- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- Visa Bulletin and Priority Dates Retrogression Iss
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Please sign for EB improvement - AILA
- Thread starter goan2005
- Start date
I do think that EB hopefuls are just wanting the ability to file I-485 in order to change the jobs.
This violates the spirit of EB immigration. I think the philosophy behind AC21 is that if the business conditions change and the employer does not have a position for the EB hopeful in six months after I-485 filing, then the spirit of EB immigration is not violated if the employer-employee relationship is terminated six months after I-485 filing and the GC process is still continued if the employee finds a job matching the specs mentioned in the LC.
But that does not mean that the employee should start looking for opportunities elsewhere the moment they file I-485.
This violates the spirit of EB immigration. I think the philosophy behind AC21 is that if the business conditions change and the employer does not have a position for the EB hopeful in six months after I-485 filing, then the spirit of EB immigration is not violated if the employer-employee relationship is terminated six months after I-485 filing and the GC process is still continued if the employee finds a job matching the specs mentioned in the LC.
But that does not mean that the employee should start looking for opportunities elsewhere the moment they file I-485.
desi3933 said:nyc8300,
I raised some questions in post #52 and I am still waiting for your responce.
Lines in Blue are quote from nyc8300 and lines in green are my quote.
Q&A for DESI3933
Originally Posted by nyc8300
Points 1 and 2 are points for USCIS to consider but that does not mean we don't ask for I-485 filing ability.
Point 3 can be reasoned both ways. It is not an 'intent' to use EAD's to switch jobs but given 'retrogession' is here to stay, people should be allowed to do this.
What do you mean? Can you give some more details?
I don't have any views on family based retrogession. If you want to 'tag' that to this, you come up with another thread.
Reapplying for Labor and I-140 just creates more money for lawyers/AILA. Why not give that money to USCIS as fee....
If one is not happy with employer and he wants to change job, why he/she wants to GC from that employer? That does not make sense. I don't think it is right from legal point of view.
Please see tusharvk's comment on why temporary relief is needed for purposes of promotions, better productivity. There is no intent of leaving for another job at all. tusharvk has presented this well enough.
Also, it is the Employer that should pay for labor and I-140, and not the employee.
I don't disagree; what I am trying to suggest is to cut down on more paperwork and use those funds to facilitate USCIS with more money so that they have more revenue if needed.
Agree on the H-1b thing. You can change your job if you choose to. If you choose you have a lot of options but we have to make a start at unstringing
this whole mess from some point.
Letting people file for I-485's is probably the least controversial topics.
How can you make that claim? Anything to justify your claim.
tusharvk has raised some points that makes sense. UN keeps on raising this
'comprehensive approach', more GC's, no gaming. That is a much wider question. EB retrogession problem now has enough critical mass to call for
its own solutions. In any case, USCIS does legislate for categories like nurses,
doctors etc.
Why don't we make a start there?
Then make reasonable points of arguement why it should be allowed and why it should be allowed only for EB and not for Family based immigration.
Let me ask you two simple questions:
1. Who should pay for LC and I-140 applications
2. Employment based GC means that one would like to work that employer and is happy in that job. Right?
Desi3933,
Just one question.
Are you a lawyer?
desi3933 said:nyc8300,
I raised some questions in post #52 and I am still waiting for your responce.
Lines in Blue are quote from nyc8300 and lines in green are my quote.
Originally Posted by nyc8300
Points 1 and 2 are points for USCIS to consider but that does not mean we don't ask for I-485 filing ability.
Point 3 can be reasoned both ways. It is not an 'intent' to use EAD's to switch jobs but given 'retrogession' is here to stay, people should be allowed to do this.
What do you mean? Can you give some more details?
I don't have any views on family based retrogession. If you want to 'tag' that to this, you come up with another thread.
Reapplying for Labor and I-140 just creates more money for lawyers/AILA. Why not give that money to USCIS as fee....
If one is not happy with employer and he wants to change job, why he/she wants to GC from that employer? That does not make sense. I don't think it is right from legal point of view.
Please see tusharvk's comment on why temporary relief is needed for purposes of promotions, better productivity. There is no intent of leaving for another job at all. tusharvk has presented this well enough.
Also, it is the Employer that should pay for labor and I-140, and not the employee.
I don't disagree; what I am trying to suggest is to cut down on more paperwork and use those funds to facilitate USCIS with more money so that they have more revenue if needed.
Agree on the H-1b thing. You can change your job if you choose to. If you choose you have a lot of options but we have to make a start at unstringing
this whole mess from some point.
Letting people file for I-485's is probably the least controversial topics.
How can you make that claim? Anything to justify your claim.
tusharvk has raised some points that makes sense. UN keeps on raising this
'comprehensive approach', more GC's, no gaming. That is a much wider question. EB retrogession problem now has enough critical mass to call for
its own solutions. In any case, USCIS does legislate for categories like nurses,
doctors etc.
Why don't we make a start there?
Then make reasonable points of arguement why it should be allowed and why it should be allowed only for EB and not for Family based immigration.
Let me ask you two simple questions:
1. Who should pay for LC and I-140 applications
2. Employment based GC means that one would like to work that employer and is happy in that job. Right?
Desi3933,
Just one question.
Are you a lawyer?
EB's-Draft your own agenda!
Let's keep the focus on I-485 relief.
Let's keep the focus on I-485 relief.
nyc8300 said:Thanks for the note. Very valid points. There was an article on WSJ front page about a scientist not being able to serve to the best of his ability due to retrogession. I am trying to look up that article.
I think EB candidates in itself (porbably 150,000 strong and more coming)
need to draft up a letter 'solely' for the I-485 filing allowance and send it to congress man. As we know AILA/Dems/Reps are not going to help us. They WILL use us to pursue their agendas.
nyc8300 said:...I don't have any views on family based retrogession. If you want to 'tag' that to this, you come up with another thread.
I don't think any solution that caters only to EB cases, but do not address similar situations for FB cases is a good idea.
.....
Please see tusharvk's comment on why temporary relief is needed for purposes of promotions, better productivity. There is no intent of leaving for another job at all. tusharvk has presented this well enough.
How just the ability to file I-485 is going to address promotions. Ability to file (when PD is not current) I-485 will not get quick approvals. It could be months/years and job conditions must be met.
How is productivity related to I-485 filing?
Many states allow in-state tution for H1/H4 visa status holders. Just having I-485 filed will not make difference for in-state tution. I could be wrong here. Is there any state that allows in-state tution on I-485, but on H1/H4 status? If that is a case, it could be good point for allowing I-485 filings.
-- Quote from desi3933
Also, it is the Employer that should pay for labor and
I-140, and not the employee.
-- end quote
I don't disagree; what I am trying to suggest is to cut down on more paperwork and use those funds to facilitate USCIS with more money so that they have more revenue if needed.
who is going to provide suvh funds? What are the justifications?
Are you assuming that every job change, his/her employer is going to file for LC and I-40. LC and I-140 are employer specific and it is employer's choice whether to pursue GC process or not.
Agree on the H-1b thing. You can change your job if you choose to. If you choose you have a lot of options but we have to make a start at unstringing
this whole mess from some point.
Letting people file for I-485's is probably the least controversial topics.
How can you make that claim? Anything to justify your claim.
tusharvk has raised some points that makes sense. UN keeps on raising this
'comprehensive approach', more GC's, no gaming. That is a much wider question. EB retrogession problem now has enough critical mass to call for
its own solutions. In any case, USCIS does legislate for categories like nurses,
doctors etc.
USCIS does not legislate any laws. It follows them as per its interpretation of the law. It may be good idea to see how special categories were created. It may require lobbying thru valid justifications points.
Why don't we make a start there?
Then make reasonable points of arguement why it should be allowed and why it should be allowed only for EB and not for Family based immigration.
Let me ask you two simple questions:
1. Who should pay for LC and I-140 applications
2. Employment based GC means that one would like to work that employer and is happy in that job. Right?
Desi3933,
Just one question.
Are you a lawyer?
I am not a lawyer. I am an IT person with Computer Science and Accounting background.
