We won this case following a response to a Request for Evidence. Service requested further clarification on the "permanency" of the job offer, which was with a University. We submitted the HR policies/procedures documentation to show that the position was permanent and met the Service requirements. Letters from the HR as well as the Department were submitted to show that the position would continue and that funding was available to support this position.
"Went to the local Houston USCIS office by 4:50 am on friday Jul 11, 2003 and found myself behind 100 people (folks camping out...looked like a slumber party
. They sure let us in by 6:15am and got a number (186) & processed by around 12:45pm.
On 10 March 2020, a Washington DC Federal Court overturned the USCIS highly restrictive
standards applied to the consulting industry. This decision has a major positive impact on the IT
industry.
Judge Rosemary M. Collyer held that the USCIS must not administer justice through random
memoranda and must, if it wishes to change the regulations, do so through a formal process. In
fact, the USCIS seems to have illegally targeted the IT industry (“special treatment”):
In response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it adopted measures to assist applicants and petitioners who are responding to certain Requests for Evidence (RFE) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOID). This alert clarifies that this flexibility also applies to certain Notices of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) and Notices of Intent to Terminate (NOIT) regional investment centers, as well as certain filing date requirements for Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today announced that it will reuse previously submitted biometrics in order to process valid Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, extension requests due to the temporary closure of Application Support Centers (ASC) to the public in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This announcement is consistent with existing USCIS authorities regarding the agency’s ability to reuse previously submitted biometrics.
USCIS has received enough electronic registrations during the initial period to reach the FY 2021 H-1B numerical allocations (H-1B cap). USCIS randomly selected from among the registrations properly submitted. USCIS intends to notify petitioners with selected registrations no later than March 31, 2020, that they are eligible to file an H-1B cap-subject petition for the beneficiary named in the applicable selected registration.
Registrants’ online accounts will now show one of the following statuses for each registration (that is, for each beneficiary registered):
In response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that it is adopting a measure to assist applicants and petitioners who are responding to requests for evidence (RFEs) and notices of intent to deny (NOIDs) dated between March 1 and May 1, 2020.
Alert: While premium processing is suspended, petitioners may submit a request to expedite their petition if it meets the criteria on the Expedite Criteria webpage. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to demonstrate that they meet at least one of the expedite criteria. All expedite requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and requests granted at the discretion of USCIS office leadership.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today announced that, due to the ongoing COVID-19 National Emergency announced by President Trump on March 13, 2020, USCIS will accept all benefit forms and documents with reproduced original signatures, including the Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, for submissions dated March 21, 2020, and beyond.
Discussion Topics, Thursday, 5 March 2020
FAQ: Denial of a tourist/visitors/B visa 214(b) ||citizenship/naturalization trips of more than six months abroad || Time of stay and definition of a manager/executive employee for L-1A and EB-1C ||Transfer of H-1B while extension is pending ||What to do after an H-1B (or L-1) denial? ||Work duration and damages contracts under H-1B ||I do not have my final degree/diploma certificate/what should I do?
OTHER: Scheduling green card interview in a third country consulate || multiple H-4 extensions simultaneously ||AR-11 change of address filing, etc.,
Discussion Topics, Thursday, 19 March 2020
FAQ: EB-1C - What if my priority date does not become current before my L1A expiry? Should I file an H1B for safety? If I do, will I get moved from EB1 to EB2 ? Should my wife try for H1B ? Is there any maximum number of tries for H1B? If neither me nor my wife manage to get a H1B visa in the next 3 years, is it ok to exit the country and come back when EB1 priority date becomes current ? What visa will I come back with? || Loss of job/laid off during Covid/coronavirus times
OTHER: Moving from a cap exempt H-1B, extension etc. || Apply for an H-1B extension while another MTR is pending || Rejoining old employer after withdrawn I-140 || 60 days grace period for H-1B || Travel during EAD/AP renewal || H-1B transfer or AC21?
Published by: Light Reading - Date: July 31, 2003
Quotes and Excerpts from Rajiv on the article:
"There are eight or nine bills pending with similar provisions [to Tancredo's]," says Rajiv S. Khanna, a lawyer specializing in H-1B visa issues who practices in Arlington, Va. But he thinks the H-1B visa program already has shrunk along with the rest of the economy. "It's down, in my opinion, to 10 percent of what it was."
For more details please see the attachment below.
We won a case for a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry as an Outstanding Researcher. This applicant had over 22 years of research experience in the field and was a noted expert. We submitted documentary evidence to show his multiple patents and the commercialization of his patented work. We also provided extensive documentation to show his significant publication record and the multitude of citations resulting from his innovative and pioneering work. This applicant also qualified as a reviewer for several international scientific journals.
We won a case for a surgeon who had over 31 years of research, teaching and surgical experience. This applicant was highly qualified and known in the field to be one of the few that have reached the highest level of success. He was very well published with over 90 publications and authorship of a multitude of book chapters. We provided extensive documentary evidence to show that he was one of the premier surgeons in his expertise. This applicant was frequently called upon as an invited speaker and presented his work worldwide.
We won a case for a Materials Scientist who had over 11 years of research experience. His expertise was in the field of solar and hydrogen powered energy. We provided documentary evidence to show that his extensive list of publications was in prestigious international journals with high impact factors. We also showed that as a result of his innovative and pioneering work, he was invited to present his findings at a large number of conferences/workshops and symposia.
This applicant had over 5 years of industry experience and 8 years of research experience. He was offered a job with a private company conducting antennae and microwave engineering research. His unique skills set him apart from other researchers in the field and as a result he received several significant awards for his outstanding achievement. He also published for the prestigious society, IEEE.
We won this case following a Request for Evidence, which included requests for further documentary evidence to show that the grant awards received were considered "highly competitive" and awarded based on the applicant's outstanding achievements. We provided documentation to show that the applicant was featured in major media for his innovative work. We provided additional expert letters that reiterated the applicant truly stood out amongst his peers and more than qualified for the category.
To give you folks an idea of what gets through easily. We won a case for a chemist with over 14 years of teaching and research experience. This applicant was the author of over 63 peer-reviewed research publications and presented his work at 17 conferences and symposia. He was also invited to present at a multitude of seminars. This applicant authored 5 book chapters and technical proceedings. He qualified for the category based on his extensive publication record as well as his acting as a judge of others' work.
We won this case following a response to a Request for Evidence. Service requested further clarification on the "permanency" of the job offer, which was with a University. We submitted an official job offer letter as well as the copies of the university personnel manual and administrative handbook. Service had requested additional evidence to show "international reputation" of the applicant.