GKBest
10-17 11:42 AM
July 3rd filer received by R. Williams. Check cleared TODAY:p. However, the checks for my derivative beneficiaries hasn't been cashed.:confused:
Do they look inside the packet? How long should I wait to check if their applications weren't missed or misplaced? We are all in one packet.
Do they look inside the packet? How long should I wait to check if their applications weren't missed or misplaced? We are all in one packet.
wallpaper selena gomez 2011 photoshoot.
shantak
02-04 08:39 AM
mine is July 2007 and im in Richmond, State of Virginia. Local ASC that would be processing my FP would be Norfolk.
Thanks
Hi,
What is your 485 notice date and which state are you residing?
Thanks
Hi,
What is your 485 notice date and which state are you residing?
devaraj4u@yahoo.com
08-28 10:19 AM
My application reached NSC July 20th.
Check cashed :NO
Receipts : NO
Anybody from July 20th got their check cashed or got receipts.
LUD on I-140 07/28/2007
Labour PERM Applied : 20-Jun-2006
Labour PERM Approved : 27-Jun-2006
I-140 Filed @ NSC : 12-Oct-2006
I-140 Approved @ TSC : 13-Nov-2006
485/EAD/FP documents Sent to NSC : 19-Jul-2007
485/EAD/FP documents Received @ NSC : 20-Jul-2007
Check cashed :NO
Receipts : NO
Anybody from July 20th got their check cashed or got receipts.
LUD on I-140 07/28/2007
Labour PERM Applied : 20-Jun-2006
Labour PERM Approved : 27-Jun-2006
I-140 Filed @ NSC : 12-Oct-2006
I-140 Approved @ TSC : 13-Nov-2006
485/EAD/FP documents Sent to NSC : 19-Jul-2007
485/EAD/FP documents Received @ NSC : 20-Jul-2007
2011 selena gomez 2011 photoshoot.
rongha_2000
04-28 01:22 PM
Can you let us know how did you search your case by? Website, what data do I need to pull the record? I dont have my labor copy with me. Also I dont know where my labor was filed.
I searched my case on FLC data center and found following for my LC approval
Employer_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Level = Level II
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_CODE = 11-9041.00
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_Title = Engineering Managers
Prevailing_Wage_Source = OES
While I work as senior software/application developer in my current role with the same employer who filed my LC and GC.
Now I am getting an offer from another employer with same title "Senior Software Engineer".
Is it advisable to change job as my job code (job description) might be different from the one that was mentioned in LC?
Thanks in advance for your inputs and thoughts.
I searched my case on FLC data center and found following for my LC approval
Employer_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Job_Title = Computer Project Manager
Prevailing_Wage_Level = Level II
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_CODE = 11-9041.00
Prevailing_Wage_SOC_Title = Engineering Managers
Prevailing_Wage_Source = OES
While I work as senior software/application developer in my current role with the same employer who filed my LC and GC.
Now I am getting an offer from another employer with same title "Senior Software Engineer".
Is it advisable to change job as my job code (job description) might be different from the one that was mentioned in LC?
Thanks in advance for your inputs and thoughts.
more...
sam2006
07-20 03:22 PM
Was asking in general..
If you have used papal you can track all the funds filtering IV.
i
If you have used papal you can track all the funds filtering IV.
i
sanjay
02-14 02:15 PM
Really? Narendra Modi is great? And thats why he has been banned from visiting USA...WOW
@buddyinsd
I did not know that visa to USA is also a certificate of good behavior. Does Modi needs a visa to USA to prove he is good or bad person or vice-versa ?
Well, every one had choice to be opinionated and I posted what I think think of Narendra Modi. Why, are people so crazy, that they start posting ( BS ) comments with red marks on post.
Not that I give damn about red color, but remarks and PM are unwanted.
@buddyinsd
I did not know that visa to USA is also a certificate of good behavior. Does Modi needs a visa to USA to prove he is good or bad person or vice-versa ?
Well, every one had choice to be opinionated and I posted what I think think of Narendra Modi. Why, are people so crazy, that they start posting ( BS ) comments with red marks on post.
Not that I give damn about red color, but remarks and PM are unwanted.
more...
gc_on_demand
07-08 10:07 AM
desi - the reason we face all these issues is not because of anyone's fault.
Reporting an employer is not as easy as it sounds.
The most educated and experienced people have always recommended to "protect yourself" - look for yourself and keep out of trouble.
The issue here is - people in this situation are mere scapegoats - a common man who approaches beaucracy has to deal with crap that is worse.
The entire process of immigrating to US via a employment based system is so loosely organized and puts people in unfair situations.
It is just not desi employers or consulting companies, in general, but any employer can have an upper hand on you when you are at their mercy.
People say big companies have policies and they abide. I agree, but it is not always the case. If someone is in business - they do things in their business interest - if dealing with USCIS is getting difficult - they may say "enough of it - no more responding to RFEs".
One person contacted me - he is having a fulltime job and filed for AC21. he got RFE for EVL 2 times. The first time his HR gave EVL without any hasstles, the second time she was pissed, said "We do not want to deal with this - I have contacted legal and they recommend not to issue such letters".
Now such a situation puts this person in a tough spot -the issue is not because of his employer because his employer did give a proper letter but USCIS asked it again.
Just imagine what is this person's situation for no fault of his?
We can always argue that "If you are worth and if company wants to retain you then they will not have any issues" - which once again may not always be true because we all know how relationships work out at companies - with ass kissing, nepotism, situations, financial etc......
This is very true. People may want to come forward and complain about employes but is there clear guidence on what will be status of employee if employer withdraw her/his h1b ?
Reporting an employer is not as easy as it sounds.
The most educated and experienced people have always recommended to "protect yourself" - look for yourself and keep out of trouble.
The issue here is - people in this situation are mere scapegoats - a common man who approaches beaucracy has to deal with crap that is worse.
The entire process of immigrating to US via a employment based system is so loosely organized and puts people in unfair situations.
It is just not desi employers or consulting companies, in general, but any employer can have an upper hand on you when you are at their mercy.
People say big companies have policies and they abide. I agree, but it is not always the case. If someone is in business - they do things in their business interest - if dealing with USCIS is getting difficult - they may say "enough of it - no more responding to RFEs".
One person contacted me - he is having a fulltime job and filed for AC21. he got RFE for EVL 2 times. The first time his HR gave EVL without any hasstles, the second time she was pissed, said "We do not want to deal with this - I have contacted legal and they recommend not to issue such letters".
Now such a situation puts this person in a tough spot -the issue is not because of his employer because his employer did give a proper letter but USCIS asked it again.
Just imagine what is this person's situation for no fault of his?
We can always argue that "If you are worth and if company wants to retain you then they will not have any issues" - which once again may not always be true because we all know how relationships work out at companies - with ass kissing, nepotism, situations, financial etc......
This is very true. People may want to come forward and complain about employes but is there clear guidence on what will be status of employee if employer withdraw her/his h1b ?
2010 selena gomez 2011 photoshoot.
edgarrecto
12-16 09:37 AM
the january 2008 visa bulletin reflects that the eb3 category has a priority date of october 15,2002. are we made to believe that those persons who have priority dates of october 15,2002 and earlier, did not immediately file for adjustment of status but instead they will only file now this coming january 2008? is it believable that there are still applicants who will be filing now this janiuary 2008 even though their priority date is as early as october 15,2002?
more...
z029556
09-24 05:45 PM
Hi Guys,
My application was sent on Aug 7th reached USCIS (NSC)on Aug 8th. Recieved my reciept # today from lawyer. But my wife haven't recieved the RN. Was wondering if any one are in the same boat.
Regards
VJ
My application was sent on Aug 7th reached USCIS (NSC)on Aug 8th. Recieved my reciept # today from lawyer. But my wife haven't recieved the RN. Was wondering if any one are in the same boat.
