CaliGC
06-14 09:02 PM
Friends,
Like me, many of you have filed I-485 before Sept 2005 and got stuck due to priority dates getting retrogressed. Now that that the PD is current what action should we take to get the cases approved and not get stuck again.
PLEASE POOL IN YOUR INPUTS so that a collective thought will put us in the right direction to get the GC approved before the PD move back.
TIA.
Please see my Signature below for info regarding me.
EB3/VSC/India
PD July 2004
140/EAD/AP/485 file RD:11/05/2004 ND:11/09/2004
EAD1 Approved:11/22/2004
AP1 Approved:11/23/2005
140 Approved:2/1/2005
EAD2 RD: 10/06/05 AD: 10/25/05
AP2 RD: 10/06/05 AD:10/31/05
EAD3 RD 7/7/2006 AD: 7/27/06
FP1 - 03/10/05
FP2 4/25/07
SELF Name Check Cleared!!!: Dec. 2004 & Jan 2006.
SPOUSE Name Check Cleared!!!: Mar. 2006
Like me, many of you have filed I-485 before Sept 2005 and got stuck due to priority dates getting retrogressed. Now that that the PD is current what action should we take to get the cases approved and not get stuck again.
PLEASE POOL IN YOUR INPUTS so that a collective thought will put us in the right direction to get the GC approved before the PD move back.
TIA.
Please see my Signature below for info regarding me.
EB3/VSC/India
PD July 2004
140/EAD/AP/485 file RD:11/05/2004 ND:11/09/2004
EAD1 Approved:11/22/2004
AP1 Approved:11/23/2005
140 Approved:2/1/2005
EAD2 RD: 10/06/05 AD: 10/25/05
AP2 RD: 10/06/05 AD:10/31/05
EAD3 RD 7/7/2006 AD: 7/27/06
FP1 - 03/10/05
FP2 4/25/07
SELF Name Check Cleared!!!: Dec. 2004 & Jan 2006.
SPOUSE Name Check Cleared!!!: Mar. 2006
desi3933
07-20 04:58 PM
Let's assume Two people A and B entered into US on Jan 1st 2004 with Visa stamping Valid till June 2006.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
One is expected to know immigration laws. Who stopped Person B to re-enter USA before filing for I-485.
Not knowing laws is not a valid excuse.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
One is expected to know immigration laws. Who stopped Person B to re-enter USA before filing for I-485.
Not knowing laws is not a valid excuse.
harivenkat
05-11 01:06 PM
This is happening right now
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on U.S. citizenship and immigration services. Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services testified before the committee.
C-SPAN Video Player - Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/05/11/HP/A/32807/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+US+Citizenship+an d+Immigration+Services.aspx)
krishna.ahd
02-12 06:08 PM
both H1 and H4 extension are filed together regularly.
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
It happned to me , when attorney forgot to file H4 for my kids and i came to know only after i received my extension. Then my employer filed it under premium and received the approval within 10 days.
However, the need now arises to upgrade both to premium processing.
Attorney claims I can only get H1 under premium and if processing center wants they will process H4 under premium as well.
But I cannot find this memo that speaks of premium processing being available for I-539 applications as well. It happened sometime last year.
Anyway, thanks for all replies. I'll keep digging....
It happned to me , when attorney forgot to file H4 for my kids and i came to know only after i received my extension. Then my employer filed it under premium and received the approval within 10 days.
more...
thomachan72
11-10 02:47 PM
Never heard of this before. Wouldn't know what to do either. Can you call them and ask? or send an email? what does your attorney say? Was an educational evaluation done on this?
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
more...
dilipb
04-21 03:20 PM
This query is for a friend of mine.
His labor and 140 was pre-approved.
In jun 2007 he applied for 485 / EAD and AP.
He got EAD, is working on it.
He also used AP to go to india and back.
His H1 is already expired this month.
All he has is a new AP based new i94 which expires on the day his EAD expires.
Now his drivers license is expiring.
