To jaxen Regarding "fasle hopes"

L

longGC

Registered Users (C)
To jaxen Regarding "false hopes"

jaxen you closed the above thread.

http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?postid=527420#post527420

You said "at least there was some good news". But there is nothing new in this case. Please read carefully the sentence,

"Please be aware that this interpretation is being explored within the context of the rulemaking process of AC21."

This means that they are still exploring the interpretation of AC21. For those who have read it carefully, Mr. Hernandez is not stating what we would like to hear. He has merely repeated the argument posed by attorney to defend her client and responding the same with above mentioned sentence. A mere repeating of AC21 statements does not mean he has agreed to them. Please pay attention to words, like

"You cited...”, "The language you cite...".

The attorney has done an excellent job of telling BCIS about AC21 and BCIS (Mr. Hernandez) agrees about these statements BUT still makes the statement that "Please be aware that this interpretation is being explored within the context of the rulemaking process of AC21."

Guys, we all knew about AC21. This is nothing new for us. They are STILL INTERPRETING.....

Can anyone please clarify me based on the letter that they have agreed and interpreted AC21?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
false hope: about the rumor that all I485 pending for more than 180 days will be approved.

good news: I140 revocation by sponsoring employer will not have any effect on the I485 processing.(evident from the thread about the letter from a AILA lawyer)

I closed the thread because it was hyping more on the former point.

Once the clarification has come from the source itself, I did not see any point in pursuing a false claim. If you think this thread needs to be reopened, I can attempt to reopen it.

There are some lawyers who thrive on hype... My personal wish is to keep this forum a genuine place to get reliable info, not just populist views... I am not for shutting down viewpoints...
 
tom,

I don't think anyone meant Ms. Murthy is a hype-kinda lawyer. It was US (the members of this board) who misinterpreted what she said.

May be instead of explaining what she said in words, someone could have written it in coding terms ...

Ms. Murthy DID NOT say ...
SQL> update I485_petitions set approval_date = sysdate where sysdate - notice_date > 180;
169356 records updated
SQL> commit;

Ms. Murthy DID say ...
SQL> insert into look_into_more_carefully_but_do_not_reject_due_to_AC21 select * from I485_petitions where sysdate - notice_date > 180 and ((UPCASE(I140_status) = 'REVOKED') or (current_job is NULL) or (I140_company != current_company_name));
45872 records inserted;

To be more specific about how TSC would have handled what Ms. Murthy mentioned ... see the modified query ...

SQL> rollback;
SQL> insert into look_into_more_carefully_but_do_not_reject_due_to_AC21 select * from I485_petitions where sysdate - notice_date > 180 and ((UPCASE(I140_status) = 'REVOKED') or (current_job is NULL) or (I140_company != current_company_name)) AND notice_date <= '01-DEC-2000';
0 records inserted;
SQL> commit;

Ahh ... no cases for adjudicators to look into ... that's more like it.

Geeks like us understand this better than words.

PS: I am a math guy. So don't pick on my SQL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top