Bare Babu/Relax
UN/Bare Babu,
Relax! Let's do one thing. Let people who are retrogessed demand I-485 filing ability. You don't have to support it but you don't have to oppose it either
As we know the basic question of immigration being good or bad is in itself
debatable.
Your comment Just like illegals; enforcement first, relief second.
Sounded like AILA and disturbing....
I will try and get that article on WSJ for you separately and answer your questions separately.
Let us try and make a start where we can.
EB guys, let's concentrate on writing letters to senators on I-485 relief,
if you are for this. Will put another thread for this.
UN/Bare Babu,
Relax! Let's do one thing. Let people who are retrogessed demand I-485 filing ability. You don't have to support it but you don't have to oppose it either
As we know the basic question of immigration being good or bad is in itself
debatable.
Your comment Just like illegals; enforcement first, relief second.
Sounded like AILA and disturbing....
I will try and get that article on WSJ for you separately and answer your questions separately.
Let us try and make a start where we can.
EB guys, let's concentrate on writing letters to senators on I-485 relief,
if you are for this. Will put another thread for this.
Last edited by a moderator:
unitednations said:.....
Main people who are bothered with greencard is due to temporary job issue, getting laid off at any moment, employer taking % of their money and they want to become self employed or so that they can go to a permanent job.
These may be the real reasons why some people would like to file I-485 asap.
....
why did you ask this?
nyc8300 said:Desi3933,
Just one question.
Are you a lawyer?
I am not a lawyer. I am an IT person with Computer Science and Accounting background.
I am curious why did you ask this? Could you please let me know. Thanks!
When we are discussing I-485 filing, you want to tag family based candidates too. As it is we can't agree on anything on immigration anymore in this country and you are throwing another issue in this pot to complicate things up.
Start another thread on family based retrogession....
Start another thread on family based retrogession....
For Thread Vs. Against Thread
UN,
Let us try and gather people who have views for I-486 filing in one thread and views against I-485 filing in another thread. At the end of 100 comments, we will get a better/thoroughly discussed template/letter on this issue.
In the meantime, let people who support this send letters to senators.
It may not get a senator to leave the elections and pass this but it does get the message out.
Do you agree?
UN,
Let us try and gather people who have views for I-486 filing in one thread and views against I-485 filing in another thread. At the end of 100 comments, we will get a better/thoroughly discussed template/letter on this issue.
In the meantime, let people who support this send letters to senators.
It may not get a senator to leave the elections and pass this but it does get the message out.
Do you agree?
unitednations said:You mis understand. I'd say allow people to file 485's increase quota's and temporary visas. If country has demand let the supply be there. Do not set artificial barriers.
However: the points I am bringing up is to temper your expectations. You will be disappointed. Everything has a process. You can't just demand. You need to prove everything out to get people to listen.
Signing petitions won't do anything for you. Get a comprehensive study proving how it is in the best interests of the country and impacts to people but at the same time not opening up can of worms. As soon as legislators get close or there is momentum to increase greencards, etc. then all the people who don't want increase will come out of the woodworks and counter everything. At that point if you can't counter them then it will die.
This is a little off topic; however, when there is momentum to get something done; then the other side steps in when they think there is a chance of the law passing and they will do their best to kill it.
Off topic example:
Co founder of the Crips in California has been in death row for many years. He started writing children's books and to stay away from gangs. He had so many accolades; nominated for nobel peace prize, had documentary written about him; had support of teachers, authoris and humanitarians. As soon as it looked like he might get off death row; then the other side stepped up the attacks on him and effectively killed any chance of commuting his sentence.
This is how it works in this country. Be ready with all your justifications and arguments because you will need it as we get further along in the process.
Questions
To me, H1 Spouse of Green Card holder waiting to file I-485 is similar to when a H1 person having approved I-140 approved waiting to file I-485. Both arre on H1 status. This is just one of the reason why issue of retregression is not just limited EB cases only.
How about person outside USA having approved I-140?
How can you justify that only EB cases need special benefits, but not so for FB cases.
I am not a lawyer. I am an IT person with Computer Science and Accounting background.
nyc8300 said:When we are discussing I-485 filing, you want to tag family based candidates too. As it is we can't agree on anything on immigration anymore in this country and you are throwing another issue in this pot to complicate things up.
Start another thread on family based retrogession....
To me, H1 Spouse of Green Card holder waiting to file I-485 is similar to when a H1 person having approved I-140 approved waiting to file I-485. Both arre on H1 status. This is just one of the reason why issue of retregression is not just limited EB cases only.
How about person outside USA having approved I-140?
How can you justify that only EB cases need special benefits, but not so for FB cases.
I am not a lawyer. I am an IT person with Computer Science and Accounting background.
Last edited by a moderator:
I really don't have any feel of these issues. I don't agree or disagree with you. How do I say it dude! I am not an expert on 'your' issues. If you want Family cases why don't you make a thread for them too and discuss them separately.
desi3933 said:To me, H1 Spouse of Green Card holder waiting to file I-485 is similar to when a H1 person having approved I-140 approved waiting to file I-485. Both arre on H1 status. This is just one of the reason why issue of retregression is not just limited EB cases only.
How about person outside USA having approved I-140?
How can you justify that only EB cases need special benefits, but not so for FB cases.
I am not a lawyer. I am an IT person with Computer Science and Accounting background.
nyc8300 said:I really don't have any feel of these issues. I don't agree or disagree with you. How do I say it dude! I am not an expert on 'your' issues. If you want Family cases why don't you make a thread for them too and discuss them separately.
Thanks nyc8300.
I am not against increasing quota for EB based cases, but I am not seen any strong points so far in favor of it.
I just wanted to bring some arguements that can be posed against any such increase. If yoo do not want to face them, its your choice.
Thanks again and Good Luck.
I am NOT a lawyer.
why do people want the ability to file I-485? in order to invoke AC21 and change employment? giving EAD to their spouse and kids?
would you take 485 without those provisions?
would you take 485 without those provisions?
nyc8300 said:UN,
Let us try and gather people who have views for I-486 filing in one thread and views against I-485 filing in another thread. At the end of 100 comments, we will get a better/thoroughly discussed template/letter on this issue.
In the meantime, let people who support this send letters to senators.
It may not get a senator to leave the elections and pass this but it does get the message out.
Do you agree?
Deal!
I will take that deal just to be able to file papers.
It also lets USCIS know how many people are in the line. Once this is automated, you can have an exact estimate of how long it will take to get a GC. At that stage, you can decide whether it is worthwhile for you
to pusue this or not. Cleans up the system....
Still a better deal than this visa bulletin suspense nonsense.
tusharvk said:why do people want the ability to file I-485? in order to invoke AC21 and change employment? giving EAD to their spouse and kids?
would you take 485 without those provisions?
I will take that deal just to be able to file papers.
It also lets USCIS know how many people are in the line. Once this is automated, you can have an exact estimate of how long it will take to get a GC. At that stage, you can decide whether it is worthwhile for you
to pusue this or not. Cleans up the system....
Still a better deal than this visa bulletin suspense nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator:
unitednations said:I have to give you kudos for trying something.
However, this would make no sense whatsoever.
Also, I think this was a trick question for you.
Anything from here will be an improvement. I think it makes a lot of sense to make it work.
USCIS can almost do a PERM sort of clean up in no time at all
based on this. Takes all 'staffing company' sham down and cures
retrogession in no time.
nyc8300 said:Anything from here will be an improvement. I think it makes a lot of sense to make it work.
USCIS can almost do a PERM sort of clean up in no time at all
based on this. Takes all 'staffing company' sham down and cures
retrogession in no time.
IF you cut down Staffing Company then no EB retrogression at all becoz no one comes here on H1 from other countries especially from india
nyc8300 said:Anything from here will be an improvement. I think it makes a lot of sense to make it work.
USCIS can almost do a PERM sort of clean up in no time at all
based on this. Takes all 'staffing company' sham down and cures
retrogession in no time.
What % of cases will come under " 'staffing company' sham down"? For arguement sake, even if it is 50%, will it cure retrogession? In no time???
Ability to file I-485 (without EAD & AC-21 until PD is not current) has 1 advantage I can think of. It will allow a person to remain in US when his/her project ("job") gets over. Also time gap between jobs will not accrue out of status time.
