".

I believe there is a difference when a motion to reopen is granted whether one did a 290a or 290b.

If you have the cashed check for the MTR, it will have the receipt # on the back of the check and you can track the application on-line. It will say if it is a 290a.
Click to expand...

UN

I researched and found that a case is reopened ONLY if there is enough in it for them to look at. I do not think it happens as a matter of course based on one doing a 290a or 290b. As on a 290b too they can take time even if the case is reopened. The 60 day time period is only non-published operational procedure to forward it to AAO and NOT a followed USCIS policy. Further if MTR is granted Motion is no longer pending. The case should be pending.

My question is if dependent applications (I-485, I-765 and I-131) is denied based on the I140 denial then shouldn't they be reopened as soon as the I140 is reopened.? Is there ANY LAW or operational guidance from Yates or someone else that dependent applications will be reopened ONLY if I140 is approved.? The dependent applications are denied because I-140 is denied. However, I140 is no longer denied since it is reopened so I would think that I140 is pending.

Please Opine

Thanks
Rick
 
The impression I got from my attorney was that the I-485 and other derivitives would not be reopened until the I-140 is approved.

That is the "default." If an independent MTR was filed on the I-485 after the I-140 is reopened, then one would think it would be granted, as the I-140 is again an active case. Inherent in this assumption is that a reopened case is entirely equivalent to an unadjudicated active case. This may not be true.

Sorry I have no authoritiative input!
 
kanus said:
The impression I got from my attorney was that the I-485 and other derivitives would not be reopened until the I-140 is approved.

That is the "default." If an independent MTR was filed on the I-485 after the I-140 is reopened, then one would think it would be granted, as the I-140 is again an active case. Inherent in this assumption is that a reopened case is entirely equivalent to an unadjudicated active case. This may not be true.

Sorry I have no authoritiative input!
Click to expand...

Any Precedent or LAW exists to this effect, do you or your attorney know.? Also for my benefit can you find out if yours was ONLY an MTR or an appeal as well.?

Thanks
Rick
 
Great news. The I-140 was approved!! My God, I can't believe it ... so much anxiety for so long.

With the e-mail for the I-140 approval came an e-mail for a reopening of an I-485. I don't have the receipts with me, so I'm not sure whether it is my I-485 or my wife's. I will be able to check tomorrow, and will let you guys know.

Ricky, I believe it was MTR/appeal, though I haven't actually seen the receipt ... that is based on conversations.

Thanks all.
 
By the way, I'd like to let you know that the attorney who did all this was Nathan Waxman, in Manhattan. Nathan is a NIW specialist, and has written a number of academic articles on NIW, particularly relating to the NYSDOT.

I was very disappointed when I received the initial denial, but I have to say that the way Nathan planned and dealt with the motion and the direct petition to Yates was really impressive. I think if you ever find yourself in a sticky situation, or with a difficult petition, you would be well served to contact Nathan: www.waxlaw.com
 
kanus said:
Great news. The I-140 was approved!! My God, I can't believe it ... so much anxiety for so long.

With the e-mail for the I-140 approval came an e-mail for a reopening of an I-485. I don't have the receipts with me, so I'm not sure whether it is my I-485 or my wife's. I will be able to check tomorrow, and will let you guys know.

Ricky, I believe it was MTR/appeal, though I haven't actually seen the receipt ... that is based on conversations.

Thanks all.
Click to expand...


Congrajulations!
 
kanus said:
The impression I got from my attorney was that the I-485 and other derivitives would not be reopened until the I-140 is approved.

That is the "default." If an independent MTR was filed on the I-485 after the I-140 is reopened, then one would think it would be granted, as the I-140 is again an active case. Inherent in this assumption is that a reopened case is entirely equivalent to an unadjudicated active case. This may not be true.

Sorry I have no authoritiative input!
Click to expand...
Did both of yours and your derivatives case was reopened or only your case was reopened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top