Does anyone know the documents he will be required to submit to DL center to get DL extended.
Also the most important thing is, can the DL somehow be extended for more than 1 year. Because doing this every year is a pain.
Thanks in advance.
His labor and 140 was pre-approved.
In jun 2007 he applied for 485 / EAD and AP.
He got EAD, is working on it.
He also used AP to go to india and back.
His H1 is already expired this month.
All he has is a new AP based new i94 which expires on the day his EAD expires.
Now his drivers license is expiring.
Does anyone know the documents he will be required to submit to DL center to get DL extended.
Also the most important thing is, can the DL somehow be extended for more than 1 year. Because doing this every year is a pain.
Thanks in advance.
ds37
07-16 10:21 AM
Hi
My wife has entered the US as H4 and her i-94 is expiring end of this month. she has now moved to AOS (using EAD). DO we have to sent her I94 somewhere or simply hold on to it and return it whenever we leave the country.
Does her AP has to be applied before end of this I94.
Thanks
DS
My wife has entered the US as H4 and her i-94 is expiring end of this month. she has now moved to AOS (using EAD). DO we have to sent her I94 somewhere or simply hold on to it and return it whenever we leave the country.
Does her AP has to be applied before end of this I94.
Thanks
DS
more...
dyekek12
12-13 02:15 PM
I'm thinking about pursuing maser degree of Biostatistics.
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
I heard the job market demand is high and
most jobs require master degree at least.
As a research assistance, biostatistician, research analyst..
Could I apply as EB2 ?
Am I qualifed?
rajenk
07-16 12:49 PM
Thanks a lot Raj.
One more question. Does current company give you any originals when your I-140 is approved? If so, I was not given any. I was just told by the company attorney by mail saying that my I-140 is approved. So now, what exactly should I ask for? Appreciate if you can list all the required documents.
Thanks again for answering so promptly.
CAH
Below are the documents that you need to get from your previous attorney/Employer.
1. Legible copy of your approved labor that you and your HR had signed.
2. Legible copy of the Approved Original I-140. You will not get this original because it is solely Employer's document. Some times you will receive a Courtesy copy, but that will be like any other I-797,that is not the original, in that they will say "Courtesy Copy: Original sent to : <your attorney's name>"
3. Copy of all H1-B approvals (I-797) to have records of your legal stay in US.
That is all you need.
Make sure to transfer your H1-B to your new employer.
Good luck.
Raj:)
One more question. Does current company give you any originals when your I-140 is approved? If so, I was not given any. I was just told by the company attorney by mail saying that my I-140 is approved. So now, what exactly should I ask for? Appreciate if you can list all the required documents.
Thanks again for answering so promptly.
CAH
Below are the documents that you need to get from your previous attorney/Employer.
1. Legible copy of your approved labor that you and your HR had signed.
2. Legible copy of the Approved Original I-140. You will not get this original because it is solely Employer's document. Some times you will receive a Courtesy copy, but that will be like any other I-797,that is not the original, in that they will say "Courtesy Copy: Original sent to : <your attorney's name>"
3. Copy of all H1-B approvals (I-797) to have records of your legal stay in US.
That is all you need.
Make sure to transfer your H1-B to your new employer.
Good luck.
Raj:)
more...
Ψ
06-12 01:31 PM
well here is my last volley not at all great and am not completely satisfied.
wouldve spent a little more time. but its just dat i have exams and gotta study.
well heres my last serve hope u like ithttp://img62.photobucket.com/albums/v188/_azzy_/last.jpg
wouldve spent a little more time. but its just dat i have exams and gotta study.
well heres my last serve hope u like ithttp://img62.photobucket.com/albums/v188/_azzy_/last.jpg
s416504
11-18 01:00 PM
Please specify time line (MMYY) about your status from begining. Also mention period USCIS asking your legalility. I think You should be OK as long as AOS pending.
more...
vinoddas
07-30 02:37 AM
I liked the joke.. the title originally was: "Difficult Spouse related GC question" ;)
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
I will definitely consider doing that. I am just afraid that I might get my GC even before I get a chance to do a court marriage.
Thanks for the input.
gcnirvana
10-25 05:31 PM
Primary and secondary applications are totally independent once its receipted. I got my EAD 3 weeks ago but nothing for my wife. The status says 'Received and pending'. After FP, my LUD got updated but again nothing for my wife.
Go figure...:confused:
Go figure...:confused:
more...
harrydr
08-03 09:36 AM
Hello IV friends,
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
eb3_nepa
11-06 04:30 PM
Here is the link with the clarification released on Jun 6th By Michael Aytes, Astt Director of USCIS regarding Non Cap h1B's
http://149.101.23.2/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/AC21C060606.pdf
These roles qualify for non cap H1B's
* Renewals of existing H1b's
* If are working for a not for profit institution
* If you are working for a institute of higher education ( as defined by the US education act of 1964, institutes like 2 yr and 4 year colleges and some high schools which have teacher education programs with schools of education in these colleges) or a government research institution or a company associated with the above institutions where the primary objective of the company is to supplement the mission of the institutions, example would be a company providing research assistants to a reseach medical hospital. In this case the company is not cap exempt but the job involves the institution that is cap exempt.
What kind of institution will your wife be a financial analyst in?
I am not an attorney, pls consult an attorney regarding your specific case. Hope this information helps.
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
http://149.101.23.2/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/AC21C060606.pdf
These roles qualify for non cap H1B's
* Renewals of existing H1b's
* If are working for a not for profit institution
* If you are working for a institute of higher education ( as defined by the US education act of 1964, institutes like 2 yr and 4 year colleges and some high schools which have teacher education programs with schools of education in these colleges) or a government research institution or a company associated with the above institutions where the primary objective of the company is to supplement the mission of the institutions, example would be a company providing research assistants to a reseach medical hospital. In this case the company is not cap exempt but the job involves the institution that is cap exempt.
What kind of institution will your wife be a financial analyst in?
I am not an attorney, pls consult an attorney regarding your specific case. Hope this information helps.
My Wife, if everything works out, will be working in a Finance related field for a Health Care related service providing financial services to many many hospitals.
I was wondering if I could use the Heallth care angle for the H1b Non Cap
more...
aau
08-08 10:34 AM
Sorry to hear about your friend's situation.
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
If she is qualified enough ask her to find a new employer who is willing to sponsor her a H1B.
She can transfer her status from H-4 to H1B and it will not be counted against the annual H1B quota.
Ppl please at least give a disclaimer. This sentence, said with such authority is completely false! The ONLY way you are not counted against the annual H1B quota is if you are RENEWING your existing H1B (and you have years left on it of course).
Think before you write..
vikramy
06-22 10:14 AM
From what i know If chest x-ray is clear you are good. I would suggest to find a different surgeon. good to have a second opinion
Guys,
I have got a RFE for my medical on 9th June 2009. We got our medical done in July 2007 and filed in July 2007.
The RFE is mentioning my medical records cannot be found. we are pretty sure we did file it.
My lawyer says the best way is to get a new medical done and send the new reports. I heard his advise and went to get a new medical exam. The civil surgeon asked me for PPD (TB Test) reports from previous years (1998) as in 2007 (when only the X Rays were done and they were clear), the size of the induration was NOT required but says now we need the size. I am trying to get the reports from the hospital where I got the testing done, but it has been more than 7 days and i am still waiting. The civil surgeon says that if we don't find the records we can do another TB test.
My PCP says that once the TB test is positive, it is always going to be positive (which is true as i got it done twice - 1997 and 1998) and the 2nd time the induration was more than the first time. If i get it 3rd time, is it going to be more induration? Also, are there chances of reaction due to getting it done the 3rd time? I think my PCP mentioned something like this earlier.
The civil surgeon says that if the induration is more than 10 mm, i might have to go through treatment :( I was shocked to hear that and did some reading and found out from another member too that the treatment is recommended and NOT required.
