AabTuAgaGC
01-04 05:50 PM
helpless situation. Got to stay cool :cool:
I was cool till last month. But, now it has been over 6 months for me and everytime I call them up they just tell me to wait or just end up with a stupid answer. I mean, there is a limit to ones patience. I had to ask my parents to postpone my sister's wedding, which was to be held in November and was thinking that I will get my AP by February. But, so far nothing yet. I can't just ask them to keep on postponing the wedding plan every now and then. It's so fuckin frustrating :mad::mad:
I was cool till last month. But, now it has been over 6 months for me and everytime I call them up they just tell me to wait or just end up with a stupid answer. I mean, there is a limit to ones patience. I had to ask my parents to postpone my sister's wedding, which was to be held in November and was thinking that I will get my AP by February. But, so far nothing yet. I can't just ask them to keep on postponing the wedding plan every now and then. It's so fuckin frustrating :mad::mad:
wallpaper 2005 Honda Element LX
nursekm
10-03 11:47 PM
Jun - r u from PIC country??
I do not believe the 800,000 figure for I-485 alone. It could be a misquote from Aytes. The 800,000 is possibly combination of all immigration related applications such as I-140, 485, 131, 765, etc.
Even during last year when EBs are current, it didn't reach that many applications. I believe Matthew OH is more accurate in saying there's a total of 320,000 I-485 applications.
With that figure, average 2.5 years waiting is in order. But that should not be distributed equally among all countries due to per country limit. I would guess, for India and China, it would be 3 years wait, and for the rest, 2 years.
I do not believe the 800,000 figure for I-485 alone. It could be a misquote from Aytes. The 800,000 is possibly combination of all immigration related applications such as I-140, 485, 131, 765, etc.
Even during last year when EBs are current, it didn't reach that many applications. I believe Matthew OH is more accurate in saying there's a total of 320,000 I-485 applications.
With that figure, average 2.5 years waiting is in order. But that should not be distributed equally among all countries due to per country limit. I would guess, for India and China, it would be 3 years wait, and for the rest, 2 years.
sledge_hammer
03-04 11:46 AM
What is your rate and who is your lender?
In my case; I was offered a refinancing rate that was 0.5% more than what I would pay if I were a GC holder. The reasoning is the short term validity of H1. Ironically I wasn't discriminated 3 years ago when I bought my house. At that time; I even didn't have my labor cert cleared. Now 3 years down the line; I have cleared first 2 stages and applied to I-485; bank charges me more :) Weird!!!!
In my case; I was offered a refinancing rate that was 0.5% more than what I would pay if I were a GC holder. The reasoning is the short term validity of H1. Ironically I wasn't discriminated 3 years ago when I bought my house. At that time; I even didn't have my labor cert cleared. Now 3 years down the line; I have cleared first 2 stages and applied to I-485; bank charges me more :) Weird!!!!
2011 Charles#39;s Honda Element
satishku_2000
07-05 05:21 PM
In which state you are? Did you call your senators , if yes please put the name of state and senators name here..so I can match with my list and tell you that whether I called them or not.
Boxer , Feinstein senators of CA , I called Lofgren , Gary miller (R) 42nd district of CA and Just spoke with NYtimes reporter on the follow up story ...:)
Boxer , Feinstein senators of CA , I called Lofgren , Gary miller (R) 42nd district of CA and Just spoke with NYtimes reporter on the follow up story ...:)
more...
Milind123
09-14 10:59 AM
A quick message and request�
I did not check all the posts today. Will tend to it in the evening. If it disappears off the screen, someone, please bump it. Thanks
I did not check all the posts today. Will tend to it in the evening. If it disappears off the screen, someone, please bump it. Thanks
sam2006
09-09 10:48 PM
Just contributed $200.
Google order: #752574347294392
thanks a lot ....
Google order: #752574347294392
thanks a lot ....
more...
ak_2006
05-15 09:46 AM
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska’s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2009, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2009 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska’s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2009, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2009 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
2010 Honda Element (2005)
maximus777
06-11 10:25 AM
In a weird way, I feel this is good news. An old saying in China says 'Things will turn to their opposite at their extremes'. The moment before dawn is the darkest hour of the day.
USCIS is a different beast altogether - it defies all logic!
USCIS is a different beast altogether - it defies all logic!
more...
andy garcia
10-01 11:28 AM
Great find, Andy. Based on your explanation, I can say that our real problem is not the lack of visa numbers. There are enough visa numbers, but USCIS is not utilizing them.
This also tells me that an increase in visa numbers to 290,000 (or what ever number that the SKILL bill is asking for) would NOT change the situation a little bit. The end result only will be that the USCIS will end up with more number of unused visas.
Can the IV community do some thing to improve the whole situation?
Thanks h1techSlave;
I always said that the problem is not the visa numbers but some people replied that I am an anti-Indian/Chinese/etc.
just because I said so.
Remember that this system was designed back when there was one single queue.
You applied for your Labor and waited(establish a PD), everybody who applied after you was behind you.
After the Labor was approved, you applied for the I-140. This will determine your category/country of chargeability and will filter some of the fraud cases
After the I-140 was granted. You apply for either CP or AOS. At this point CIS/DOS knew how many applications were pending for each category/country and could move the dates smoothly.
Now the mess is so big that it takes them until February(6 months after the End of the previous Fiscal Year) to publish the number of visas issued
This also tells me that an increase in visa numbers to 290,000 (or what ever number that the SKILL bill is asking for) would NOT change the situation a little bit. The end result only will be that the USCIS will end up with more number of unused visas.
Can the IV community do some thing to improve the whole situation?
Thanks h1techSlave;
I always said that the problem is not the visa numbers but some people replied that I am an anti-Indian/Chinese/etc.
just because I said so.
Remember that this system was designed back when there was one single queue.
You applied for your Labor and waited(establish a PD), everybody who applied after you was behind you.
After the Labor was approved, you applied for the I-140. This will determine your category/country of chargeability and will filter some of the fraud cases
After the I-140 was granted. You apply for either CP or AOS. At this point CIS/DOS knew how many applications were pending for each category/country and could move the dates smoothly.
Now the mess is so big that it takes them until February(6 months after the End of the previous Fiscal Year) to publish the number of visas issued
hair 2005 Honda Element - Street
kshitijnt
06-26 12:26 AM
I just started my GC Process, But I kept a 5 Year time frame to try this out. That is my breaking point.
Just dont extent the breaking point like H1 visa.
Just dont extent the breaking point like H1 visa.
more...
vaccine
09-11 09:13 AM
Count me in for $ 100 and I am coming to rally as well. See you all in DC
hot 2005 Honda Element
loudobbs
08-02 05:56 PM
Please take any news/info from thereps with a pinch of salt..
I called and the guy swore that premium processing for I140s was discontinued from May 13 2007..
Another time the guy just read the information which was avlaible online...
third time, I got the number for Premium processing center which of course was incorrect.
These reps are high school grads,, so dont expect too much...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I called and the guy swore that premium processing for I140s was discontinued from May 13 2007..
Another time the guy just read the information which was avlaible online...
third time, I got the number for Premium processing center which of course was incorrect.
These reps are high school grads,, so dont expect too much...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
more...
house 2005 Honda Element EX SUV
abhisam
07-20 09:21 PM
we need more such videos....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIMopYtJEfk&NR=1
!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIMopYtJEfk&NR=1
!!!
tattoo Color code: #39;05 Honda Element
sbindval
09-11 02:09 PM
here is some contribution towards the $30k...
$100
Order Details - 11 Sep 2007 14:26 GMT-04:00
Google Order No.306637321632157
$100
Order Details - 11 Sep 2007 14:26 GMT-04:00
Google Order No.306637321632157
more...
pictures Honda Element SC (2007) - Cars
CaliHoneB
09-08 10:29 AM
Came here in july 1997
filed LC in 2003 thinking it would be useful to stay on H1 as long as possible!! and the rest is on my profile..
I wonder if anybody thinks it makes sense to create a law which simply says after 15 (or some X years) of legal presence in the US you will be given a GC no matter the back ground! In that way we know exactly where the deadline is irrespective of some government agency's whim.
filed LC in 2003 thinking it would be useful to stay on H1 as long as possible!! and the rest is on my profile..
I wonder if anybody thinks it makes sense to create a law which simply says after 15 (or some X years) of legal presence in the US you will be given a GC no matter the back ground! In that way we know exactly where the deadline is irrespective of some government agency's whim.
dresses The Element has distinctive
reachtoravi
07-20 12:23 AM
Donated one time $100 ...
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
Just now signed up for $50 a month recurring contribution ...
