purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
wallpaper Dornan |Calvin Klein Jeans
vinayskadam
11-24 01:22 PM
@lj_rr:
Thanks a lot for the quick reply, its really helpful.
Thanks a lot for the quick reply, its really helpful.
pappu
04-10 12:28 PM
I am currently on H1 and have EAD through my wife (>180 d) (EB3 5/04). I am in a catch 22 situation. I am gettting a fellowship in one of the best program in the nation.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
Please update your profile with details so that it can be helpful to everyone tracking the success
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/profile.php?do=editprofile
on IV tracker
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
IV members are requested to update their profile with valid dates so that we can make IV tracker helpful for everyone.
I have personally decided to make this request to everyone who does not have their details completed and only then respond to the member. If a member has bogus data in their profile for tracking purposes I would not be replying to that post. This might help encourage members wanting replies from IV core team for their questions.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
Please update your profile with details so that it can be helpful to everyone tracking the success
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/profile.php?do=editprofile
on IV tracker
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
IV members are requested to update their profile with valid dates so that we can make IV tracker helpful for everyone.
I have personally decided to make this request to everyone who does not have their details completed and only then respond to the member. If a member has bogus data in their profile for tracking purposes I would not be replying to that post. This might help encourage members wanting replies from IV core team for their questions.
2011 CALVIN KLEIN JEANS
logiclife
02-01 12:29 AM
Everyone:
There has been enough discussion on this topic.
UnitedNations (Nadeem) is welcome to post on these forums and we would all be grateful if he can answer some questions related to 140 filing and other issues that he has expertise in.
However, there is no point in trying to prove to other people who do not know him as to whether or not he can contribute in any way, and how much. What is the point of that exercise?
Unitednations:
You are welcome here. However there is no point in this thread that debates your potential value.
Your help to members here is welcome and the community would be thankful to you for your contribution.
There has been enough discussion on this topic.
UnitedNations (Nadeem) is welcome to post on these forums and we would all be grateful if he can answer some questions related to 140 filing and other issues that he has expertise in.
However, there is no point in trying to prove to other people who do not know him as to whether or not he can contribute in any way, and how much. What is the point of that exercise?
Unitednations:
You are welcome here. However there is no point in this thread that debates your potential value.
Your help to members here is welcome and the community would be thankful to you for your contribution.
more...
pmb76
07-17 01:16 PM
DOS and USCIS are slow. But it would be really helpful if the IV code team can provide some update on our site. I believe over 2.5 hours have passed since the last update regarding some update in 1 hour. I guess we can't do anything if it takes more time but an update always helps! Thank you.
Please have some patience. IV core are working professionals like you and me. This is not their full time job and they are doing this in their spare time. They will update us as soon as the news is out.
Please have some patience. IV core are working professionals like you and me. This is not their full time job and they are doing this in their spare time. They will update us as soon as the news is out.
sieger007
05-17 11:20 PM
Hey
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
more...
GreenCard_Soon
02-16 12:38 PM
Hi,
Just saw this thread today. Hence, unfortunately missed the opportunity to attend yesterday's call. I would like to join into this effort.
Please let me know of the next time we plan to get together about this.
Thanks
Just saw this thread today. Hence, unfortunately missed the opportunity to attend yesterday's call. I would like to join into this effort.
Please let me know of the next time we plan to get together about this.
Thanks
2010 alicia klein tour one travel
ursosweet
10-02 09:54 AM
just spoke with someone yesterday whose PD was april 2005. he files 485 in september 2005 before eb2 retrogressed.
he got his GC in august 2007. now how is that possible when i still see people wth PD of 2004, whose GC is pending. also btw, in august 2007 and in july 2007 the eb2 was U.
anyone can explain that please?
he got his GC in august 2007. now how is that possible when i still see people wth PD of 2004, whose GC is pending. also btw, in august 2007 and in july 2007 the eb2 was U.
anyone can explain that please?
more...
raghuram
05-08 04:52 PM
I have not looked around for last few years to see who gives the highest rate. There may be some difference of few paisa per dollar, but if you ignore that, ICICI money transfer is good. I am using it for many years.
hair Calvin-Klein-Jeans-S-S-2010-
qvadis
04-02 11:37 PM
I second morpheus suggestion to add more names to the list. Please, don't take any offense but I believe that it would be good to have some diversity.
