USA2007
08-15 07:38 PM
HI!
I have approved EB-2/I-140(PD October'2005) & also approved labor(EB-3)(PD October'2003). I have filed for I-485 last month. According to my lawyer, he has asked USCIS to port EB-3 priority date to EB-2 (by giving required documents+ letters +forms etc). Will USCIS approve this porting?
Regards,
USA2007
I have approved EB-2/I-140(PD October'2005) & also approved labor(EB-3)(PD October'2003). I have filed for I-485 last month. According to my lawyer, he has asked USCIS to port EB-3 priority date to EB-2 (by giving required documents+ letters +forms etc). Will USCIS approve this porting?
Regards,
USA2007
wallpaper 2009 long hair style
thakkarbhav
09-15 12:49 PM
Congrats...Book the ticket and fly to india to give big hug to your wife and son and motherland...
pappu
05-19 01:56 PM
Congressional Reply says that the applicant is pending completion of background check. Previous congressional reply was that the name check is completed.
AILA is not getting any response from USCIS as per the lawyer.
How to check on the status of background check.
It is really surprising
- 2 Congressional checks revealed 2 different answers
- Lawyer organization AILA not getting response from USCIS.
I am sure you would have called customer service and after not getting satisfactory response, pursued other options
AILA is not getting any response from USCIS as per the lawyer.
How to check on the status of background check.
It is really surprising
- 2 Congressional checks revealed 2 different answers
- Lawyer organization AILA not getting response from USCIS.
I am sure you would have called customer service and after not getting satisfactory response, pursued other options
2011 long hair styles men wavy.
tabletpc
07-29 10:59 PM
If the applicant has US degree its good to goto canand for stamping as it will be easy for them to varify degree documents.
Even i was scared...2 years back when i went to calgary for stamping. But having a US degree did help me. Later many of my frinds who din't had US degree had problems from cananda.
If u r going to canada its better to go with a approved h1B(I797) rather than directly asking them for extension.
Yes if it gets rejected...u need to take an appointment in india and return to US.
Even i was scared...2 years back when i went to calgary for stamping. But having a US degree did help me. Later many of my frinds who din't had US degree had problems from cananda.
If u r going to canada its better to go with a approved h1B(I797) rather than directly asking them for extension.
Yes if it gets rejected...u need to take an appointment in india and return to US.
more...
whiteStallion
05-22 07:40 PM
My PERM application filed on 10th March 2008 in Chicago, got certified this Monday(05.19.2008). So you should be very close to your approval...may be next week!
All the best!
All the best!
arihant
05-06 04:10 PM
Additional Resources to Eliminate Backlog by Sep 2007
The DOL reports that they are "scaling up" resources dedicated to the elimination of backlog cases. Their stated deadline for eliminating the backlog is September 30, 2007. Based on what we at the Murthy Law Firm are experiencing, they are going to have to really increase their efforts, particularly in Pennsylvania, to meet this goal. They note that the work at the BPCs cannot be compared to the PERM case processing, since backlog cases receive full review, whereas the PERM cases are based upon attestations and primarily are technology-driven.
The DOL reports that they are "scaling up" resources dedicated to the elimination of backlog cases. Their stated deadline for eliminating the backlog is September 30, 2007. Based on what we at the Murthy Law Firm are experiencing, they are going to have to really increase their efforts, particularly in Pennsylvania, to meet this goal. They note that the work at the BPCs cannot be compared to the PERM case processing, since backlog cases receive full review, whereas the PERM cases are based upon attestations and primarily are technology-driven.
more...
TexDBoy
09-10 09:09 PM
If your Opt is till Dec ... why did you get H1B with no I-94 ...
I thought that only happens if you have gap between OPT and H1B ...
I thought that only happens if you have gap between OPT and H1B ...
2010 Cool Asian Hair Styles Men
skd
07-08 11:14 PM
Even I feel very selfish to go ask for their help for a set of relatively well to do, when we know we don't pay taxes in "motherland" Most of us graduated on Goverment Money and not giving anything back.
more...
akhilmahajan
10-31 09:00 AM
4 months from now, there will be another rush for applications for EADs and people will be spending money for it. Everyone will be back on the forums talking about notices and late processing for these applications. Lot of people will have heartburns and their jobs can be in trouble if their EADs do not arrive on time.
We do not seem to look at the bleak picture ahead in future and are worrying about EADS, AP and notices now. The real problem is retrogression and not if TSC is slower than NSC or vice versa or receipt notices. (You will be surprised that people write to us telling us to focus lobbying efforts on making TSC faster than NSC since that is a big problem faced by millions of people)
The end result of this constant renewals of EAD and AP is heartache, frustration and loss of money for us. We ultimately lose if we do not wake up now and do something.
Unless this community is ready to raise its voice, nothing WILL be done for us in the near future.
Please dont forget to apply for AP renewal, as if you have to travel, without an AP u will be struck.
So, make sure EAD & AP Renewals are filed close to each other to be on a safer side.
Pappu,
Thanks a lot for bringing it up.
The question we should be asking is "WHEN WILL OUR WORRIES REGARDING RENEWING EAD & AP FINISH?"
Folks come on, lets do something about this situation.
GO IV GO.
TOGETHER WE CAN.
We do not seem to look at the bleak picture ahead in future and are worrying about EADS, AP and notices now. The real problem is retrogression and not if TSC is slower than NSC or vice versa or receipt notices. (You will be surprised that people write to us telling us to focus lobbying efforts on making TSC faster than NSC since that is a big problem faced by millions of people)
The end result of this constant renewals of EAD and AP is heartache, frustration and loss of money for us. We ultimately lose if we do not wake up now and do something.
Unless this community is ready to raise its voice, nothing WILL be done for us in the near future.
Please dont forget to apply for AP renewal, as if you have to travel, without an AP u will be struck.
So, make sure EAD & AP Renewals are filed close to each other to be on a safer side.
Pappu,
Thanks a lot for bringing it up.
The question we should be asking is "WHEN WILL OUR WORRIES REGARDING RENEWING EAD & AP FINISH?"
Folks come on, lets do something about this situation.
GO IV GO.
TOGETHER WE CAN.
hair Brad Pitt Long Hairstyles for
tnite
07-19 10:14 AM
By "resident" you mean its an AOS case and not Counsulate processing right? Meaning he is in US and submitting AOS application right? yes, he has been here for 5 yrs on h1b and his wife was on H4 when he claimed some of her tuition under 8863
For IRS tax purposes one is considered a resident if they pass the substantial presence test (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96352,00.html). i e. you pay the same taxes every other resident pays and you get the same deductions, exemptions others get.
There is nothing to worry about in your friends case.
If they had a home, they would have deducted their interest from the taxes, if they had medical expenses more than 8% of their income then they would have deucted that too.
As a resident tax filer, these are some of the advantages.
I dont understand why your friends are worried about this.
check this out (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since resident and nonresident aliens are taxed differently, it is important for you to determine your status. You are considered a nonresident alien for any period that you are neither a United States citizen nor a United States resident alien.
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test." To meet this test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period. An exempt individual may be anyone in the following categories:
A foreign government–related individual,
A teacher or trainee with a J or Q visa who substantially complies with the requirements of the visa,
A student with an F, J, M, or Q visa who substantially complies with the requirements of the visa; or
A professional athlete temporarily present to compete in a charitable sports event.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since your friend and his wife are on H Visa for the last 5 yrs, they are considered resident aliens for tax purposes and they can claim deductions , benefits , hope credit , life time learning credit etc.
For IRS tax purposes one is considered a resident if they pass the substantial presence test (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96352,00.html). i e. you pay the same taxes every other resident pays and you get the same deductions, exemptions others get.
There is nothing to worry about in your friends case.
If they had a home, they would have deducted their interest from the taxes, if they had medical expenses more than 8% of their income then they would have deucted that too.
As a resident tax filer, these are some of the advantages.
I dont understand why your friends are worried about this.
check this out (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since resident and nonresident aliens are taxed differently, it is important for you to determine your status. You are considered a nonresident alien for any period that you are neither a United States citizen nor a United States resident alien.
You are considered a resident alien if you met one of two tests for the calendar year.
The first test is the "green card test." If at any time during the calendar year you were a lawful permanent resident of the United States according to the immigration laws, and this status has not been rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned, you are considered to have met the green card test.
The second test is the "substantial presence test." To meet this test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before. To satisfy the 183 days requirement, count all of the days you were present in the current year, and one–third of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and one–sixth of the days you were present in the second year before the current year. Do not count any day you were present in the United States as an "exempt individual" or commute from Canada or Mexico to work in the United States on more than 75% of the workdays during your working period. An exempt individual may be anyone in the following categories:
A foreign government–related individual,
A teacher or trainee with a J or Q visa who substantially complies with the requirements of the visa,
A student with an F, J, M, or Q visa who substantially complies with the requirements of the visa; or
A professional athlete temporarily present to compete in a charitable sports event.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since your friend and his wife are on H Visa for the last 5 yrs, they are considered resident aliens for tax purposes and they can claim deductions , benefits , hope credit , life time learning credit etc.
more...
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.
hot Cool Long Wavy Haircut with
johnamit
07-12 01:43 PM
My company has filed more than 200 in early July, I checked with attorney yesterday and he said so far not even a single check has been cashed and none returned.
more...
house Asian Hairstyles For Men
jatinr
06-02 11:36 AM
Since you have applied change of status, you are on pending H1B and not out of status. But if your H1B is approved before your L1B expires and has effective date of 1st October, you will be out of status for those 15 days.
I don't think it will matter as you are allowed to come in US 10 days prior to Oct 1st if you are coming on fresh H1B, although you can work only from Oct 1st.
So even if you don't file an extension it will be fine, although your last working days with L1B company will be Sept 15th.
I don't think it will matter as you are allowed to come in US 10 days prior to Oct 1st if you are coming on fresh H1B, although you can work only from Oct 1st.
So even if you don't file an extension it will be fine, although your last working days with L1B company will be Sept 15th.
tattoo long hair style for male 2009
looivy
02-26 04:04 PM
Can a legal expert provide advice as to whether I can use EAD/AP to get in?
more...
pictures Long Indie Hairstyles Men
sivakumar
01-08 04:41 PM
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
PD has nothing to do with approval and neither does biometrics. Once you have the reciept date of I-485 that becomes crucial. If that is after what USCIS is procesing then you have to wait like me :).
You should keep watching the processing date every month ( it changes usually around midddle of month). If your I-485 reciept date is before the uscis processing date and it has been more than 30 days you can call them to find status of your case.
PD has nothing to do with approval and neither does biometrics. Once you have the reciept date of I-485 that becomes crucial. If that is after what USCIS is procesing then you have to wait like me :).
You should keep watching the processing date every month ( it changes usually around midddle of month). If your I-485 reciept date is before the uscis processing date and it has been more than 30 days you can call them to find status of your case.
dresses Cool style for medium long
hopelessGC
05-04 11:40 AM
i have first hand experience. don't believe what USPS guys tell you. All CIS mail says 'Address Service'. I guess that means only deliver to that address otherwise return to sender.
i too talked to USPS guys, believed what they said and did mail forwarding and AP was returned back to CIS. learned a costly lesson.
AFAIK, people got RFE's when they moved very far, like coast-to-coast, but none for people moved not so far.
my experience with AR-11 was good. but make sure to complete the second step for pending applications.
What is the second step you are referring to? I thought only an online AR-11 is good enough.
I will be changing my address next month (same zip code and state).
i too talked to USPS guys, believed what they said and did mail forwarding and AP was returned back to CIS. learned a costly lesson.
AFAIK, people got RFE's when they moved very far, like coast-to-coast, but none for people moved not so far.
my experience with AR-11 was good. but make sure to complete the second step for pending applications.
What is the second step you are referring to? I thought only an online AR-11 is good enough.
I will be changing my address next month (same zip code and state).
more...
makeup new style haircuts for men.
shana04
05-28 11:59 PM
I am a July 2007 filer and he expects an RFE for employment verification on my case.
I am july 07 filer and I got RFE for EVL and that should be on companys letter head and a copy of it with job description and offer for full time with salary. (In fact I have sent AC21 through attorney)
And RFE for current residence proof
I am july 07 filer and I got RFE for EVL and that should be on companys letter head and a copy of it with job description and offer for full time with salary. (In fact I have sent AC21 through attorney)
And RFE for current residence proof
girlfriend 2011 Hairstyles for Men
singhsa3
12-16 09:26 AM
A freind of mine had two years EAD and don't have H1 anymore. His drivers License was denied as EAD is not considered a valid document for drivers License extention.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
hairstyles asian men hairstyles
kedrex
01-13 06:03 AM
Hello friends,
This may sound silly but I could really use some help here. My case has been current for a while now and its not been approved yet. Calling USCIS is no use since the Cust Serv Rep literally tell you the exact same words that are in the online status. I've been doing Infopass every week now for the past month. Last week they said that the case has been assigned to an officer. I'm going to Mumbai on Feb 3rd and was hoping that my case would be processed before then. Any ideas to get that file picked up by the officer?
Thanks in advance
This may sound silly but I could really use some help here. My case has been current for a while now and its not been approved yet. Calling USCIS is no use since the Cust Serv Rep literally tell you the exact same words that are in the online status. I've been doing Infopass every week now for the past month. Last week they said that the case has been assigned to an officer. I'm going to Mumbai on Feb 3rd and was hoping that my case would be processed before then. Any ideas to get that file picked up by the officer?
Thanks in advance
crystal
12-06 09:33 AM
NSC people have gotten 3 copies. but I think both TSC and CSC people have gotten only 2 copies. There is no need to worry I guess.
I just have 2 copies of AP.....should I have gotten 3????.
Please advise
I just have 2 copies of AP.....should I have gotten 3????.
Please advise
software7
05-27 11:34 AM
I would like to share my I485 experience.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét