chnaveen
07-08 11:15 AM
Thanks for the valuable information. But we all know the I-485 process take long period of time. Mean time if I marry again, do I have to wait for the priority date to be current in order to Apply I-485 for my new wife?
thanks
balan.
yes,
You have to wait until your priority date becomes current to apply your dependent's 485. And for that she needs to be in US and for this you need to have valid H1 so that she can get H4 if she is already not in US and doesn't have any VISA.
If you don't have H1 and she can't come unless she can come on H1 (herself) or Business VISA.
For some reason, if she couldn't land in USA before your GC approval, but if got married before the GC Approval, then you should submit one form(I am not sure which one some on 800 series).
thanks
balan.
yes,
You have to wait until your priority date becomes current to apply your dependent's 485. And for that she needs to be in US and for this you need to have valid H1 so that she can get H4 if she is already not in US and doesn't have any VISA.
If you don't have H1 and she can't come unless she can come on H1 (herself) or Business VISA.
For some reason, if she couldn't land in USA before your GC approval, but if got married before the GC Approval, then you should submit one form(I am not sure which one some on 800 series).
wallpaper Justin Bieber in Rolling Stone
pd_recapturing
03-15 11:02 AM
Is there any issue when 1st labor was not a PERM labor and 2nd labor is going to be PERM labor and both from same employer ?
mambarg
07-27 12:45 PM
If NSC had put all applications from July 2nd to July 17th on hold.
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
Did they open and timestamp it ? for received date ??????
If they did not , then I may be lucky.
Because my package had signatures and all other dates of June 29th . The day when we were planning to ship the package, but for july fiasco.
Do you guys think ? they might see this and enter it as received date ?
2011 Check out Justin Bieber#39;s new
xu1
08-08 09:49 PM
I am sorry to say , but I have not seen any results from IV as well , they seem to be in the same boat as us, wait , wait and wait more, things will take care of themselves over time, seems to be the strategy.
And I'm more sorry to say: you haven't helped a single bit in your wait, wait and wait and more..
IV is doing all it can to organize a grassroot effort. Yes, the CIR probably have failled but then an organization by its pure belief and dedication to its own cause has demonstrated that we can help shape the law in the democracy. And by the time I become a US citizen, the time I spent watching how IV grows will help me become an effective participant in the democratic world of free market and capitalism.
God helps those who help themselves. Yes, in the end you may as well get your GC just most others here do. Let me simply end my displeasure reading your negativity with a good will: i hope the DOL, USCIS and the bureaucracy will take care of your GC dream.
And I'm more sorry to say: you haven't helped a single bit in your wait, wait and wait and more..
IV is doing all it can to organize a grassroot effort. Yes, the CIR probably have failled but then an organization by its pure belief and dedication to its own cause has demonstrated that we can help shape the law in the democracy. And by the time I become a US citizen, the time I spent watching how IV grows will help me become an effective participant in the democratic world of free market and capitalism.
God helps those who help themselves. Yes, in the end you may as well get your GC just most others here do. Let me simply end my displeasure reading your negativity with a good will: i hope the DOL, USCIS and the bureaucracy will take care of your GC dream.
more...
manand24
08-03 12:14 PM
Why is it that people who have filed after me have already received their notice and had checks cashed? I thought it is based on when the application is received is how they process- I am freaking out thinking that my application fell behind a desk somewhere....
Wonder what is going on at USCIS? A July 2nd filer with neither receipts nor cashed checks.
Wonder what is going on at USCIS? A July 2nd filer with neither receipts nor cashed checks.
Eb3_frustrated
07-31 11:09 AM
Your wife can work as along the date on EAD is valid, EAD is employee authorization, it not a visa status unlike H4. She can have a EAD and be on H4 at the same time. It does not matter if you filed an extension for H4 but she can work if the EAD is valid ie end date on EAD has not passed.
This is just my thought based on my experience, remember I am not an attorney, consult one if you need dependable answer.
This is just my thought based on my experience, remember I am not an attorney, consult one if you need dependable answer.
more...
WillIBLucky
12-13 01:38 PM
I agree with your point 1. But there are some companies who still apply H1B here. I am not sure who they are and what field they are in. But I have heard. Anyway your point about spouse is valid.
But again, do you think EB2 will move faster and become current anytime soon? I dont see that possiblity without change in system (law). And once it changes then it will be same for both EB2 and EB3. If your new job will bring in stability and growth then it would really make sense to switch even if converting from EB2 to EB3 in these times.
Prior to October 2005, I would be have been thinking like your are thinking.
I like your thoughts
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
But again, do you think EB2 will move faster and become current anytime soon? I dont see that possiblity without change in system (law). And once it changes then it will be same for both EB2 and EB3. If your new job will bring in stability and growth then it would really make sense to switch even if converting from EB2 to EB3 in these times.