Some more immigrants:
Andy Bechtolsheim, cofounder Sun,
Safi Qureshey, cofounder of AST
Some more immigrants:
Andy Bechtolsheim, cofounder Sun,
Safi Qureshey, cofounder of AST
more...
pappu
03-17 03:55 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1294871282792.shtm
Teleconference Recap: FOIA: How Is It Working For You?
On December 6, 2010, the Ombudsman's Office hosted a public teleconference on "FOIA: How Is It Working for You?" where the Ombudsman's Office interviewed Terry Sloan, Acting Center Director, National Records Center and Jill Eggleston, the Assistant Center Director ofFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) Operations for the National Records Center at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Inquiries to the Ombudsman's Office have identified FOIA requests as an area where the public continues to experience frustration in relation to citizenship and immigration services. Please direct any inquiries related to the topics raised in this teleconference to Margaret Gleason, Senior Advisor to the Ombudsman, at margaret.gleason@dhs.gov. If you have a concern with your USCIS FOIA request and have been unable to resolve the issue with USCIS, the Ombudsman's Office may be able to help.
Freedom of Information Act
Under the FOIA statute, "any person" may request documents from a U.S. government agency. This applies to both U.S. citizens and to citizens of foreign countries. The law allows 20 business days for response to a FOIA request. USCIS has been unable to make that deadline to date, although processing has improved in the past few years. Agencies may withhold information from a FOIA requester under certain exemptions. The law does not allow an agency to withhold information for other reasons, such as possible embarrassment to the agency.
USCIS Processing of FOIA Requests
USCIS FOIA processing is consolidated at the National Records Center (NRC). Prior to 2005, FOIA requests were decentralized, and could be handled on the local level by USCIS. In FY 2006, USCIS had a backlog of more than 88,000 FOIA requests. Jill Eggleston reported in the teleconference that in FY 2010 the backlog was down to 8,000 cases.
There are currently 120 NRC employees, with 30 more new employees authorized for hiring in 2011. Ms. Eggleston informed teleconference participants that current USCIS processing times for FOIA requests vary according to the type of request and that USCIS sorts FOIA requests into three separate tracks. Ms Eggleston also noted the processing time for each type of request.
* Track One FOIA Requests, or simple document requests, are those that request only a specific document, such as a copy of a particular immigration petition.
Processing time: 43 working days
* Track Two FOIA Requests are those where an entire file is requested.
Processing time: 34 working days
* Track Three FOIA Requests are those requests where the individual has a pending hearing scheduled before the Immigration Court.
Processing time: 59 working days
In the FOIA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009, the processing times published for USCIS show an average processing time of 215 business days for Track One FOIA requests, 344 business days for Track Two FOIA requests, and an average of 60 business days for Track Three FOIA Requests.
USCIS FOIA Process
As stated on the teleconference, FOIA requests to USCIS can be made with a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) or by written request submitted by mail to USCIS NRC, P.O. Box 648010, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-8010; or by fax to 816-350-5785. Most FOIA requests are free, but if fees exceed $25, the requester will be notified in advance of such a charge. Ms. Eggleston stated that a web-based request system would be established in the near future and will be rolled out in two phases: Phase One will be for media requests, while Phase Two will be for all other requests. Currently, the status of a FOIA request can be checked with an NRC receipt number through the FOIA link on USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov).
Appeals of USCIS FOIA denials or material withheld under FOIA exemptions may be filed to USCIS FOIA Appeals, 150 Space Center Loop, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-2139.
As noted in the teleconference, more information on filing FOIA requests with other Department of Homeland Security components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is available at DHS | Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act (http://www.dhs.gov/foia).
Expedite Criteria
By regulation, there are narrow expedite criteria that may allow a requester priority to receive a FOIA response. Expedites will only be granted for cases that present an imminent threat to life or safety requiring the FOIA response, or where there is an urgency to inform the public.
Overall, FOIA requests are handled on a first-come, first-served basis, which is only differentiated based on the three tracks described above, or the occasional expedite case.
Teleconference Questions
In response to questions from callers on the teleconference, Ms. Eggleston stated that certain information is required with a FOIA request to verify identity including name, address, date of birth, and place of birth. Without this information, a FOIA request is incomplete. If information in a file is incorrect, a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) can be used to correct information under the Privacy Act. Another caller asked if USCIS could retrieve an envelope with a postmark from a particular file under FOIA. This documentation might be needed to support an application for adjustment of status under . Ms. Eggleston stated that there is a separate receipt file where payments to USCIS are recorded. If a receipt is requested, the FOIA request should specify that the NRC should search the alien's receipt file.
If records are requested on behalf of a child, Ms. Eggleston stated that names of parents will be requested, and USCIS may ask for proof of parent or guardian relationship before sending information to that party.
Ms. Eggleston said that sometimes in denying FOIA requests for persons with final removal orders, USCIS invokes the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine' under Meddah v. Reno, No. 98-1444, (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 1998). She also said that her office may refer such FOIA requests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE
Teleconference Recap: FOIA: How Is It Working For You?
On December 6, 2010, the Ombudsman's Office hosted a public teleconference on "FOIA: How Is It Working for You?" where the Ombudsman's Office interviewed Terry Sloan, Acting Center Director, National Records Center and Jill Eggleston, the Assistant Center Director ofFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) Operations for the National Records Center at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Inquiries to the Ombudsman's Office have identified FOIA requests as an area where the public continues to experience frustration in relation to citizenship and immigration services. Please direct any inquiries related to the topics raised in this teleconference to Margaret Gleason, Senior Advisor to the Ombudsman, at margaret.gleason@dhs.gov. If you have a concern with your USCIS FOIA request and have been unable to resolve the issue with USCIS, the Ombudsman's Office may be able to help.
Freedom of Information Act
Under the FOIA statute, "any person" may request documents from a U.S. government agency. This applies to both U.S. citizens and to citizens of foreign countries. The law allows 20 business days for response to a FOIA request. USCIS has been unable to make that deadline to date, although processing has improved in the past few years. Agencies may withhold information from a FOIA requester under certain exemptions. The law does not allow an agency to withhold information for other reasons, such as possible embarrassment to the agency.
USCIS Processing of FOIA Requests
USCIS FOIA processing is consolidated at the National Records Center (NRC). Prior to 2005, FOIA requests were decentralized, and could be handled on the local level by USCIS. In FY 2006, USCIS had a backlog of more than 88,000 FOIA requests. Jill Eggleston reported in the teleconference that in FY 2010 the backlog was down to 8,000 cases.
There are currently 120 NRC employees, with 30 more new employees authorized for hiring in 2011. Ms. Eggleston informed teleconference participants that current USCIS processing times for FOIA requests vary according to the type of request and that USCIS sorts FOIA requests into three separate tracks. Ms Eggleston also noted the processing time for each type of request.
* Track One FOIA Requests, or simple document requests, are those that request only a specific document, such as a copy of a particular immigration petition.
Processing time: 43 working days
* Track Two FOIA Requests are those where an entire file is requested.
Processing time: 34 working days
* Track Three FOIA Requests are those requests where the individual has a pending hearing scheduled before the Immigration Court.
Processing time: 59 working days
In the FOIA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009, the processing times published for USCIS show an average processing time of 215 business days for Track One FOIA requests, 344 business days for Track Two FOIA requests, and an average of 60 business days for Track Three FOIA Requests.
USCIS FOIA Process
As stated on the teleconference, FOIA requests to USCIS can be made with a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) or by written request submitted by mail to USCIS NRC, P.O. Box 648010, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-8010; or by fax to 816-350-5785. Most FOIA requests are free, but if fees exceed $25, the requester will be notified in advance of such a charge. Ms. Eggleston stated that a web-based request system would be established in the near future and will be rolled out in two phases: Phase One will be for media requests, while Phase Two will be for all other requests. Currently, the status of a FOIA request can be checked with an NRC receipt number through the FOIA link on USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov).
Appeals of USCIS FOIA denials or material withheld under FOIA exemptions may be filed to USCIS FOIA Appeals, 150 Space Center Loop, Lee's Summit, Mo. 64064-2139.
As noted in the teleconference, more information on filing FOIA requests with other Department of Homeland Security components, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is available at DHS | Freedom of Information Act & Privacy Act (http://www.dhs.gov/foia).
Expedite Criteria
By regulation, there are narrow expedite criteria that may allow a requester priority to receive a FOIA response. Expedites will only be granted for cases that present an imminent threat to life or safety requiring the FOIA response, or where there is an urgency to inform the public.
Overall, FOIA requests are handled on a first-come, first-served basis, which is only differentiated based on the three tracks described above, or the occasional expedite case.
Teleconference Questions
In response to questions from callers on the teleconference, Ms. Eggleston stated that certain information is required with a FOIA request to verify identity including name, address, date of birth, and place of birth. Without this information, a FOIA request is incomplete. If information in a file is incorrect, a Form G-639 (PDF - 2 pages, 100 KB) can be used to correct information under the Privacy Act. Another caller asked if USCIS could retrieve an envelope with a postmark from a particular file under FOIA. This documentation might be needed to support an application for adjustment of status under . Ms. Eggleston stated that there is a separate receipt file where payments to USCIS are recorded. If a receipt is requested, the FOIA request should specify that the NRC should search the alien's receipt file.
If records are requested on behalf of a child, Ms. Eggleston stated that names of parents will be requested, and USCIS may ask for proof of parent or guardian relationship before sending information to that party.
Ms. Eggleston said that sometimes in denying FOIA requests for persons with final removal orders, USCIS invokes the 'fugitive disentitlement doctrine' under Meddah v. Reno, No. 98-1444, (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 1998). She also said that her office may refer such FOIA requests to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE
hot Jeans Add
rkotamurthy
02-14 06:13 PM
^^ Bump
more...
house calvin klein
greeta
04-21 01:20 PM
Hi,
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
I am working in US on L1 and my company would start my green card filling in next few months.
I also have valid H1B pettion stamped and can switch to H1B which would mean that I can work freely here at US.
But many of my friends told me that green card processing is faster on L1.
I am not able to make decision whether I should continue working on L1 or change my status to H1 to get better hike and more opportunity.
Pls can anyone tell me which would be wise choice. Is green card processing for L1 visa is faster?
Thanks in advance.
~Greeta
tattoo CALVIN KLEIN JEANS!
EndlessWait
06-20 12:46 PM
I believe H1/H4 has nothign to do with I485 application. You can file for her 485. Since she is on h1, you should mention h1 for Adavane parol. Since she has h1 stamped and can travel outside, advance parol is not required now. You can apply for AP any time while 485 is pending.
and since we are filing for AP now, i'd mention H4 on AP. is it right?
and since we are filing for AP now, i'd mention H4 on AP. is it right?
more...
pictures Calvin Klein Jeans SS 2010
BECsufferer
04-19 09:45 AM
Hi Folks,
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
Dude!
You must be badly in lover with her!... I have never heard about a typical Indian dude worrying about to-be-bride's financial distress. Good for both of you love birds! ;)
My fiancee is a MS student and currently has student loan in India being charged at 13.5%. I am wondering if there is any loan that i can get here with a lower interest rate to repay off the one in india.
I would appreciate any pointers or suggestions here.
Dude!
You must be badly in lover with her!... I have never heard about a typical Indian dude worrying about to-be-bride's financial distress. Good for both of you love birds! ;)
dresses CALVIN KLEIN JEANS | PRIMAVERA
theperm
05-07 02:49 PM
since leaving the employer was not my intent but the employer`s decision
more...
makeup ckjeans Calvin Klein Jeans
immigrant2007
10-26 10:32 AM
I would like to see the new inventory of pending 485s after the september approvals, I am not sure when uscis would release such information.
How can an agency deny us basic information. istn't there a law against it?
How can an agency deny us basic information. istn't there a law against it?
girlfriend Calvin Klein Jeans Ad Pictures
mhtanim
02-26 02:04 PM
This is correct as per my understanding. As soon as your GC is approved you will need AP to re-enter US. IO at POE will have the information about your approved GC. I do not think he will allow you to enter on H4 after the GC Approval.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
This is just my understanding. Check with a attorney to get precise information.
No need for AP. If someone mails him the GC, he can get back to the U.S. with it.
hairstyles for @CalvinKlein jeans
usirit
01-28 12:16 PM
We got a denial around Dec-21'07 but after appealing they change back the status to 'In Process'; and according to the timeline we should be no more than 2 weeks away from getting 'CERTIFIED'... Then I-485 and I-140...
BTW, trs80 what a nice signature....
BTW, trs80 what a nice signature....
meridiani.planum
07-12 08:35 AM
As long as your old I140 is not withdrawn, you can file 485. I think even if it is withdrawn, there still might be a chance, check with your NEW lawyer.
if the I-140 is withdrawn, its too late to file a 485. If its not withdrawn, he can go ahead and file a 485, but would need the co-operation of that employer (employment verification letter)
if the I-140 is withdrawn, its too late to file a 485. If its not withdrawn, he can go ahead and file a 485, but would need the co-operation of that employer (employment verification letter)
rayen
02-05 03:47 PM
Chris,
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
No comments:
Post a Comment