Pushing of I 485 filling as an interim relief or not
- Thread starter priyargc
- Start date
I'm absolutely positive. 
60 year probation term is not that long.
On a serious note, I'm full of excellent ideas, however they will never turn into laws.
So, you want to prevent "tourists" from adjusting their status through EBGC? Well, you need to lobby an amendment, saying that only "work status" holders (and their dependents of course) may file I-485 based on I-140. Isn't it simple and clear solution? "Tourists" will still be able to go through the CP, if they are smart enough and able to find a sponsor for that.
So, what do you think? I can donate this idea to IV, if they are interested.
60 year probation term is not that long. On a serious note, I'm full of excellent ideas, however they will never turn into laws.
So, you want to prevent "tourists" from adjusting their status through EBGC? Well, you need to lobby an amendment, saying that only "work status" holders (and their dependents of course) may file I-485 based on I-140. Isn't it simple and clear solution? "Tourists" will still be able to go through the CP, if they are smart enough and able to find a sponsor for that.
So, what do you think? I can donate this idea to IV, if they are interested.
nyc8300 said:
I think people who are desperate to have I 485 filing without PD as an interim push are more biased. My views are very much clear.
1. I oppose interim single push of I 485 filing without any check
2. I support if retrogression ending provisions and I 485 filing with checks come together. This will solve problem of all EB community. If we don't get chance in Feb 07, we should wait for few more months for SKIL/CIR.
1. I oppose interim single push of I 485 filing without any check
2. I support if retrogression ending provisions and I 485 filing with checks come together. This will solve problem of all EB community. If we don't get chance in Feb 07, we should wait for few more months for SKIL/CIR.
purplehazea said:
Solution for all
485 filing provision when visa is not available may have benefits to lot of guys. There is no doubt. However, it is not going to reduce the retrogression and it has lot of political drawbacks. I am not going to write any potential damage due to this provision as so many have already written in this thread.
The IV group is trying to add this provision in a (non-immigration related) spending bill, as it seems like simple/easy/non-controversioal item. It is not so. Becuase, it rides along with H1B increase. They mentioned that industry is lobbying for H1B. If it is a standalone (w/o H1B) then there is no problem. If H1B gets increased, it will get published in all media including all Indian medias. It will be a big news. H1B is hot topic than EB retrogression. No one knows or cares about EB retro. CNN (Lou) will air special news if H1B incresed in a spending bill. If CIR fails to address EB retro clearly (including all provision in SKIL), the retro will stay for ever. There is no sign of SKIL bill before CIR. The earlier version CIR focusing mainly on guest worker progrem (EB5), not much for EB1 to 3. No one knows how many EB1-3 numbers will get added new CIR bill.
They (IV) have not analyzed the politics clearly. They should have concentrated more on retro reducing provision (like H1B by industry) rather than 485 filing w/o visa number. They should have discussed with law makers and educate them effect of 245 i/k filing on retrogression ( the mistake made in 2000 i.e with out increasing visas numbers, allowing more illeggals to file LC before april 2001). The people filing after April 2001 is suffering due to the mistake made in 2000. To compensate that mistake, IV shoud have emphasized on recapturing unused visas (wasted visas due to uscis inefficency) in previous years to reduce the retrogression. If they approced this way, it would have been a smart move.
485 filing provision when visa is not available may have benefits to lot of guys. There is no doubt. However, it is not going to reduce the retrogression and it has lot of political drawbacks. I am not going to write any potential damage due to this provision as so many have already written in this thread.
The IV group is trying to add this provision in a (non-immigration related) spending bill, as it seems like simple/easy/non-controversioal item. It is not so. Becuase, it rides along with H1B increase. They mentioned that industry is lobbying for H1B. If it is a standalone (w/o H1B) then there is no problem. If H1B gets increased, it will get published in all media including all Indian medias. It will be a big news. H1B is hot topic than EB retrogression. No one knows or cares about EB retro. CNN (Lou) will air special news if H1B incresed in a spending bill. If CIR fails to address EB retro clearly (including all provision in SKIL), the retro will stay for ever. There is no sign of SKIL bill before CIR. The earlier version CIR focusing mainly on guest worker progrem (EB5), not much for EB1 to 3. No one knows how many EB1-3 numbers will get added new CIR bill.
They (IV) have not analyzed the politics clearly. They should have concentrated more on retro reducing provision (like H1B by industry) rather than 485 filing w/o visa number. They should have discussed with law makers and educate them effect of 245 i/k filing on retrogression ( the mistake made in 2000 i.e with out increasing visas numbers, allowing more illeggals to file LC before april 2001). The people filing after April 2001 is suffering due to the mistake made in 2000. To compensate that mistake, IV shoud have emphasized on recapturing unused visas (wasted visas due to uscis inefficency) in previous years to reduce the retrogression. If they approced this way, it would have been a smart move.
purplehazea
Registered Users (C)
nyc8300
Did you know that all Indians are non native English speakers?
