• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

July

  »
S M T W T F S
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The Lounge

Did wait times change?

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
  • 1
  • 2
  • next ›
#1
01-26-2008, 02:38 AM
Junior Member
Joined in Jan 2008
3 posts
zapatista47
0 AP
Hi, in 1997 my uncle applied on behalf of my mother, his sister. Ins told us that it would be 10 years well in 2001 they told us 3 additional years were added to our wait time but this year we were told that they sped up the process.so does any one know if this is true? im also 21 and don't know if i still qualify since i was 11 when the paper work was done. please this could be my last hope.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
zapatista47
View Public Profile
Send a private message to zapatista47
Find all posts by zapatista47
#2
01-26-2008, 02:47 AM
Senior Member
From Houston, TX
Joined in Sep 2007
1,975 posts
pingpong abyss's Avatar
pingpong abyss
0 AP
Where are you from? The wait time depends on the country.
__________________
The Pingpong of the Abyss
A Dream Deferred
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
pingpong abyss
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pingpong abyss
Visit pingpong abyss's homepage!
Find all posts by pingpong abyss
#3
01-26-2008, 09:48 AM
Editor
From Twilight Town
Joined in Mar 2006
1,472 posts
Abaddon
606 AP
Zapatista,


Even if you age out, you still have other alternatives as in A)sponsorship through an employment under the EB1/EB2 category or 2)marriage.

I believe your uncle petitioned for your aunt under 245i. What is your country of origin and what is the priority date?

I aged out at 21 last summer, so I can no longer get a visa along with my mom because of that.
__________________
Fallor, ergo sum. I err, therefore I AM.--St. Augustine

The miracle of your mind isn't that you can see the world as it is--it's that you can see the world as it isn't.--Kathryn Schultz
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Abaddon
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Abaddon
Find all posts by Abaddon
#4
01-26-2008, 12:50 PM
Junior Member
Joined in Jan 2008
3 posts
zapatista47
0 AP
I am from Mexico, so that means i do not qualify any longer under my mom's petition, even if i was under age when the paper work was done? dude that fucking sucks. Apart from that Ins is now making it impossible for employers to sponsor their workers. It use to be that any unskilled worker could get through but now you gotta be a professional and even then they still give you hell.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
zapatista47
View Public Profile
Send a private message to zapatista47
Find all posts by zapatista47
#5
01-26-2008, 01:18 PM
Editor
From Twilight Town
Joined in Mar 2006
1,472 posts
Abaddon
606 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by zapatista47 View Post
I am from Mexico, so that means i do not qualify any longer under my mom's petition, even if i was under age when the paper work was done? dude that fucking sucks. Apart from that Ins is now making it impossible for employers to sponsor their workers. It use to be that any unskilled worker could get through but now you gotta be a professional and even then they still give you hell.
Correct. If you check the visa bulletin, Under the f-4 category, the current priority date is 11-1-94, which means that if your uncle submitted the petition in 97, you got approximately 2-3 more years. Once your mom's date becomes current, she can then begin to process to become a permanent resident. You would not qualify since you'd be over 21. However, it is possible to get a really good lawyer like Carl Shusterman and take this to court as your last res

"Apart from that Ins is now making it impossible for employers to sponsor their workers. It use to be that any unskilled worker could get through but now you gotta be a professional and even then they still give you hell."

It's not so much that they give you hell, but even if it were just for unskilled workers, the process is long and tedious. First, they have to make sure that you would not be displacing an American worker, so you have to obtain an approved labor certification petition. You also should have a committed employer who'd be willing to go to through the process, which is long... would take about a year. It's just standard procedures.

Are you in college?
__________________
Fallor, ergo sum. I err, therefore I AM.--St. Augustine

The miracle of your mind isn't that you can see the world as it is--it's that you can see the world as it isn't.--Kathryn Schultz
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Abaddon
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Abaddon
Find all posts by Abaddon
#6
01-26-2008, 01:18 PM
BANNED
Joined in Sep 2007
724 posts
quaker
0 AP
not sure of the details but wouldn't the CPS Act apply here?
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
quaker
View Public Profile
Find all posts by quaker
#7
01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
Junior Member
Joined in Jan 2008
3 posts
zapatista47
0 AP
yes i am in Florida where there is no instate tuition it sucks
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
zapatista47
View Public Profile
Send a private message to zapatista47
Find all posts by zapatista47
#8
01-26-2008, 01:46 PM
Senior Member
From Houston, TX
Joined in Sep 2007
1,975 posts
pingpong abyss's Avatar
pingpong abyss
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by quaker View Post
not sure of the details but wouldn't the CPS Act apply here?
According to Shusterman, it should, but it needs to be taken to court.

Quote:
We conclude that combining the Board's reasoning in In re Maria T. Garcia and In re Rodolfo AVILA-PEREZ compels the conclusion that a derivative beneficiary of a visa petition which was approved prior to the enactment of CSPA (and prior to May 1, 2001) and who "aged-out" may adjust status under by submitting an I-485 under section 245(i) today. However, as we stated previously, there needs to be a qualifying person who is willing to test this reasoning before the CIS and, if necessary, in Federal Court.


http://www.shusterman.com/apr07.html#7
__________________
The Pingpong of the Abyss
A Dream Deferred
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
pingpong abyss
View Public Profile
Send a private message to pingpong abyss
Visit pingpong abyss's homepage!
Find all posts by pingpong abyss
#9
01-26-2008, 04:13 PM
Senior Member
From Washington
Joined in Dec 2006
317 posts
peija's Avatar
peija
0 AP
I'm in this same boat, I'm now 21, and my aunt petitioned for my mom and us in 1999, but on the bright side, if you do start a process of legalization, you don't have to go back to your origin country for the 10 year ban or anything, because you are grandfathered under the 245i,
like getting married or something ( :
__________________
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut. 24:16)"
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
peija
View Public Profile
Send a private message to peija
Find all posts by peija
#10
01-26-2008, 04:50 PM
Moderator
From New York City
Joined in May 2007
1,249 posts
RahmanIV
0 AP
The 2002 CSPA law is always challenged by the USCIS when it is brought to bear on immigrant petitions filed before 2002. One of the legal arguments is that CSPA doesn't retrospectively benefit earlier immigrant petitions because that would be unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the immigration matter has to be decided by Federal Courts which usually end up benefiting the immigrant. The Courts revert back to Justice Chase's decision in Calder v. Bull case of 1798, where he outlined four classes of laws that are unconstitutional on the grounds of ex post facto.
__________________
I am not an immigration attorney nor do I have any experience litigating immigration cases. As always, seek professional advice before pursuing any course of action. I cannot be held accountable for any consequences of my comments.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
RahmanIV
View Public Profile
Send a private message to RahmanIV
Find all posts by RahmanIV
  • 1
  • 2
  • next ›


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.