To UN's comments in response to my post:
Some people would say there is no issue with legals. We are righting a wrong. We increased H-1b quota due to demand but that demand subsided. If demand subsided for temporary visas why would there be an increase in permanent greencards. If the demand was there to increase "temporary" then they should also increase "permanent".
The heavy h1b number usage created an attendant demand for increase in EB numbers. h1bs who came here in the period when the quota was greater than 65k are now looking for GCs; hence, the need for some temporary relief. Some of those h1bs may not have survived various layoffs, but some have and are either stuck with BECs or at perm level. Without a temporary relief, they are going to stay here keeping on renewing their h1b due to either pending lc or approved I140.
It is an employer base system. Everyone should get off this "punish" crap. I don't see a massive outflow of people leaving. It seems the people who are leaving are the ones who get greencard and then leave. EB3 has only had two years of retrogression, and eb2 has had one year of retrogression.
agreed; but with retro here to stay for foreseeable future, a brazilian national can get the GC in one year start to finish. While an equally or better qualified Indian national with pd in 2006 could wait for years. Diversity is being promoted at the expense of talent?
You are getting sponsored for a specific job. Nothing stops you from being promoted and having raises. Start the perm process again and transfer the priority date.
Nothing stops from having raises. but what about promotions with substantial changes in job duty? Further perm does not allow exp gained with the sponsoring employer. So how can they restart the perm process for the employee? This not practical.
Band aid solutions are not needed. Legislators want comprehensive; there has to be give and take. Didn't we learn this last year. .
Some could argue that EB immigration itself is a bandaid solution. American labor pool has gaps; those are fulfilled by the EB immigrants.
Some people are of the belief that is if there is per country limits on EB cases then there should also be per country limits on H-1b.
per country limits in h1b is not going to help anything. if you want to blame staffing agencies, blame them. But I think they are also resourceful enough to open their offices in countries other than India to recruit people should per country limits go into effect in H1b.
In F1 visa, there are no per country limits. How many people do F1->H1b->GC? and how many do straight h1b->GC? Is there any statistics available?
Some people would say there is no issue with legals. We are righting a wrong. We increased H-1b quota due to demand but that demand subsided. If demand subsided for temporary visas why would there be an increase in permanent greencards. If the demand was there to increase "temporary" then they should also increase "permanent".
The heavy h1b number usage created an attendant demand for increase in EB numbers. h1bs who came here in the period when the quota was greater than 65k are now looking for GCs; hence, the need for some temporary relief. Some of those h1bs may not have survived various layoffs, but some have and are either stuck with BECs or at perm level. Without a temporary relief, they are going to stay here keeping on renewing their h1b due to either pending lc or approved I140.
It is an employer base system. Everyone should get off this "punish" crap. I don't see a massive outflow of people leaving. It seems the people who are leaving are the ones who get greencard and then leave. EB3 has only had two years of retrogression, and eb2 has had one year of retrogression.
agreed; but with retro here to stay for foreseeable future, a brazilian national can get the GC in one year start to finish. While an equally or better qualified Indian national with pd in 2006 could wait for years. Diversity is being promoted at the expense of talent?
You are getting sponsored for a specific job. Nothing stops you from being promoted and having raises. Start the perm process again and transfer the priority date.
Nothing stops from having raises. but what about promotions with substantial changes in job duty? Further perm does not allow exp gained with the sponsoring employer. So how can they restart the perm process for the employee? This not practical.
Band aid solutions are not needed. Legislators want comprehensive; there has to be give and take. Didn't we learn this last year. .
Some could argue that EB immigration itself is a bandaid solution. American labor pool has gaps; those are fulfilled by the EB immigrants.
Some people are of the belief that is if there is per country limits on EB cases then there should also be per country limits on H-1b.
per country limits in h1b is not going to help anything. if you want to blame staffing agencies, blame them. But I think they are also resourceful enough to open their offices in countries other than India to recruit people should per country limits go into effect in H1b.
In F1 visa, there are no per country limits. How many people do F1->H1b->GC? and how many do straight h1b->GC? Is there any statistics available?