If the TB test results from 1998, don't come in time for me to respond to the RFE, can i not send the copy of my original medical done? I am going to ask the lawyer about it too, but wanted to know some personal experience of the folks who have gone through it.
Guys,
I have got a RFE for my medical on 9th June 2009. We got our medical done in July 2007 and filed in July 2007.
The RFE is mentioning my medical records cannot be found. we are pretty sure we did file it.
My lawyer says the best way is to get a new medical done and send the new reports. I heard his advise and went to get a new medical exam. The civil surgeon asked me for PPD (TB Test) reports from previous years (1998) as in 2007 (when only the X Rays were done and they were clear), the size of the induration was NOT required but says now we need the size. I am trying to get the reports from the hospital where I got the testing done, but it has been more than 7 days and i am still waiting. The civil surgeon says that if we don't find the records we can do another TB test.
My PCP says that once the TB test is positive, it is always going to be positive (which is true as i got it done twice - 1997 and 1998) and the 2nd time the induration was more than the first time. If i get it 3rd time, is it going to be more induration? Also, are there chances of reaction due to getting it done the 3rd time? I think my PCP mentioned something like this earlier.
The civil surgeon says that if the induration is more than 10 mm, i might have to go through treatment :( I was shocked to hear that and did some reading and found out from another member too that the treatment is recommended and NOT required.
If the TB test results from 1998, don't come in time for me to respond to the RFE, can i not send the copy of my original medical done? I am going to ask the lawyer about it too, but wanted to know some personal experience of the folks who have gone through it.
Blog Feeds
01-25 02:20 PM
Last week, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced the Bipartisan Reform of Immigration through Good Enforcement Resolution in the lower house of Congress. According to Congressman Chaffetz, the resolution does three things: � make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, and hold employees accountable as well; � provide sufficient border infrastructure and manpower to secure and control our borders; and, � reject amnesty and any legal status which pardons those here in violation of our laws. At first I thought this was the usual anti-immigrant measure we expect to see from the folks in the Immigration Reform Caucus. But an interview with...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/compromises-coming-on-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/compromises-coming-on-immigration-reform.html)
dealsnet
08-05 11:36 AM
The sequence you mentioned is correct.
I did received 3 same paper welcome notices !!!!
Next paper notice received contain GC.
Gurus / Recent GC Awardees:
Can you clarify if the following Sequence of GC Issuance PRocess is correct, once Approval process is going on .
1) Online LUD on Cases "Card Production Ordered" and subsequent Email.
2) Online LUD Change as "Welcome Notices Sent" and Emails.
3) Receiving the Paper WelcomeNotices (Are these Notices are deemed to be I485 approval notices ?? I have not yet received them)
4) Receiving the Cards.
Then What is "ADIT Processing" ? they mentioned in the Welcome Notices sent email.
Any Info or guidance from Peers is highly appreciated . :)
Thanks,
My 485 approval process is going on. and above Two Steps were done. :) after a wait of 5 years.
I did received 3 same paper welcome notices !!!!
Next paper notice received contain GC.
Gurus / Recent GC Awardees:
Can you clarify if the following Sequence of GC Issuance PRocess is correct, once Approval process is going on .
1) Online LUD on Cases "Card Production Ordered" and subsequent Email.
2) Online LUD Change as "Welcome Notices Sent" and Emails.
3) Receiving the Paper WelcomeNotices (Are these Notices are deemed to be I485 approval notices ?? I have not yet received them)
4) Receiving the Cards.
Then What is "ADIT Processing" ? they mentioned in the Welcome Notices sent email.
Any Info or guidance from Peers is highly appreciated . :)
Thanks,
My 485 approval process is going on. and above Two Steps were done. :) after a wait of 5 years.
nirenjoshi
03-06 01:07 PM
I received the letter yesterday but its at home. Wont have access to a Fax machine over the weekend - so, any email address where it can be scanned and sent?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar