ek_akela
06-05 10:16 PM
can't make it to DC, made a contribution of 100$
Transaction ID: 9BC03733FT1686746
Transaction ID: 9BC03733FT1686746
wallpaper Avondale HUD Home for Sale
mlkedave
03-10 10:18 AM
alright guys it look like this battle is dead... should we close the thing and put it in completed battles or u guys want to keep it up a while longer?
glus
08-03 11:07 PM
go to: http://www.uscis.gov/pressroom
and then select the one from August 3.
I think that I485 at NSC is a typo. It is because they show that they issued all receipts for I140 and I131 received on or before 7/1, which was Sunday, and the I 485 show 7/1107, which should probably be 7/1/07, just like I140s and I131s.......guys don't panic..we'll get the receipts next week.
and then select the one from August 3.
I think that I485 at NSC is a typo. It is because they show that they issued all receipts for I140 and I131 received on or before 7/1, which was Sunday, and the I 485 show 7/1107, which should probably be 7/1/07, just like I140s and I131s.......guys don't panic..we'll get the receipts next week.
2011 HUD homes for sale in Eugene,
waitingnwaiting
01-26 11:10 AM
01/26/2011: Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Introduced in the Senate 01/25/2011
* Yesterday, the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, introduced S.6 bill in the Senate to reform America's broken immigration system, co-sponsored by nine other Senators. This is one of the ten bills he placed in the Senate's priority agenda for the 112th Congress. This has a long way to go ahead, but it symbolizes the Senate Democrats' plan to initiate debate on this key issue. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this legislation.
* Text of S.6:
o Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
o SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
+ This Act may be cited as the ``Reform America's Broken Immigration System Act''.
o SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
o It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
+ (1) fulfill and strengthen our Nation's commitments regarding border security;
+ (2) pass legislation to support our national and economic security, such as the DREAM Act, which would allow students who came to America before turning 16 to earn citizenship by attending college or joining the armed forces, and AgJobs, which would help to ensure a stable and legal agricultural workforce and protect the sustainability of the American agricultural industry;
+ (3) implement a rational legal immigration system to ensure that the best and brightest minds of the world can come to the United States and create jobs for Americans while, at the same time, safeguarding the rights and wages of American workers;
+ (4) require all United States workers to obtain secure, tamper-proof identification to prevent employers from hiring people here illegally, and toughen penalties on employers who break labor and immigration laws;
+ (5) hold people accountable who are currently here illegally by requiring them to either earn legal status through a series of penalties, sanctions, and requirements, or face immediate deportation; and
+ (6) adopt practical and fair immigration reforms to help ensure that families are able to be together.
* Yesterday, the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, introduced S.6 bill in the Senate to reform America's broken immigration system, co-sponsored by nine other Senators. This is one of the ten bills he placed in the Senate's priority agenda for the 112th Congress. This has a long way to go ahead, but it symbolizes the Senate Democrats' plan to initiate debate on this key issue. Please stay tuned to this web site for the development of this legislation.
* Text of S.6:
o Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
o SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
+ This Act may be cited as the ``Reform America's Broken Immigration System Act''.
o SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
o It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
+ (1) fulfill and strengthen our Nation's commitments regarding border security;
+ (2) pass legislation to support our national and economic security, such as the DREAM Act, which would allow students who came to America before turning 16 to earn citizenship by attending college or joining the armed forces, and AgJobs, which would help to ensure a stable and legal agricultural workforce and protect the sustainability of the American agricultural industry;
+ (3) implement a rational legal immigration system to ensure that the best and brightest minds of the world can come to the United States and create jobs for Americans while, at the same time, safeguarding the rights and wages of American workers;
+ (4) require all United States workers to obtain secure, tamper-proof identification to prevent employers from hiring people here illegally, and toughen penalties on employers who break labor and immigration laws;
+ (5) hold people accountable who are currently here illegally by requiring them to either earn legal status through a series of penalties, sanctions, and requirements, or face immediate deportation; and
+ (6) adopt practical and fair immigration reforms to help ensure that families are able to be together.
more...
pd_recapturing
05-23 01:45 PM
Please go through this (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5192)and reanalyze if you really want to go to H1 from EAD ....
trump_gc
08-12 06:19 AM
What if no birth certificate was available and we had submitted a non-availability certificate...will that lead into a RFE?
more...
h1bemployee
06-23 06:29 PM
On what basis will you apply for a H-1 transfer, your present H-1 request has been denied. Even If you apply for a MTR you have pending status, based on which you cannot request for a further extension/change of status. You can apply for a new H-1 consular processing petition, leave the country, once approved, apply for a visa from the consulate and come back on the new H-1.
As my H1 transfer got denied.... I can apply for a new H1 transfer.... right?
I am assuming this from the information I got form this forum. I am really confused..
As my H1 transfer got denied.... I can apply for a new H1 transfer.... right?
I am assuming this from the information I got form this forum. I am really confused..
2010 HUD homes for sale in
sunny1000
10-09 08:29 PM
I would appreciate if someone can help me with a link to how to post this question as a new post. I do not want to hijack this thread :o
goto "forums" on the top left (next to "home"). Once in the "forums" page, click on "Non-immigrant visa"->"all drivers license issues posted here" and post your query.
hope that helps.
goto "forums" on the top left (next to "home"). Once in the "forums" page, click on "Non-immigrant visa"->"all drivers license issues posted here" and post your query.
hope that helps.
more...
chillfakter
02-11 09:50 PM
ram_ram, I failed to mention that this is my second H-1B, there was a lapse of less than a year between the two H-1Bs, so I guess my current one is considered a "new" one instead of an extension (I could be wrong though).
Why didn't they just give you an I-94 that was valid until Sept 2007, because of it being less than 6 months validity, is that right? Glad it worked out for you :)
tdasara, once again, I hope this is what happens to me as well! Thanks for the response.
Why didn't they just give you an I-94 that was valid until Sept 2007, because of it being less than 6 months validity, is that right? Glad it worked out for you :)
tdasara, once again, I hope this is what happens to me as well! Thanks for the response.
hair HUD homes for sale in ROSWELL,
BadDeal
05-20 05:02 PM
Can you please let me know which service center (Texas or Nebraska) processed yours and your wife's I485 application.
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Hello,
I am also in the same situation. I filed 485 in July 2007 and got married later. I will be filing my wife's 485 in June. I was wondering how long will it take for her to get her 485 approved.
Is it a good idea to start a thread to track spouse I-485 filing post July '07 approvals?
Thanks!
If you don't mind can you please let me know how long it took to receive I-485 receipt notice and Finger print notice (for your wife).
My situation is
Priority date is 08/01/06 (EB2). Becoming current on June 1st 2011. Need to add my wife as dependent to my green card process (she is in US in H4 status now). Texas Service Center is processing my I-485.
Hello,
I am also in the same situation. I filed 485 in July 2007 and got married later. I will be filing my wife's 485 in June. I was wondering how long will it take for her to get her 485 approved.
Is it a good idea to start a thread to track spouse I-485 filing post July '07 approvals?
Thanks!
more...
kc_p21
05-11 09:52 PM
Thanks for taking time and calling NPR.
hot This HUD home for sale in
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
house Cobb HUD Homes For Sale Smyrna
jotv
10-16 10:52 PM
hai all ,
i dont know where to write this topic , if it is wrong place please excuse me.
i completed my b.tech in computers. i am on h4 . recently i got ead.
here is my question
by using ead what type of jobs i can do . if software side jobs means again i have to read any subject some time . but i need job quickly because we were in some financially tight position.
please suggest me any decent type jobs like data entry or data base entry jobs etc ...something related to my education is preferable .
those who know correctly experts please suggest . bcz this will be helpful for all who is from h4 to ead.
i will really appriciate your help .thank you in advance.:mad:
i dont know where to write this topic , if it is wrong place please excuse me.
i completed my b.tech in computers. i am on h4 . recently i got ead.
here is my question
by using ead what type of jobs i can do . if software side jobs means again i have to read any subject some time . but i need job quickly because we were in some financially tight position.
please suggest me any decent type jobs like data entry or data base entry jobs etc ...something related to my education is preferable .
those who know correctly experts please suggest . bcz this will be helpful for all who is from h4 to ead.
i will really appriciate your help .thank you in advance.:mad:
tattoo HUD HOMES FOR SALE IN SOUTH
nosightofgc
08-16 07:53 PM
First make sure if that was an arrest record or some thing else. During the interview process, they will ask the standard questions on I-485 form, which are like have you ever been arrested etc. Even though your lawyer may not present, you check with your lawyer what to answer for those questions. Even though you may not be knowing exactly what it is, it is better to get it clarified rather than learning during the interview process.
Thank you all!. In my case only issue I can see is, when my wife travelled from India to US, at the port of entry customs check, they found some meat products. And they charged fine of $300 and we paid it. They also took copy of her passport and gave a letter (name is: Department of homeland security. U.S customs and border protection. Notice of alleged violation)
It was my wife's mistake actually, she did not declared meat products in customs form.
In the interview, if IO asks my wife about any violations or criminal records, does she has to give info on that port of entry incident? Will there be any negetive effects on this?
Thank you all!. In my case only issue I can see is, when my wife travelled from India to US, at the port of entry customs check, they found some meat products. And they charged fine of $300 and we paid it. They also took copy of her passport and gave a letter (name is: Department of homeland security. U.S customs and border protection. Notice of alleged violation)
It was my wife's mistake actually, she did not declared meat products in customs form.
In the interview, if IO asks my wife about any violations or criminal records, does she has to give info on that port of entry incident? Will there be any negetive effects on this?
more...
pictures Find HUD homes for sale
acecupid
08-21 03:47 PM
I don't know, you tell me!
Maybe you can find out and let everyone know. :)
Maybe you can find out and let everyone know. :)
dresses HUD homes for sale in
meridiani.planum
07-23 05:41 AM
All,
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
my understanding was that in this case you would not do a concurrent filing. You would file the I-140 requesting PD recapture. Once the I-140 was approved, and your PD-recapture also approved, at that point your new PD is confirmed and thats what allows you to file the I-485.
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
my understanding was that in this case you would not do a concurrent filing. You would file the I-140 requesting PD recapture. Once the I-140 was approved, and your PD-recapture also approved, at that point your new PD is confirmed and thats what allows you to file the I-485.
more...
makeup This home is a HUD owned home
vinzak
01-03 12:36 AM
School has no interest in insisting on a specific immigration status when you meet the admission requirements and pay your tuition. With I-485 receipt most colleges will accept you as a resident student without any issues.
However, I think you have to let the H1 status go when you leave your current position, and that should not matter as you have the option to get EAD for any future work.
GC is for future employment, and with the current backlog in EB3-I you will easily finish your MBA before you get your GC. Hence, go for it and good luck!
If a student is taking more than 18 hrs in credits, the school is liable to make sure the student's immigration status is legit. So the school does have an interest. I'm not sure if you did Master's or when you did it. But under SEVIS, the liability schools have on foreign students are far more stringent than before.
However, I think you have to let the H1 status go when you leave your current position, and that should not matter as you have the option to get EAD for any future work.
GC is for future employment, and with the current backlog in EB3-I you will easily finish your MBA before you get your GC. Hence, go for it and good luck!
If a student is taking more than 18 hrs in credits, the school is liable to make sure the student's immigration status is legit. So the school does have an interest. I'm not sure if you did Master's or when you did it. But under SEVIS, the liability schools have on foreign students are far more stringent than before.
girlfriend Phoenix HUD Homes | Scottsdale
americandesi
10-04 01:41 PM
I've been living in the US for almost 4.5 years now. Last year I was flying from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and the security officer checking the Photo Id./boarding pass at LAX airport asked me the most intelligent question of the century.
"What's the purpose of your visit to Las Vegas?":confused:
I would expect this kind of question at immigration check for international arrivals and not on domestic departures. May be took his job too seriously.
I thought of saying "Gambling, booze and girls" but just answered "Sightseeing" and he let me go :D
I also had a similar experience in Canada where an officer asked the purpose of visit to Canada in spite of showing my Canadian PR card :)
"What's the purpose of your visit to Las Vegas?":confused:
I would expect this kind of question at immigration check for international arrivals and not on domestic departures. May be took his job too seriously.
I thought of saying "Gambling, booze and girls" but just answered "Sightseeing" and he let me go :D
I also had a similar experience in Canada where an officer asked the purpose of visit to Canada in spite of showing my Canadian PR card :)
hairstyles Cobb County All Listed Homes for Sale Cobb County $100 Down HUD homes for
karanp25
08-03 02:10 AM
No worries...i am in same situation...did my FP early this yr. EAD renewal card says "No FP available".
Sorry - did not check this thread till today
My RD was July 11 for both of us - got Ead for me Aug 2 with 2 yr validity
hers is still pending
Mine shows no FP on file even though I did FP in Oct 07 ( less than 1 yr) That kinda worries me
Anyways PD is May 04 EB3 - so long way to go - and besides caring at this point when I see PD of 2006 getting GC
Sorry - did not check this thread till today
My RD was July 11 for both of us - got Ead for me Aug 2 with 2 yr validity
hers is still pending
Mine shows no FP on file even though I did FP in Oct 07 ( less than 1 yr) That kinda worries me
Anyways PD is May 04 EB3 - so long way to go - and besides caring at this point when I see PD of 2006 getting GC
MKT79
07-02 05:00 PM
Application Support Center Appointment Rescheduling - July 6 - 10, 2009
System errors caused a number of Application Support Centers to be overscheduled during the week of July 6-10, 2009. As a result, some applicants may receive cancellation notices for appointments originally scheduled during this timeframe.
If you do not receive a cancellation notice, please appear at your ASC appointment as scheduled. If you do receive a cancellation notice, you will soon receive an ASC appointment notice for a new date and time, typically for an appointment within the next two to four weeks.
USCIS Alert (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3e9815ecdd732210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4b18dc4d88889010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
System errors caused a number of Application Support Centers to be overscheduled during the week of July 6-10, 2009. As a result, some applicants may receive cancellation notices for appointments originally scheduled during this timeframe.
If you do not receive a cancellation notice, please appear at your ASC appointment as scheduled. If you do receive a cancellation notice, you will soon receive an ASC appointment notice for a new date and time, typically for an appointment within the next two to four weeks.
USCIS Alert (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3e9815ecdd732210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4b18dc4d88889010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
hariswaminathan
01-21 07:15 PM
If your husband is on H1-B he should NOT have an expired I-94 as this would mean he is out of status. I presume you have extended his H1-B (I797 approval) which would have your new I-94 attached to it.
beyond this - i concur with others that i recently did go to India on vacation with family on AP and there is no longer a requirement that visit outside while I-485 requires a valid reason. This clause was for an old situation when all categories were current and people got their GCs within months of filing I-485 and they didnt like you travelling during this short period. With GCs now taking years for approval they cannot ask you to remain in this country indefinitely without travel.
that being said - I have heard of horror stories from people arriving at certain ports of entry (SFO If im not mistaken) where the uninformed IO has questioned them on their reason for leaving and threatening to take action because "vacation" is not considered as valid emergency travel. I would therefore prepare some kind of answer incase you come across one of these buffoons.
Can soneone help me with this question.....please....
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
beyond this - i concur with others that i recently did go to India on vacation with family on AP and there is no longer a requirement that visit outside while I-485 requires a valid reason. This clause was for an old situation when all categories were current and people got their GCs within months of filing I-485 and they didnt like you travelling during this short period. With GCs now taking years for approval they cannot ask you to remain in this country indefinitely without travel.
that being said - I have heard of horror stories from people arriving at certain ports of entry (SFO If im not mistaken) where the uninformed IO has questioned them on their reason for leaving and threatening to take action because "vacation" is not considered as valid emergency travel. I would therefore prepare some kind of answer incase you come across one of these buffoons.
Can soneone help me with this question.....please....
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
No comments:
Post a Comment