Prior to October 2005, I would be have been thinking like your are thinking.
I like your thoughts
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
2010 Justin Bieber recently gave a
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
morchu
07-26 04:36 AM
Check the labor laws. Sometimes the 60 days notice requirement maybe voided by law. Also check the exact terminology in the job contract. Binding you to an employment via any kind of contract is not authorized.
Anyway, even if you send the AC21 letter after this 60 days, it still should be OK. You may not even get an intention to denial letter, because revocation of 140 takes time as well. Even if you get the letter, you can reply to it mentioning your job change, and ac21 invocation, and it should be OK.
In the worst case scenario, you can always file a new LC and 140 with your new employer and still keep the old priority date (even after revocation of old 140, just keep the copy of old 140 approval letter). That way you will be in same exact state in less than a year (PERM takes around 3....4 months, 140 premiumprocess takes less than 2 weeks, and most probably you may not be too far from current, and can file 485).
As a whole, my suggestion would be that, don't let a pending green card process stop your career growth. You never know how LONG you might stay in halt state in your career, if you do that, especially because of the whole GC processe's ultimate uncertainty.
There is always ways out (AC21, newGC process but same priority date etc.)
And in the worst case it may get a bit delay for your final GC approval. But I tend to think, that is OK when compared with a steady career growth.
If you tend to stuck with the same employer, in halt state of your career growth, merely because of GC process, in the end, after getting the GC approval, you will realize that it was foolishness and getting GC a bit earlier was not that important.
Well the above is my personal opinion. Ultimately it is your choice.
-Morchu
My question is:
My I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and I have I-140 approval as well.
I am planning to change job as soon as possible but I have to give 60 days notice before I resign my Job as per our Employment terms and conditions.
If they withdraw my approval I-140 status between 60 days, what is going to happen my I-485 Status? Still is valid my I-140 and Can I use Ac 21 as per UCCIS memos.
�Do I need to send AC 21 first before opting by the New Employer?
Thank you.
Anyway, even if you send the AC21 letter after this 60 days, it still should be OK. You may not even get an intention to denial letter, because revocation of 140 takes time as well. Even if you get the letter, you can reply to it mentioning your job change, and ac21 invocation, and it should be OK.
In the worst case scenario, you can always file a new LC and 140 with your new employer and still keep the old priority date (even after revocation of old 140, just keep the copy of old 140 approval letter). That way you will be in same exact state in less than a year (PERM takes around 3....4 months, 140 premiumprocess takes less than 2 weeks, and most probably you may not be too far from current, and can file 485).
As a whole, my suggestion would be that, don't let a pending green card process stop your career growth. You never know how LONG you might stay in halt state in your career, if you do that, especially because of the whole GC processe's ultimate uncertainty.
There is always ways out (AC21, newGC process but same priority date etc.)
And in the worst case it may get a bit delay for your final GC approval. But I tend to think, that is OK when compared with a steady career growth.
If you tend to stuck with the same employer, in halt state of your career growth, merely because of GC process, in the end, after getting the GC approval, you will realize that it was foolishness and getting GC a bit earlier was not that important.
Well the above is my personal opinion. Ultimately it is your choice.
-Morchu
My question is:
My I-485 is pending for more than 180 days and I have I-140 approval as well.
I am planning to change job as soon as possible but I have to give 60 days notice before I resign my Job as per our Employment terms and conditions.
If they withdraw my approval I-140 status between 60 days, what is going to happen my I-485 Status? Still is valid my I-140 and Can I use Ac 21 as per UCCIS memos.
�Do I need to send AC 21 first before opting by the New Employer?
Thank you.
hair justin bieber rolling stone
pappu
03-06 11:51 AM
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
more...
GCApplicant001
10-12 11:47 PM
friends,
Today i recieved transfer notice from CSC to TSC but no reciept notice yet. Am i going to recieve reciept notice also?
I485 filled on July 31, 2007
Today i recieved transfer notice from CSC to TSC but no reciept notice yet. Am i going to recieve reciept notice also?
I485 filled on July 31, 2007
hot Justin Bieber might not have
pappu
03-31 03:50 PM
Congrats
more...
house Justin Bieber Portugal
deardar
09-14 03:44 PM
i understood that. I was just kidding :D
The newly acquired ART OF BASHING has kept me on toes.
Scared to post .:p
The newly acquired ART OF BASHING has kept me on toes.
Scared to post .:p
tattoo Rolling Stone January 21 2010
nixstor
08-30 01:11 PM
My 25,000 AAdvantage miles to IV.
more...
pictures Justin Bieber Says U.S. Health
don840
04-04 01:30 PM
immigrant-in-law pls. click on new thread by going on the forum as Non Immigrant Visas : H1, L1, H4, L2, F1 etc > Out of status, employment gap and status revalidation > and then click new thread.
wandmaker, I understand that the 485 as it is filed now stands to be denied. But if I can get back on h4 and withdraw current 485 and refile new 485, then why would there be a issue? As I understand, 485 is to be filed while in valid status. It is not 'until' but 'while'.
Also, do you think Consular processing might be a better option instead of 485?
wandmaker, I understand that the 485 as it is filed now stands to be denied. But if I can get back on h4 and withdraw current 485 and refile new 485, then why would there be a issue? As I understand, 485 is to be filed while in valid status. It is not 'until' but 'while'.
Also, do you think Consular processing might be a better option instead of 485?
dresses rolling stone Justin+
bkn96
02-18 11:06 AM
Did you work during this period?
Yes, I worked during that time using EAD as I dont have H1b. My Lawyer said I can work as EAD was not revoked. I work for myself (self employment) through my own company.
Again I didn't get refund of MTR money... that is good news if we get our $585 fee back..
Yes, I worked during that time using EAD as I dont have H1b. My Lawyer said I can work as EAD was not revoked. I work for myself (self employment) through my own company.
Again I didn't get refund of MTR money... that is good news if we get our $585 fee back..
more...
makeup Justin Bieber – seen here
Sheila Danzig
11-28 12:33 PM
Guys,
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
If the Eng degree is a 4 year program where you were granted advanced standing for the 3 year diploma you should be approved if it is properly handled by the attorney and the evaluation agency.
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
If the Eng degree is a 4 year program where you were granted advanced standing for the 3 year diploma you should be approved if it is properly handled by the attorney and the evaluation agency.
girlfriend selena gomez in rolling stone
breddy2000
01-23 10:41 AM
Can someone explain me what this processing date means?
Is it the Receipt date or the Notice date? Assuming you have a receipt date of July 2nd 2007 and Notice date as Aug 12th 2007, does it mean the 485 case has been processed and pre-approved assuming if no RFE is raised on the case.
Any expert comments
Is it the Receipt date or the Notice date? Assuming you have a receipt date of July 2nd 2007 and Notice date as Aug 12th 2007, does it mean the 485 case has been processed and pre-approved assuming if no RFE is raised on the case.
Any expert comments
hairstyles Justin Bieber
hebron
04-17 07:04 PM
Hi Guys,
Any suggestions for my post above? It will be really helpful.
Thanks in advance!!
Any suggestions for my post above? It will be really helpful.
Thanks in advance!!
sdrblr
09-21 10:41 AM
Quick question... Do you know why your H1 extension was rejected(denied). If the reason is client letter, why and how do you think it will be approved with a new company when they will have to get the same letter from the same client. How different will be your situation.
If the reason is not for client letter, then ignore the above question.
Hi,
I am in a situation and hope someone here would be able to provide me with some advice. I was employed by Company A since 2006 and I was working at a Client location for the last 3 years. There is company B who is the primary vendor for the Client. Recently my H1 extension was denied and so I went out of status. I reached out to my end client for help. Since they are happy with my work, they said that they can talk to another vendor (company C) to sponsor a new H1 for me. Company C is now ready to file my H1 but the problem is that Company A somehow got to know about this and is enforcing a non compete agreement on me.
I wanted to know if they can do this even though the H1 was denied and they are unable to provide me with any job. Can they stop me from earning my livelihood. I did not go out and breached any contract, I am trying to move only because my H1 with company A has been denied. The only thing is that the end client is the same.
Regards
H1BInTrouble
If the reason is not for client letter, then ignore the above question.
Hi,
I am in a situation and hope someone here would be able to provide me with some advice. I was employed by Company A since 2006 and I was working at a Client location for the last 3 years. There is company B who is the primary vendor for the Client. Recently my H1 extension was denied and so I went out of status. I reached out to my end client for help. Since they are happy with my work, they said that they can talk to another vendor (company C) to sponsor a new H1 for me. Company C is now ready to file my H1 but the problem is that Company A somehow got to know about this and is enforcing a non compete agreement on me.
I wanted to know if they can do this even though the H1 was denied and they are unable to provide me with any job. Can they stop me from earning my livelihood. I did not go out and breached any contract, I am trying to move only because my H1 with company A has been denied. The only thing is that the end client is the same.
Regards
H1BInTrouble
vxg
10-15 11:25 AM
Thanks. Can someone get me USCIS contact number to get the status on receipts.....
dial 1-800-375-5283
use option 1-2-2-6-2-2-1
BTW i am a AUG 3rd TSC Filer No receipts yet. The EAD Check for my wife cashed on Oct 12th and it says Vermont service center.
dial 1-800-375-5283
use option 1-2-2-6-2-2-1
BTW i am a AUG 3rd TSC Filer No receipts yet. The EAD Check for my wife cashed on Oct 12th and it says Vermont service center.
No comments:
Post a Comment