Did you know that all Indians are non native English speakers?
purplehazea
Registered Users (C)
khodalmd,
I agree with your last post. Unfortunately IV's top members have chosen to ignore the implications of allowing everyone and anyone to file for I485 and resulting retrogression issues. They just don't care. I just know that when any organization or person displays such desperation and closed mindedness to opposing views, you better run away from them. You cannot trust people who are not willing to accept any view other than their own as true. If these people are so convinced that CIR will pass then they do not need to demand interim relief. It is actually the desperation of organizations like IV that is producing the current situation. They have obviously not succeeded in the past and this has gone to their heart. It is sad that instead of trying to push for retrogression relief IV is focused on desperately trying to push for I485 filing at any cost or pain.
I agree with your last post. Unfortunately IV's top members have chosen to ignore the implications of allowing everyone and anyone to file for I485 and resulting retrogression issues. They just don't care. I just know that when any organization or person displays such desperation and closed mindedness to opposing views, you better run away from them. You cannot trust people who are not willing to accept any view other than their own as true. If these people are so convinced that CIR will pass then they do not need to demand interim relief. It is actually the desperation of organizations like IV that is producing the current situation. They have obviously not succeeded in the past and this has gone to their heart. It is sad that instead of trying to push for retrogression relief IV is focused on desperately trying to push for I485 filing at any cost or pain.
unluckygcguy
Registered Users (C)
Allowing 485 filing by a date tied to the current priority date
One possible solution is the USCIS is worried about a deluge of applications is:
If the PD for a category is March 1st 2001, then the USCIS should allow people with a PD of earlier of September 1st 2001 (for example) with the availability of visa numbers.
This would help the USCIS as follows:
1) They don't have to worry about a ton of applications
2) Provide them a valuable tool to predict the number of applications. No prediction is needed since folks have already applied
3) Additional fees can be charged from these folks
4) My example threw in six months, but they could vary the periods for their convenience.
Will all of the folks in this forum benefit directly? No. Only some will benefit.
But indirectly everyone would benefit because of the ability now to predict months ahead of time, instead of waiting for that wretched bulletin each month.
If you are in line, I feel it helps to know where you in the line and how it is moving. It might factor in your decision to step out of that line.
I filed my green card hesitatingly and would have definitely considered other options if I knew this would be the state. Now, as more time gets invested, I feel like I need to hang on since I have been on the line so far...
just my 2c
One possible solution is the USCIS is worried about a deluge of applications is:
If the PD for a category is March 1st 2001, then the USCIS should allow people with a PD of earlier of September 1st 2001 (for example) with the availability of visa numbers.
This would help the USCIS as follows:
1) They don't have to worry about a ton of applications
2) Provide them a valuable tool to predict the number of applications. No prediction is needed since folks have already applied
3) Additional fees can be charged from these folks
4) My example threw in six months, but they could vary the periods for their convenience.
Will all of the folks in this forum benefit directly? No. Only some will benefit.
But indirectly everyone would benefit because of the ability now to predict months ahead of time, instead of waiting for that wretched bulletin each month.
If you are in line, I feel it helps to know where you in the line and how it is moving. It might factor in your decision to step out of that line.
I filed my green card hesitatingly and would have definitely considered other options if I knew this would be the state. Now, as more time gets invested, I feel like I need to hang on since I have been on the line so far...
just my 2c
Last edited by a moderator:
nyc8300,
I think you are considering yourself very over smart. I posted one thread in a rush during office hours and had some typo. I can't believe people are so rude to insult others !! Try to be respectful with others.
I think you are considering yourself very over smart. I posted one thread in a rush during office hours and had some typo. I can't believe people are so rude to insult others !! Try to be respectful with others.
nyc8300 said:Purplehazea,
See khodalmd is not non-native English as I suspected and has started to write in very clear words...
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
purplehazea said:
This is what bothers me to see how so many of us beleiving that this is a possible task. Looking at the history of how uscis is handling 485s by stopping labors in BECs and releasing only those labors close to the current PDs, recently released statement (485s pending a namecheck are creating backlogs at the centers) on namecheck backlog center to control 485s at the centers, all these tell us that they don't want to sit on everyones health records, FP records, NC records, legal status records, employment records forever until they the PD becomes current.