Thanks to IV for all great work.
more...
makeup 2005 Honda Element - Cars
omega
04-26 04:41 PM
My H1 extension is under process. I had applied in Dec 2006. My DL expires on May 6. Is it possible to renew my license with the H1 extension receipt?. Is it possible to do Premium Processing now?
girlfriend 2005 Honda Element - Street
desi3933
09-15 04:30 PM
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Best of luck for your efforts for injunction order. BTW, How many, in past, such injunction orders have been issued against USCIS? That too, with retroactive effect!! That should give an idea how feasible this is.
Just because you believe in something is NOT same as proving that in a court of law with legal basis and damages caused. You have to show both things - legal basis as well as damages caused to you.
Good Luck again.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
Best of luck for your efforts for injunction order. BTW, How many, in past, such injunction orders have been issued against USCIS? That too, with retroactive effect!! That should give an idea how feasible this is.
Just because you believe in something is NOT same as proving that in a court of law with legal basis and damages caused. You have to show both things - legal basis as well as damages caused to you.
Good Luck again.
_____________________________________
Proud Indian-American and Legal Immigrant
hairstyles 2005 Honda Element EX FWD
dpp
10-11 09:00 PM
We cannot start a S-corp on EAD. Need to be GC holder or US Citizen.
The Internal Revenue Code provides that a Corporation filed with any U.S. state shall be taxed under "Subchapter C." This essentially means that all Corporations start out as C-Corporations for tax purposes.
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
http://www.incnow.com/incorporating.shtml
http://www.legalzoom.com/incorporation-guide/definition-of-s-corporation.html
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
The Internal Revenue Code provides that a Corporation filed with any U.S. state shall be taxed under "Subchapter C." This essentially means that all Corporations start out as C-Corporations for tax purposes.
Should a Corporation's owners later wish to be taxed as an S-Corporation, they would file a "Subchapter S" federal tax election (Form 2553) within 75 days of incorporating or within 75 days of the beginning of the calendar year. To do this, the Corporation would need to have less than 100 owners, all of whom must be either U.S. Citizens or permanent resident aliens ("green card" holders). Once the "S" tax election is made, the return to be filed is the 1120 "S", rather than the 1120. Whether or not you decide to be taxed as an S-Corporation, your company is still a "General Corporation" in the eyes of the state of incorporation.
http://www.incnow.com/incorporating.shtml
http://www.legalzoom.com/incorporation-guide/definition-of-s-corporation.html
But we can setup Solo or Partership or C-Corp. Don't run into legal issues by setting up S-Corp on EAD, before getting GC.
Good luck.
eb3_nepa
07-14 05:20 PM
Done!
$11.00
BoA C# 7YBHX-VPQKG
Don't ask me the reason why $11 ? Let me clarify; the amount of $11, $21, $51 ..etc...are called lucky amounts...
I agree :)
$11.00
BoA C# 7YBHX-VPQKG
Don't ask me the reason why $11 ? Let me clarify; the amount of $11, $21, $51 ..etc...are called lucky amounts...
I agree :)
raju123
06-01 04:00 PM
This might be useful to you.
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
Age-Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "Child Status Protection Act"
The "Child Status Protection Act", effective August 6, 2002, addresses the problems of minor children losing their eligibility for certain immigration benefits as a result of INS (now USCIS) processing delays. Prior to the passage of this law, a child's eligibility in Employment-Based Immigration situations to be part of his or her parent's application as a derivative beneficiary was based on the child's age at the time that the child's I-485 was adjudicated. Because of enormous backlogs and processing delays, many children turned 21 before the their I-485 applications were adjudicated. In such cases, the children "age-out" and are no longer considered to be part of the parent's application and lose their eligibility to obtain green cards as a derivative beneficiary.
Children who otherwise would have aged out may successfully adjust their status through the additional interplay of the new Concurrent Filing rule and the "Child Status Protection Act." According to the "Child Status Protection Act," the eligibility of these aging-out children will be determined by their age at the date a visa becomes available to them minus the number of days that the Employment-Based immigration petition was pending. Furthermore, these children must file for permanent resident status within one year of such availability. For a clearer illustration of this rule, please see the different scenarios below.
Example 1
The Labor Certification application that was submitted on John's behalf on January 1, 2000 was later approved on December 31, 2000. Afterwards, his employer submits an I-140 (EB-2) immigration petition on John's behalf on January 1, 2002. At that time, John's son, Junior, is 20 years and 7 months old. John's I-140 petition was pending for six months and was approved on July 1, 2002, one month after Junior turns 21 years of age. The visa number for EB-2 was available for John on July 1, 2002. Under the old law without the Child Status Protection Act, Junior has aged out because he is now 21 years old. However, under the new law, his age is fixed as of the date that a visa number becomes available minus the number of days that the I-140 was pending. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, these six months must be subtracted from Junior's age at the time the visa number became available on July 1, 2002. Subtracting six months from Junior's age of 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, Junior's age is fixed at 20 years and 7 months. Thus, even though he was already 21 years and one month on July 1, 2002, he is still considered a "child" for purposes of accompanying his parents in adjusting his status to permanent residence. However, Junior has to file his I-485 within one year from the date of I-140 approval, that is before July 1, 2003. The length of time that is takes the USCIS to adjudicate Junior's case is no longer important in these cases.
According to "Child Status Protection Act", if through the above calculation, the child's age is fixed at 21 or older, the child would be automatically reclassified to an appropriate category and retains the principal beneficiary's original priority date. Please see the next example below.
Example 2
Same facts as above except that Junior is 21 years and seven months old at the time of John's I-140 approval. Because John's I-140 was pending for six months, Junior's age will be fixed at 21 years and one month. Even with the Child Status Protection Act, Junior still ages out and may not adjust his status at this time. However, he will automatically be reclassified to an appropriate category, family-based 2B, and retain his father's original priority date, January 1, 2000, which is the date John's employer filed John's Labor Certification application.
Example 3
Richard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. Richard's son, Simon, is 21 years and one month old. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Richard filed his I-485 because the visa number was currently available for Richard at that time. However, Simon cannot file his I-485 with his father because he aged out.
Example 4
Howard's daughter, Rachel, is 20 years and 10 months old. Howard filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 1, 2002. According to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, Howard and Rachel filed their I-485 since the visa number was available for Howard at that time. Thus, according to the "Child Status Protection Act," no matter how much time Howard's I-140 is pending, Rachel will not age out.
Visa numbers are currently available to all EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. Thus, with the new Concurrent Filing rule, any person who is a beneficiary (or applicant) of an I-140 petition that has already been filed or is filing the I-140 at this time is now eligible to file the I-485 application as well. Family members will be eligible to file the I-485 along with the principal alien. However, since the Concurrent Filing rule became effective, visa numbers may become unavailable in the future because more eligible aliens will be filing their I-485. Thus, eligible aliens with aging-out children should file their I-485 as soon as possible. Please see next example.
Example 5
Jenny filed her I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on August 10, 2002. Jenny has a son, Benny, who is 20 years and eleven months old. However, due to the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule, many aliens have filed their I-140 and I-485 together and the visa number for EB-2 has been exhausted. However, the visa number will not be current until December 2002 when Benny will be 21 years and three months old. If Jenny's I-140 is pending for six months and will be approved in February 2003, these six months will be reduced from Benny's age in December 2002 when he is 21 years and three months old. Thus, his age is fixed as 20 years nine months. However, if Jenny's I-140 petition is pending for only two months and will be approved in October 2002, Benny's age will be fixed as 21 years and one month. Thus, Benny ages out in this scenario and must wait until his priority date under family-based 2B immigration becomes current.
Example 6
Jason filed his I-140 immigration petition (NIW) on June 30, 2002. Jason has a son, Ken, who is 20 years and ten months old at that time. According to the visa bulletin, an immigration visa number became available for Jason on July 31, 2002. Ken was 20 years and eleven months on July 31, and he is not in the U.S. but in his home country. Because of the new I-140 and I-485 Concurrent Filing Rule Jason filed his I-485 on August 10, 2002. If Jason's I-140 is pending for 6 months until December 31, 2002, one month pending period from June 30 to July 31, 2002 should be subtracted from Ken's age on July 31, 2002. Thus, Ken's age is fixed as 20 years and 10 months. Ken may apply for his immigrant visa through Consular Processing at U.S. Consulate in his home country within one year from July 31, 2002.
For more information about "Age Out", please click the following topics:
What is "Age Out"
Child Status Protection Act
If you are a USC, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
If you are an LPR or will be an LPR, does CSPA prevent your child from "aging out"?
Age Out Problems in Employment-Based Immigration
Age Out Problems under the Interplay of the Rule of Concurrent Filing and "CSPA"
Child of Asylee and Refugee
Unmarried Sons or Daughters of Naturalized Citizens
Effective Date of the CSPA
Hi All,
I want to know if my 19 year old son can be affected by aging out.
I have just received ALC certification and will now file I140 and I485 concurrently as my priority date NOV 22 2004 EB3 Rest of World will be current in June.
Can someone who understands the aging out rules tell me if my son may have a problem?
Thanks in advance...
No comments:
Post a Comment