A test of the mobile blogger functionality.
Friday, August 26, 2005
i'm going to change the name of this blog...
...to "how dumb is our immigration system?"
here's a new one fresh off the wires from the aila liaison's service center operations liaison update (AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 05082660 (posted Aug. 26, 2005)):
"1. Schedule A Memo. There appears to be an error in the new Schedule A memo. At the end of page 6, the memo instructs that documentary evidence bearing on the application should be provided to the "appropriate USCIS office, i.e. the office where the Form I-140 petition has been filed." The Schedule A memo also instructs adjudicators to outright deny any petition where the notice was not posted within the 30/180 day time window. Assuming someone does not properly comply with the actual (versus misleading under the new schedule A memo) requirements regarding the content of the posting, such action cannot be "cured" because it will be outside the time window.
This instruction, however, is erroneous because the DOL regulations at 656.15(b)(2) state that Schedule A applications should comply with the posting requirements at 656.10(d). Section 656.10(d), in turn, states [at subparagraph (3)] that the notice should instruct that documentary evidence can be provided to "the Certifying Officer of the Department of Labor". The Schedule A memo is therefore wrong. The postings should reference DOL, not USCIS.
We understand that a corrected memo is being worked on. In the meantime, however, we are starting to see denials on this basis, in contradiction to the regulations. Can the Service Centers agree to follow the regulations, rather than the memo, on this point?"
i cannot reiterate enough how much i f'ing love my job!
here's a new one fresh off the wires from the aila liaison's service center operations liaison update (AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 05082660 (posted Aug. 26, 2005)):
"1. Schedule A Memo. There appears to be an error in the new Schedule A memo. At the end of page 6, the memo instructs that documentary evidence bearing on the application should be provided to the "appropriate USCIS office, i.e. the office where the Form I-140 petition has been filed." The Schedule A memo also instructs adjudicators to outright deny any petition where the notice was not posted within the 30/180 day time window. Assuming someone does not properly comply with the actual (versus misleading under the new schedule A memo) requirements regarding the content of the posting, such action cannot be "cured" because it will be outside the time window.
This instruction, however, is erroneous because the DOL regulations at 656.15(b)(2) state that Schedule A applications should comply with the posting requirements at 656.10(d). Section 656.10(d), in turn, states [at subparagraph (3)] that the notice should instruct that documentary evidence can be provided to "the Certifying Officer of the Department of Labor". The Schedule A memo is therefore wrong. The postings should reference DOL, not USCIS.
We understand that a corrected memo is being worked on. In the meantime, however, we are starting to see denials on this basis, in contradiction to the regulations. Can the Service Centers agree to follow the regulations, rather than the memo, on this point?"
i cannot reiterate enough how much i f'ing love my job!
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
petitioner or hostage
from an email from a colleague...
"The US Consulate in Guangzhou has requested the following: (1) have the USC Petitioner take a photograph holding a newspaper which clearly shows the date of the newspaper, (2) "notarize the photograph" (as translated from Chinese, I assume the Consulate means have the Petitioner make a written statement regarding the authenticity of the photograph and notarize the Petitioner's signature), and (3) send the "notarized photograph" and the original newspaper to the Consulate."
seriously, it's like a hostage photograph. this is ridiculous! in 2005 shouldn't there be a better way of doing this?
"The US Consulate in Guangzhou has requested the following: (1) have the USC Petitioner take a photograph holding a newspaper which clearly shows the date of the newspaper, (2) "notarize the photograph" (as translated from Chinese, I assume the Consulate means have the Petitioner make a written statement regarding the authenticity of the photograph and notarize the Petitioner's signature), and (3) send the "notarized photograph" and the original newspaper to the Consulate."
seriously, it's like a hostage photograph. this is ridiculous! in 2005 shouldn't there be a better way of doing this?
Monday, August 15, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