Regards
VJ
hair justin bieber selena gomez
srikondoji
07-08 11:24 AM
Well said.
Such intricate details won't come out in interviews or even personally talking to them. Only lawyers can do it as part of a fight with lawsuits.
1)Why they have to make everybody current?
2)Why they were working weekends (actually heard that govt employees working during weekends is illegal) to clear 60,000 visa numbers?
3) Why did they pick july 2nd to revise the bulletin and did not pre-warn potential applicants?
4)Why no one from DOS or USCIS is talking about exceptions and or remedies for those july applicants who wasted thousands in 2 weeks?
5) What was that urge, which compelled DOS to make everybody current?
6) What will happen to those applicantions reached early morning on july 2nd before revised bulletin became public or those who mailed on june 29/30 for July 2nd delivery?
7) Why did USCIS clear so many applicants by-passing security checks and clearances?
8) Why was there a mad rush in the last 2 weeks of june when in reality visa numbers would go waste on sept end?
9) Why USCIS always talks about under staffed when they are in a possition to clear 60,000 applicantions in a matter of days?
Any more?
--sri
H1bmajdoor -- the blunder I am talking about here is making the dates all current (the original July bulletin) -- who the hell asked them to do that?? Why not move them another year forward? Had they done that I doubt USCIS would have panicked and gone crazy approving people without security checks, approving people whose dates were not current in June or even on July 2.
That had nothing to do with the law, or the ceiling set by law -- it was an arbitrary roll of the dice by DOS, a decision made WITHOUT consulting USCIS.
Such intricate details won't come out in interviews or even personally talking to them. Only lawyers can do it as part of a fight with lawsuits.
1)Why they have to make everybody current?
2)Why they were working weekends (actually heard that govt employees working during weekends is illegal) to clear 60,000 visa numbers?
3) Why did they pick july 2nd to revise the bulletin and did not pre-warn potential applicants?
4)Why no one from DOS or USCIS is talking about exceptions and or remedies for those july applicants who wasted thousands in 2 weeks?
5) What was that urge, which compelled DOS to make everybody current?
6) What will happen to those applicantions reached early morning on july 2nd before revised bulletin became public or those who mailed on june 29/30 for July 2nd delivery?
7) Why did USCIS clear so many applicants by-passing security checks and clearances?
8) Why was there a mad rush in the last 2 weeks of june when in reality visa numbers would go waste on sept end?
9) Why USCIS always talks about under staffed when they are in a possition to clear 60,000 applicantions in a matter of days?
Any more?
--sri
H1bmajdoor -- the blunder I am talking about here is making the dates all current (the original July bulletin) -- who the hell asked them to do that?? Why not move them another year forward? Had they done that I doubt USCIS would have panicked and gone crazy approving people without security checks, approving people whose dates were not current in June or even on July 2.
That had nothing to do with the law, or the ceiling set by law -- it was an arbitrary roll of the dice by DOS, a decision made WITHOUT consulting USCIS.
more...
SunnySurya
08-18 02:35 PM
That lawsuit Idea is still very much alive but not relevant to this. Plus that idea will take some time. I also don't beleive I had been unethical.
The bottomline, you would agree, the reason we all are lurking on this forum is to get our GC. I can assure you and the other core members of one thing, I will not do anything which is I beleive is unethical on not within the boundaries of the law.
The other day you spent the entire day answering every question(s) people had. I even told my wife that our good friend is going to take all our worries out pretty soon. EB2 will no longer going accept porting so we will go faster and then guess what you didn't even file the law suit yet....you let us down!!
I have a humble suggestion for you, please concentrate on your work and read some books on ethics and leave the GC processing to CIS.
The bottomline, you would agree, the reason we all are lurking on this forum is to get our GC. I can assure you and the other core members of one thing, I will not do anything which is I beleive is unethical on not within the boundaries of the law.
The other day you spent the entire day answering every question(s) people had. I even told my wife that our good friend is going to take all our worries out pretty soon. EB2 will no longer going accept porting so we will go faster and then guess what you didn't even file the law suit yet....you let us down!!
I have a humble suggestion for you, please concentrate on your work and read some books on ethics and leave the GC processing to CIS.
hot and selena gomez 2011
mirage
03-26 08:59 AM
I don't know how you have calclated that. As far as I remember seeing various threads on this forum, there are atleast 5-6K EB3 in 2002 and similar number in 2003 for India. Considering 2.5 number used per family I an guessing we need atleast 20-25K Green card numbers for EB3 to move beyond 2003. With just 3300 EB3 available per year, my guess is it'll take 4-5 years for cuttoff dates to go past 2003. I may be pesimistic, but this country's immigration system has taking all optimism out of our American dream...
EB3-India with PD 2003 and before - Most will be out by December 2008 -
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
EB3-India with PD 2003 and before - Most will be out by December 2008 -
Perhaps 10% may still rot in NC further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2004 - DEC 2004 - Most will be out by August 2009
Perhaps 20% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India with PD JAN 2005 - April 2005 - Most will be out by April 2010
Perhaps 5% may still rot in NC
further.
EB3-India May 2005 Onwards - Can not predict - It is good to look for other
options and that option certainly MUST not
be switching to EB2
more...
house selena gomez 2011 hd. selena
SunnySurya
08-18 01:44 PM
Well said!. It is simply a sign of immaturity that some people will just complain but are not willing to do the work , not willing to understand the issue and not willing to understaing the constraints.
If any changes need to be made it upto the individuals to take the intiatives.
DO NOT post such baseless allegations.
IV core is very much aware of the problems as we ourselves face them, and working within our limited means and time. If you are interested, join us and give your helping hand.
If any changes need to be made it upto the individuals to take the intiatives.
DO NOT post such baseless allegations.
IV core is very much aware of the problems as we ourselves face them, and working within our limited means and time. If you are interested, join us and give your helping hand.
tattoo selena gomez 2011 photoshoot.
vikki76
09-29 11:30 PM
Interpretations from website http://www.usvisahelp.com/nw_vol4_iss7.html
6. Porting to Self-Employment
USCIS has surprisingly taken the position in the memo that foreign nationals may port to self-employment. However, there may be difficult issues of proof involved: the foreign national will have to prove the legitimacy of the self-employment; and will have to prove that the I-140 petitioner intended to employ him or her upon the filing of the I-140 petition and at the time of filing the I-485 application (if not filed concurrently). The foreign national must also have intended to undertake the employment upon adjustment. The most difficult proof issue will be showing that the I-140 petitioner intended to employ the beneficiary upon I-140 and I-485 filing. This is difficult because once the foreign national ports, the I-140 petitioner may be less than willing to provide evidence of its former intent. However, the memo also states that the I-140 petition and supporting documents are prima facie evidence of the employer's intent. But in appropriate cases, additional evidence will be necessary. The memo does not say what those "appropriate cases" will be. If additional evidence is required from the I-140 petitioner, it will likely be very difficult to obtain.
7. Timing of New Employment Offer
A foreign national cannot still be looking for "same or similar" employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated. This indicates that it is acceptable for some time to lapse between leaving employment with the I-140 petitioner, and accepting a new job offer in a "same or similar position." However, if the I-485 is adjudicated before a new employment offer is procured, the foreign national is out of luck.
6. Porting to Self-Employment
USCIS has surprisingly taken the position in the memo that foreign nationals may port to self-employment. However, there may be difficult issues of proof involved: the foreign national will have to prove the legitimacy of the self-employment; and will have to prove that the I-140 petitioner intended to employ him or her upon the filing of the I-140 petition and at the time of filing the I-485 application (if not filed concurrently). The foreign national must also have intended to undertake the employment upon adjustment. The most difficult proof issue will be showing that the I-140 petitioner intended to employ the beneficiary upon I-140 and I-485 filing. This is difficult because once the foreign national ports, the I-140 petitioner may be less than willing to provide evidence of its former intent. However, the memo also states that the I-140 petition and supporting documents are prima facie evidence of the employer's intent. But in appropriate cases, additional evidence will be necessary. The memo does not say what those "appropriate cases" will be. If additional evidence is required from the I-140 petitioner, it will likely be very difficult to obtain.
7. Timing of New Employment Offer
A foreign national cannot still be looking for "same or similar" employment at the time the I-485 is being adjudicated. This indicates that it is acceptable for some time to lapse between leaving employment with the I-140 petitioner, and accepting a new job offer in a "same or similar position." However, if the I-485 is adjudicated before a new employment offer is procured, the foreign national is out of luck.
more...
pictures selena gomez 2011 photoshoot.
whiteStallion
02-16 11:52 PM
Donated $50 for the event...
Transaction ID : 6BY12489DA076303K
Transaction ID : 6BY12489DA076303K
dresses tattoo Selena Gomez Says #39;I
jkays94
06-22 12:17 AM
Let's start our campaign for our own bill immediately. There is no motive to wait. We should pay lobbysts and ask them to approach lawmakers using the argument that legal immigrants need a relief without waiting for amnesty bills for illegal aliens.
The same argument applies, why would someone like Dianne Feinstein or other lawmakers who supported CIR because of industries such as agriculture, turn around and support a bill for legal immigrants when they traditionally have been opposed to bills that favor skilled workers ? The reality is that there will be no new bill until after November. I'm being pessimistic with good reason, look at the example that this Senator (http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=256689) gave regarding a measure that made it to the Senate and collapsed, but they did have success in the house where it passed as they would have wanted it to. What happened in this same case is what has happened to CIR, it got past the Senate but is now facing problems in the house. It goes to show that lobbying even with massive resources does not guarantee immediate success neither is the result what one set out to get, but indeed one is better off lobbying than not lobbying at all :
18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion quietly financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax. The report (http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf) tells how these families spent over $200 million dollars contributing to political campaigns, financing outside lobby groups and trade associations, and creating a massive anti-estate tax coalition that served as the main coordinator of the repeal campaign.
The same argument applies, why would someone like Dianne Feinstein or other lawmakers who supported CIR because of industries such as agriculture, turn around and support a bill for legal immigrants when they traditionally have been opposed to bills that favor skilled workers ? The reality is that there will be no new bill until after November. I'm being pessimistic with good reason, look at the example that this Senator (http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=256689) gave regarding a measure that made it to the Senate and collapsed, but they did have success in the house where it passed as they would have wanted it to. What happened in this same case is what has happened to CIR, it got past the Senate but is now facing problems in the house. It goes to show that lobbying even with massive resources does not guarantee immediate success neither is the result what one set out to get, but indeed one is better off lobbying than not lobbying at all :
18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion quietly financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax. The report (http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf) tells how these families spent over $200 million dollars contributing to political campaigns, financing outside lobby groups and trade associations, and creating a massive anti-estate tax coalition that served as the main coordinator of the repeal campaign.
more...
makeup selena gomez photoshoot who
fundo14
06-07 12:36 AM
Hey dont give up ur Canadian PR. U have worked so hard for it. Just think about it. What if ur US GC goes for a toss (god forbid)? The idea was to use Canadian PR as a backup so do it. Also, I completed my landing in Canada recently. PM me if u need more info...
Hi,
How did you reenter US? Using H1 or AP?
I have already used AP once and I am hearing lot of stories about US Immigration creating lot of problem while enetering back in US using AP as they feel that we are doing some kind of fraud ny trying to maintain PR in Cananda & USA
Please shear your experience of Landing.
Hi,
How did you reenter US? Using H1 or AP?
I have already used AP once and I am hearing lot of stories about US Immigration creating lot of problem while enetering back in US using AP as they feel that we are doing some kind of fraud ny trying to maintain PR in Cananda & USA
Please shear your experience of Landing.
girlfriend selena gomez photo shoot
akhilmahajan
02-09 05:23 PM
Thanks a lot Rajeev and coolpal.
Grand Total - $599
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
Grand Total - $599
Come on folks lets help IV, to get things done for US.
IV is I/WE.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
hairstyles selena gomez dress 2011
dskhabra
03-27 09:30 AM
We landed in Canada (Rainbow Bridge, Niagara) last week. No questions asked by Canadian immigration regarding stay in US. On the way back (Rainbow Bridge) US IO did not ask anything about 485 or Canada PR.
We filed AOS in July 2007 and have valid H1 visa in the passports. But it all depends on your luck and we had some personal reasons to land in Canada and we took the risk.
We filed AOS in July 2007 and have valid H1 visa in the passports. But it all depends on your luck and we had some personal reasons to land in Canada and we took the risk.
diptam
08-21 11:36 PM
I'm going to call Texas Tomorrow ! If i call USCIS they never transfers to TSC or NSC easily.
Why do you have this hunch?
It seems like all the LUDs on approved I140 from Texas for July filers is pointing towards their I485 being sent to Texas too. Hence, this unimaginable prolonged delay. Can we do anything about it except sulk?
Let it run its course.
Why do you have this hunch?
It seems like all the LUDs on approved I140 from Texas for July filers is pointing towards their I485 being sent to Texas too. Hence, this unimaginable prolonged delay. Can we do anything about it except sulk?
Let it run its course.
desi3933
07-09 11:01 AM
The above documents should have Condi's (and USCISs) LAW. Googler's last link appears to be the main source for all other links.
Please note very carefully that we are looking for a LAW that specifies when AOSs will (not) be accepted from GC applicants. We are NOT looking for a law for allocating GC #s to approved AOSs (which is explained in the above links).
This LAW should explain the following cases (which may not be a complete list).
Oct 1 2005 & Oct 1 2006 when 140K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
May 14 (??) when 60K GCs were available but many more AOSs were acceptable and were accepted from June 1-30.
June 12 when < 40K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were acceptable.
July 2 when 0 GCs were available and ANY AOS was not acceptable.
Months in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
Months in 2005 and 2006 when ANY AOS was not acceptable.
INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
Sec. 245. [8 U.S.C. 1255]
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
============================
My points -
a. 140k GCs are NOT available on Oct 1st. Only 27% (37,800) are available and are subject to 7% country cap. DoS estimated the PD based on the number of I-485 applications pending and other related factors.
b. A person can file I-485 as long as his PD is before PD mentioned in the visa bulletin. This is how "immediately available" is defined.
c. Since revised visa bulletin update states that no visa number is available for FY USCIS, by law, can not accept new I-485 applications.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
Please note very carefully that we are looking for a LAW that specifies when AOSs will (not) be accepted from GC applicants. We are NOT looking for a law for allocating GC #s to approved AOSs (which is explained in the above links).
This LAW should explain the following cases (which may not be a complete list).
Oct 1 2005 & Oct 1 2006 when 140K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
May 14 (??) when 60K GCs were available but many more AOSs were acceptable and were accepted from June 1-30.
June 12 when < 40K GCs were available but ALL AOSs were acceptable.
July 2 when 0 GCs were available and ANY AOS was not acceptable.
Months in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when ALL AOSs were not acceptable.
Months in 2005 and 2006 when ANY AOS was not acceptable.
INA: ACT 245 - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF NONIMMIGRANT TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
Sec. 245. [8 U.S.C. 1255]
(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,
(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and
(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
============================
My points -
a. 140k GCs are NOT available on Oct 1st. Only 27% (37,800) are available and are subject to 7% country cap. DoS estimated the PD based on the number of I-485 applications pending and other related factors.
b. A person can file I-485 as long as his PD is before PD mentioned in the visa bulletin. This is how "immediately available" is defined.
c. Since revised visa bulletin update states that no visa number is available for FY USCIS, by law, can not accept new I-485 applications.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
