ALL F4s

[jolly786 96]

that are a really good news for all . but someone knows exactly the next prediction???

hey whats ur PD ?

[jolly786 96]

we will see 2 to 2.5 month movement in the coming months ........may be from october vb......

[hiiifrndzzz 5]

If your PD had been current before the retrogression,then your age was automatically locked.

Thanks for your update SimonZoe, but I couldn't find this any where on any official website..!

[savvy.boy 13]

Jolly did my AOS matched with that guy's AOS whose PD is in September 2002.

[Mian7024 1]

no i/l received! Any reason???? PD 6 JULY 2001!!!!!

[jolly786 96]

Jolly did my AOS matched with that guy's AOS whose PD is in September 2002.

yeah fully matched ..............

[hiiifrndzzz 5]

Once again I am asking this, may be somebody can help me out..! what is the effect of retrogession on CSPA? Many people say that CSPA age gets locked when retrogession occurs, but still I am finding any official document on this..!

[bombertest1 1]

Once again I am asking this, may be somebody can help me out..! what is the effect of retrogession on CSPA? Many people say that CSPA age gets locked when retrogession occurs, but still I am finding any official document on this..!

Hi

I think this will help you.

http://www.dhs.gov/teleconference-recap-child-status-protection-act-cspa-%E2%80%93-how-it-working-you

[AHMED042 1]

i think one week movement or no movement

[jolly786 96]

Guys this is very very important one decision related to LIFE ACT which comes today............m not able to understand it properly...but i thk this is good news for us.....this is good news for us.....

BIA Decision of August 8, 2013 on Ineligibility of Grandfathered Spouse or Child Established After 04/30/2001 for the Benefit of 245(i)

http://www.immigration-law.com/

good relief ...............please read it ..........

Edited August 9, 2013 by jolly786

[iJustMadeThis 2]

Guys this is very very important one decision related to LIFE ACT which comes today............m not able to understand it properly...but i thk this is good news for us.....this is good news for us.....

BIA Decision of August 8, 2013 on Ineligibility of Grandfathered Spouse or Child Established After 04/30/2001 for the Benefit of 245(i)

http://www.immigration-law.com/

good relief ...............please read it ..........

*SKIMMED*

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

Couple goes to court in 2011 with the following story:

1. One man. One woman. Came to America from Philippines before LIFE Act.
2. Man's I-130 filed by his then-wife before LIFE Act. Woman's I-140 filed once before LIFE Act but was withdrawn soon after; filed another five years after LIFE Act.
3. Two marry in 2007 (man had divorced his then-wife and AOS failed).
4. Wife (woman) argued that she and her husband (man) are eligible for AOS under grandfather clause of LIFE Act because of the husband's previous I-130 (albeit failed).
5. Husband claimed he can AOS with his wife as a derivative beneficiary under her 2006 I-140, under the underlying argument that LIFE Act turned his status legal with his pre-LIFE Act I-130.
6. Court found neither true: man has been out of status and wasn't pardoned by LIFE Act with his I-130 having failed, and woman cannot AOS because she's out of status as well, with her husband unable to "protect" her with his status. Per decision the couple's AOS benefit was declined and they were given the choice to voluntarily leave USA.

The couple appealed.

1. New decision today, saying the same. Couple loses their benefit but are given chance to explore possible options to cancel their deportation.

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

It's not really a "good" news for us; in fact it's not even a news, really. It's rather sad.

This is a really rare case; not really anyone other than this couple would have benefited from this case being won for them. Most it could have done was this couple taking 2 green cards from legal immigration beneficiaries, and they were doing it through employment-based anyways. This case won't have affected us family immigration beneficiaries in any significant way, whether the couple won or lost.

Fine, they were here illegally. But let's not spite against other immigrants (though some of you may find the term "immigrants" here objectionable).

Edited August 9, 2013 by iJustMadeThis

[Mellow 8]

*SKIMMED*

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

Couple goes to court in 2011 with the following story:

1. One man. One woman. Came to America from Philippines before LIFE Act.
2. Man's I-130 filed by his then-wife before LIFE Act. Woman's I-140 filed once before LIFE Act but was withdrawn soon after; filed another five years after LIFE Act.
3. Two marry in 2007 (man had divorced his then-wife and AOS failed).
4. Wife (woman) argued that she and her husband (man) are eligible for AOS under grandfather clause of LIFE Act because of the husband's previous I-130 (albeit failed).
5. Husband claimed he can AOS with his wife as a derivative beneficiary under her 2006 I-140, under the underlying argument that LIFE Act turned his status legal with his pre-LIFE Act I-130.
6. Court found neither true: man has been out of status and wasn't pardoned by LIFE Act with his I-130 having failed, and woman cannot AOS because she's out of status as well, with her husband unable to "protect" her with his status. Per decision the couple's AOS benefit was declined and they were given the choice to voluntarily leave USA.

The couple appealed.

1. New decision today, saying the same. Couple loses their benefit but are given chance to explore possible options to cancel their deportation.

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

It's not really a "good" news for us; in fact it's not even a news, really. It's rather sad.

This is a really rare case; not really anyone other than this couple would have benefited from this case being won for them. Most it could have done was this couple taking 2 green cards from legal immigration beneficiaries, and they were doing it through employment-based anyways. This case won't have affected us family immigration beneficiaries in any significant way, whether the couple won or lost.

Fine, they were here illegally. But let's not spite against other immigrants (though some of you may find the term "immigrants" here objectionable).

I think the reason for loss in court battle is because there was fraud and not because of ineligibility for 245i because to benefit from 245i the petition must have been approvable when filed (and of course the filing date meets the criteria).

[Visa Grant 78]

..........i also saw your graph....did u see my graph???? in my graph we can see huge decrease....... aug,2001........

what u thk ?????/

My Graph is colorful, bigger and beyond 2002..

Pun apart..2001 happens to be the peak for filing petitons and over the years till 2008 we have not seen such levels, so this should also help in the overall visa movement till CIR steps in..

Good Luck..

[savvy.boy 13]

should I contact NVC , and ask them about additional police ceritificate mentioned in interview letter ?

I have to submit only recent police ceritificate of current residence covering last 4 years.

or I have to submit again all police certitificate of all areas ?

but that would be illogical

for example ,

my mom lived at 4 different places after she got 16 ,

she has already submitted all police ceritificates

but now why she would submit old certiticates again and again ,

because she is not living there for decades ,

why she would submit police certificate again and again of the area where she has lived 25 years back.

[Visa Grant 78]

that are a really good news for all . but someone knows exactly the next prediction???

Welcome to F4 forum..

Good Luck..