The easy counter argument uscis has is, look at what you can do beyond six years of H1,
a. Get 3 years of H1 once I140 is cleared.
b. You can transfer this H1.
c. H4 years are not accounted towards H1 years, so if your spouse is good they can do H1.
d. transfer PD from approved I140.
What more these guys want?
To me, this appears to be like a wrong lead in a complicated criminal case. We will end up wasting lot of time in framing the provisions that formulate the law, only to see that it is extremely difficult to implement and monitor. At the end, even when it is through it may be difficult to take advantage.
Having said all this, I am happy for everyone if this goes through. But if we do a risk analysis there is a narrow chance for success.
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
I agree with the "no wait" but not with the "no quota" part. Workforce concerns must be balanced against environmental and infrastructure concerns so that rapid population growth doesn't put a strain on the infrastructure and make life miserable for US citizens.unitednations said:
They should have a quota, with points or a lottery or auction or some other system to choose people when there are more applicants than the quota, and outright reject everybody who isn't selected rather than putting them into an ever-growing queue. Fast acceptance and fast rejection so you can proceed properly with your life either way.
But like you said before, immigration-based employment (and nearly all US immigration for that matter) is really treated like it's a favor they are doing for foreigners rather than something to benefit the US economy.
The way it operates now is a farce and I wonder if they really take themselves seriously and keep a straight face. Nobody holds a position available for years... what sort of nonsense is a multi-year immigration process based on a future job?
And the concept of permanent employment has gone away like the dodo; the only permanent aspect is the fact that the applicants want to live in the US permanently. If it's going to be a multi-year process, those years should only be a proving ground to establish that you are really wanted by the economy so you can be upgraded from a conditional to permanent status (like what is done with marriage and investor green cards) and should not be tied to an employer and a "future job".
Last edited by a moderator:
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
Thats right. How easy it is for uscis to have a new backlog center just to handle these kind of 485 cases and create altogether a new mess. I think there is a very good possibility going by the uscis recent backlog center history. In effect we can lobby for any law and assume that we get it but uscis has the final say when it comes to implementation, is this not whats happening now?. Also, congress is passing the top level laws usually leaving some unclear areas and it is uscis that is time to time issuing memos to clarify these. I doubt that these areas are often intentionally left unclear giving uscis a chance to take action according to the situation at that time. Is this not a time taking process at the end. Thats why I think it is not that easy to accomodate everything in the law without uscis having a word in implementation and interpretation. That too in a complicated provision like this where they have to handle more fraudulent cases. Its just my opinion as I said earlier it is a good have one.unitednations said:
indian_gc_ocean
Registered Users (C)
Jackolantern said:
I agree. In this context, there should some provision based on number of social security credits one has and/or the amount of tax one has paid over the years not only eb1 as per UN's opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackolantern
Registered Users (C)
Yes, I could buy that. I figure you're referring to the multinational manager category for EB1... I can see the importance of those being company-specific. But they still need to be more strict with it because it is being used to transfer some very non-senior people into the US.unitednations said:
I just sent following personalized letter to my two Senators and a House Rep. I am also going to sent this letter to remaining Senators and some key HRs. I urge every one to sent letters to your Congressman/woman.
Dear Senator:
I would like to highlight few names such as Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Andrew Carnegie, Ramani Ayer (Chairman and CEO of Hartford, a $18 billion company), Alain Belda (Chairman and CEO of Alcoa, a $21.5 billion company), Sergey Brin (Co-founder of Google), Andy Grove (Founder and Chairman of Intel), E. Neville Isdell (Chairman and CEO of Coca Cola), Vinod Khosala (co-founder of Sun Microsystems, a $11.4 billions company), Henry Mckinnell (Chairman and CEO of Pfizer), Pierre Omidyar (Founder and Chairman of e-bay), and list can endlessly stretch to thousands of persons!
One common factor among these great personalities is that they all are foreign born skilled immigrants who set new socio-economical mile stone of the United States and made the great nation most competitive in the world.
The United States has a long history of welcoming legal immigrants to its shores. From the beginning, the foreign-born high skilled immigrants have made significant contributions to virtually every aspect of American society. Highly educated and entrepreneurial immigrants in particular, have helped build an economy that is the envy of the world. They have come to America seeking opportunity, and have left their mark by building businesses, making advances in science, medicine and technology, and enhancing American culture and quality of life. These contributions drive economic growth and job creation, and help keep America competitive.
Current U.S. immigration policies discourage many highly educated foreign professionals from coming to this country and staying here permanently. Thousands of high skilled immigrants are struck in deadly backlog of employment based green card at various stages due to insufficient visa numbers, pre-country quota, and inefficiency of DOL/USCIS. It is difficult for US companies, educational and research institutions, and medical facilities to bring valuable talent to America. By making it more difficult for many of the brightest minds in the world to come to this country and stay here permanently, United States is endangering the long-term economic future. While national security is of the utmost importance, the United States Congress must immediately address its employment based immigration policies to ensure that America can continue its long tradition of welcoming the brightest minds in the world to live and work here permanently. More than 350,000 high skilled legal immigrants who are paying taxes, law abiding, highly contributing to economy are struck at final stage of immigration (I 485) due to non-availability of visa numbers. As you know, skilled immigrant provisions were tried three times in 109th Congress but failed due to controversial rider bills. The 110th Congress is going to work on Comprehensive Immigration Reform 2007, which will provide path to citizenship to 12 million illegal alien. It would be a great justice to high skilled legal immigrant, if their backlog issue is addressed before considering the issue of 12 million illegal immigrants.
Dear Senator:
I would like to highlight few names such as Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Andrew Carnegie, Ramani Ayer (Chairman and CEO of Hartford, a $18 billion company), Alain Belda (Chairman and CEO of Alcoa, a $21.5 billion company), Sergey Brin (Co-founder of Google), Andy Grove (Founder and Chairman of Intel), E. Neville Isdell (Chairman and CEO of Coca Cola), Vinod Khosala (co-founder of Sun Microsystems, a $11.4 billions company), Henry Mckinnell (Chairman and CEO of Pfizer), Pierre Omidyar (Founder and Chairman of e-bay), and list can endlessly stretch to thousands of persons!
One common factor among these great personalities is that they all are foreign born skilled immigrants who set new socio-economical mile stone of the United States and made the great nation most competitive in the world.
The United States has a long history of welcoming legal immigrants to its shores. From the beginning, the foreign-born high skilled immigrants have made significant contributions to virtually every aspect of American society. Highly educated and entrepreneurial immigrants in particular, have helped build an economy that is the envy of the world. They have come to America seeking opportunity, and have left their mark by building businesses, making advances in science, medicine and technology, and enhancing American culture and quality of life. These contributions drive economic growth and job creation, and help keep America competitive.
Current U.S. immigration policies discourage many highly educated foreign professionals from coming to this country and staying here permanently. Thousands of high skilled immigrants are struck in deadly backlog of employment based green card at various stages due to insufficient visa numbers, pre-country quota, and inefficiency of DOL/USCIS. It is difficult for US companies, educational and research institutions, and medical facilities to bring valuable talent to America. By making it more difficult for many of the brightest minds in the world to come to this country and stay here permanently, United States is endangering the long-term economic future. While national security is of the utmost importance, the United States Congress must immediately address its employment based immigration policies to ensure that America can continue its long tradition of welcoming the brightest minds in the world to live and work here permanently. More than 350,000 high skilled legal immigrants who are paying taxes, law abiding, highly contributing to economy are struck at final stage of immigration (I 485) due to non-availability of visa numbers. As you know, skilled immigrant provisions were tried three times in 109th Congress but failed due to controversial rider bills. The 110th Congress is going to work on Comprehensive Immigration Reform 2007, which will provide path to citizenship to 12 million illegal alien. It would be a great justice to high skilled legal immigrant, if their backlog issue is addressed before considering the issue of 12 million illegal immigrants.
-me- said:
Nope. I don't like the picture you outlined. But i don't like the scenario of a flood of 485s either . Does 245(i) ring a bell? I don't like the current scenario of an endless wait either. I guess nobody will like anything short of an assured legal permanent status. If they say that once 485 is filed you are assured of a legal permanent status unless there are some grave problems with the 485 then that would probably work. Then it would be a matter of "when" and not "if" of getting the coveted "green card" in hand while we go on with our life. On another note, I pegged the limit at 6 considering the 6 year H1 cap given the fact that there is not magic formula to calculate that value. At the end of the 6 year H1 tenure it is a means of asking the legal worker slogging like a dog whether he wants to stay or not. YES means stay on with style and without tension. If you are suggesting a 60 year cap then why not on H1 and abolish the EB green card system all together?
Last edited by a moderator:
That too has a solution. Good catch. I missed that in my original proposal. The clause should be that CP will not be available to those whose PD is not current.-me- said:I'm absolutely positive.
On a serious note, I'm full of excellent ideas, however they will never turn into laws.
So, you want to prevent "tourists" from adjusting their status through EBGC? Well, you need to lobby an amendment, saying that only "work status" holders (and their dependents of course) may file I-485 based on I-140. Isn't it simple and clear solution? "Tourists" will still be able to go through the CP, if they are smart enough and able to find a sponsor for that.
So, what do you think? I can donate this idea to IV, if they are interested.
Last edited by a moderator: