1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Administrative Action To Allow Aos Filing Without Current Visa Numbers - Part 2

Discussion in 'Immigration legislation' started by Ron Gotcher, Nov 4, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cuckoo

    cuckoo Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,449
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    213
    Here is all that is there in USCIS and DHS memos about people with approved I-140 who cannot file I-485 due to visa numbers not being current:
    "Specifically, USCIS should consider amending its regulations to ensure that approved,
    long-standing visa petitions remain valid in certain cases where they seek to change jobs
    or employers." (DHS policy memo, emphasis added)
    "USCIS will:
    What -Provide clarity on adjustment portability to remove unnecessary restrictions on natural career progression and general job mobility to provide relief to workers facing lengthy adjustment delays.
    When-Upon issuing necessary guidance and regulations."
    As I read it, the DHS language is rather restrictive - the visa-petition (I-140) has to be "long-standing", then "in certain cases" it will remain valid (no need to refile perm and I-140).The USCIS language is rather vague and could be read more broadly. Bottomline - wait till rules are published for comment unless USCIS provides some guidance before then....
    There is nothing about pre-registration anywhere in the documents - either those released by WH or the DHS/USCIS.
     
  2. RealisticOptimist

    RealisticOptimist Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ron is partying right now

    Think thats confirmation enough

    my optimism only stems from the commonsense that Legal is always better than Illegal
     
  3. ColumbusDude

    ColumbusDude Active Member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
  4. PD18May2010

    PD18May2010 New Member

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
  5. groot

    groot Member

    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This USCIS piece language seems to correlate more with the DHS section "Increasing worker portability" that clarifies "Same or Similar occupation"
     
  6. PD18May2010

    PD18May2010 New Member

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
  7. RealisticOptimist

    RealisticOptimist Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2014...executive-action-iaea-summary-of-action-plan/

    Changes are expected to make it easier for workers who are stuck waiting for an immigrant visa number to change their jobs. The proposal is to allow approved I-140 beneficiaries to obtain I-485-like benefits (such as work permit, job portability) and allow them to change employers. Estimated population is around 400,000. This will be done via regulation which is subject to the (often time-consuming) regulation-making process. The AC21 “same or similar job” language is expanded/clarified.

    =============

    the only discouraging factor here is that it could take sometime. lets hope thats not the case
     
  8. cuckoo

    cuckoo Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,449
    Likes Received:
    2,396
    Trophy Points:
    213
    Yeah, but in that case, there is nothing in the USCIS plans for those with approved I-140 who cannot file AOS /I-485 due to backlog. I think USCIS combined the same or similar definition issue with portability for those that cannot file for AOS due to backlog, unless they missed or deliberately ignored it altogether. And yes, they are perfectly capable of doing such things deliberately....
     
  9. groot

    groot Member

    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    :) agree.... need to wait and watch....
     
  10. deve

    deve New Member

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Do we get 3 year EAD like undocumented ?
     
  11. RealisticOptimist

    RealisticOptimist Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    but based on memo to DHS , it mentions unused visas. so thats backlog related

    and I agree that the above point is only saying EAD with I 140. they might do both

    but more and more indications from several websites say that u can get EAD even when not current as long u have approved i 140
     
  12. PD18May2010

    PD18May2010 New Member

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    "Also, the proposal does not change the way the family derivative members are counted under the immigrant visa numbers. As a result, the current backlogged wait system will continue (subject to some relief from the points above)." Obviously if this is true, we will continue the endless wait :)
    But hey good news is that from the recent EB Inventory Data, there has been some good clearance so there is some hope for the next batch of people - May 1, 2009 onward...
     
  13. s_gan

    s_gan Super Moderator

    Messages:
    5,311
    Likes Received:
    5,419
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is nothing related to backlog. As I said earlier there is no intent to help legal aliens for obvious reasons (other than politics) and we are all victims. When so much can be done for illegals cant the statute be re-interpreted to remove dependents ?
     
    bhuvr likes this.
  14. RealisticOptimist

    RealisticOptimist Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
  15. binu2007

    binu2007 Senior Member

    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Third, I direct that USCIS carefully consider other regulatory or policy changes to better assist and provide
    stability to the beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions.

    Specifically, USCIS should consider amending its regulations to ensure that approved,
    long-standing visa petitions remain valid in certain cases where they seek to change jobs
    or employers.
    (Page 2 last lines)

    http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_business_actions.pdf

    Regulation means (interpreting the laws in terms of how USCIS functions) USCIS have been asked to do what they think they already have sufficient authorization for. So just a memorandum is enough re-interpreting the law So guys don't worry wait for this morning or latest by Monday things will be more clear.
     
  16. s_gan

    s_gan Super Moderator

    Messages:
    5,311
    Likes Received:
    5,419
    Trophy Points:
    113
    dude. are you really optimistic ? what do you think this line means ?
     
  17. deve

    deve New Member

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    It is interesting to read this . It was there, look like, they took it out in last minute.

    The AFL-CIO, for one, was continuing to voice its displeasure over what it was hearing, including a sweetener for the tech industry that was reportedly included. Top union officials reached out to the Congressional Black Caucus to press their case that a provision to allow tech companies to recapture unused visas would harm American workers.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/how-obama-got-here-113077.html#ixzz3JgE8xyfF
     
  18. RealisticOptimist

    RealisticOptimist Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
  19. RealisticOptimist

    RealisticOptimist Member

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I am sure Ron will clear the air on a lot of things tommorow

    Good nite

    and definitely today has been positive
     
  20. PD18May2010

    PD18May2010 New Member

    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Yeah even I feel that AFL-CIO pressured them to remove the recapture option which is nothing but increasing the number of GCs. I think the quota of 140k (which obviously gets exceeded every year) is a use it or lose it and there is no lawful provision to save them for the future. So in order to carry them forward, that law needs to be changed which cannot be done by Executive.

    So chances are if they did implement it, it could have been challenged and struck down... but hey I am a newbie to this and the Internet is my oyster for info. ;-)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page