letstalklc
10-08 11:17 AM
Yes, there is only one queue, you go ahead and ask them for the status of your application, it's passed 15 month period.
Because of Fragomen audits the DOL audit queue is very big and after announcing dol that they will release the special audited cases to regular queue, but they did nothing as of now.
Because of Fragomen audits the DOL audit queue is very big and after announcing dol that they will release the special audited cases to regular queue, but they did nothing as of now.
wallpaper into Girls#39; Generation
krithi
03-22 12:39 PM
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I am in the same boat and travelled twice, no questions asked about employment.
rocky74
07-20 10:32 AM
I applied for my labor in July (Chicago) and my PD is July 2007. If I get approved before August 17 then will I be able to apply for I140/485 before August 17th.
2011 소녀시대 / Girls#39; Generation
mchundi
02-14 07:42 PM
It is almost 3-4 months for me tracking the progress of S-1932 and the comprehensive immigration reform process. I know some of u here have been lobbying for this even longer.
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
Becks
08-16 05:51 PM
I had my PA DL renewed last year. All they asked was the original I-485 receipt, Passport. They dont consider EADs.
more...
jsd123
05-08 06:06 PM
I always use SBI online. Very reliable, cost effective and best conversion rates !!
2010 Gee Gee
vsc
01-31 06:44 PM
thanks for the reply..this means having a dependent visa is the key at the time of approval..
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
more...
hopein07
03-14 10:21 AM
Here is a good link with info about licensing in Canada. All the best !!!
http://www.canamglobal.com/secureserver/category.asp?catid=56#APPLYINGFORLICENCETOPRACTISE
http://www.canamglobal.com/secureserver/category.asp?catid=56#APPLYINGFORLICENCETOPRACTISE
hair Girls#39; Generation#39;s Japanese
simple1
05-18 05:00 AM
this guy is a fake. busted.
Hey
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
Hey
Thanks for responding to my question.Many thanks
Here is the Sequence of events :
Joined company 1
<>Labor filed in Nov 2005 under EB2 and approved
<>-I-140 Approved somewhere Aug 06
<> I then left Company 1 and joined a multi national IT Giant in India - Infosy. Joined Info - Jan 07 in India . BUT I was in good terms with Company 1
<>Came back to USA , as Infosys Employee around Sep 07 on B1 visa from India for 3 months . Went back to India.
<>Rejoined Company 1 ( my Original Company ) in Jan 08 ( Petition approved) . Got visa stamp around June 08 and entered US. Got Project Aug 08 and since then on project till date.
<> While on project Aug 08 I apply for I485 as my category EB2 became current. Got my FP done.
Then Around Nov 08 I got EAD and AP papers. So I have an EAD and AP
My Q's are
<> I heard that EB2 is retrogressing to 2000 for India . Now does not apply to folks whose LC and I140 Is approved or only for those who are stuck up at I140 Stage.
Please clarify on this. If I am in a stage where I am expecting my GC and already for EAD does it apply to me
<> What is a VISA Number. There is an A# Number on MY EAD and that same number shows up on AP Document ( I512-L Authorization for parole ) . Is this the same as an Immigrant Visa # or that is something that issues when I am granted my GC.
<> 6 months have passed since I got my EAD. If I join a new Employer and start using this EAD , can I renew it infinitely, till I get GC . What if My Visa is Not valid and I travel out of US to India solely on EAD? What happens then ? is there a chance that at port of entry my entry is denied based on my immigrant future intentions? I know on paper EAD gives you right to travel BUT is this a genuine risk of not being allowed at PO Entry
<> On the other hand - lets say I KEEP my EAD and not use it at all till my H1 expires . Then ,CAN I STILL BY ON H1 AND KEEP RENEWING MY EAD OR SINCE I NEVER USED IT IN PAST , IT IS MIGHT REJECT FOR RENEWAL.
I just dont know know with all this EB2 retrogression what is the best plan of action.
MANY Thanks Again
Sam
more...
pan123
09-17 03:30 PM
Folks,
I need some guidance from experienced folks particularly those who hold MBBS degree from India and are already in US in medical profession.
My brother has received MBBS about 5 years go and he is doing his practice in rural area. His wife is also MBBS and also holds a diploma on OB/GYN area.
My question is if they want to immigrate to US what are various paths they can follow to get here?
Thanks in advance.
PAN123
I need some guidance from experienced folks particularly those who hold MBBS degree from India and are already in US in medical profession.
My brother has received MBBS about 5 years go and he is doing his practice in rural area. His wife is also MBBS and also holds a diploma on OB/GYN area.
My question is if they want to immigrate to US what are various paths they can follow to get here?
Thanks in advance.
PAN123
hot Tagged girl#39;s generation, snsd
pappu
08-22 04:19 PM
Paskal:
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
saravanaraj.sathya
You have not updated your profile with your full information. Please do so asap.
OK we have tons of members from Buffalo. Now it is upto you to contact them. We have several more from Rochester and Syracuse....
Can you take charge of contacting them and making phonecalls? get in touch with NY chapter and volunteer to make phonecalls to all these members:
Mkolken
Bhatya
DEVILLION696
Drajaybhora
Freidyeid
gcny2006
nkumar
brahmam
mach
GCgal
Mdforgc
But first update your profile. ONly then NY chpater will be able to help you.
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
saravanaraj.sathya
You have not updated your profile with your full information. Please do so asap.
OK we have tons of members from Buffalo. Now it is upto you to contact them. We have several more from Rochester and Syracuse....
Can you take charge of contacting them and making phonecalls? get in touch with NY chapter and volunteer to make phonecalls to all these members:
Mkolken
Bhatya
DEVILLION696
Drajaybhora
Freidyeid
gcny2006
nkumar
brahmam
mach
GCgal
Mdforgc
But first update your profile. ONly then NY chpater will be able to help you.
more...
house Heaven (하늘) Cover
txh1b
08-18 11:37 AM
To be safe, once the h1b is approved, I would suggest that you travel and enter again so that you become eligible to use 245(k) rule if needed during your GC.
If not, there is a risk for everything from the date you lost your job till your re-entry again to be considered as out of status/unlawful employment as per my lawyer.
If not, there is a risk for everything from the date you lost your job till your re-entry again to be considered as out of status/unlawful employment as per my lawyer.
tattoo Posted in Girls#39; Generation
gchope07
07-20 03:17 PM
Hi,
My lawyer used a G325-A which was not downloaded from the USCIS website but was a physical form which had 4 pages of the same form in different colors(I think blue,green,yellow and pink).
I filled the first one and it automatically carbon copied it to the other 3.
Has anybody used such a form? and it is o.k to sign the first one and have the other 3 with carbon copy signatures?
Let me know if this is o.k
My lawyer used a G325-A which was not downloaded from the USCIS website but was a physical form which had 4 pages of the same form in different colors(I think blue,green,yellow and pink).
I filled the first one and it automatically carbon copied it to the other 3.
Has anybody used such a form? and it is o.k to sign the first one and have the other 3 with carbon copy signatures?
Let me know if this is o.k
more...
pictures girls generation taeyeon gee
acecupid
06-25 11:29 AM
You could argue that you don't need to have a job now, just that you need to be in a "same or similar"position when the 485 is approved. if your priority date is very backlogged, you have lots of time to find a job.
Elaine,
Thanks for your response. I am very curious to know if you have been successful in responding to an RFE in the manner you mentioned and USCIS accepted the agrument and continued with AOS for any of your clients. I understand that given the circumstances the OP does not have much of an option since he does not have a job right now. But it would be interesting to know if USCIS has accepted such an argument in the past.
Elaine,
Thanks for your response. I am very curious to know if you have been successful in responding to an RFE in the manner you mentioned and USCIS accepted the agrument and continued with AOS for any of your clients. I understand that given the circumstances the OP does not have much of an option since he does not have a job right now. But it would be interesting to know if USCIS has accepted such an argument in the past.
dresses Girls#39; Generation quot;Geequot;.
gcwatchdog
05-10 10:37 PM
Hello 90210,
If you entered on AP your status is AOS/EAD,you can transfer your H1 but you can't be on H1 status unless and until you go out of the country and enter on H1.
I talked to Murthy about this couple of months ago.
If you entered on AP your status is AOS/EAD,you can transfer your H1 but you can't be on H1 status unless and until you go out of the country and enter on H1.
I talked to Murthy about this couple of months ago.
more...
makeup Girls Generation (SNSD) - Gee
bank_king2003
04-21 11:59 AM
greyhair - that was something i tried on my own and i have never represented IV.
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
you are right we may sue congress but to win that is much much tough as even the judge is been appointed by the president which i guess is a member of congress :) but one can certainly try.
this requires a big movement for which IV is a very nice platform. that is the reason i keep shouting on this forum that nothing will happen untill you somehow make uscis held accountable or in this case even congress accountable.
Filing a Lawsuit against USCIS and CONGRESS together may lead us somewhere.
girlfriend Gee Girls Generation Members.
p_aluri
06-11 06:16 PM
Once the H1-B extension is approved you are good to go(This is a big gray area)!
Some says once the I-140 is revoked , the subsequent H1-B no longer valid. But there is no guidline to prove the same.
As per my knowledge once its approved you are good to go until the expiration date.
I am not a lawyer, I am telling based on information gathered from various posts/forums.
what happens to the H1 extension if the I-140 is subsequently revoked?
Some says once the I-140 is revoked , the subsequent H1-B no longer valid. But there is no guidline to prove the same.
As per my knowledge once its approved you are good to go until the expiration date.
I am not a lawyer, I am telling based on information gathered from various posts/forums.
what happens to the H1 extension if the I-140 is subsequently revoked?
hairstyles Girls Generation Gee SNSD
saileshdude
10-15 02:42 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with H1. I think its just a mistake on their part that they issued this to derivative instead of principal applicant. This is because they are asking for intended permanent employer letter and that terms of LC /I-140 is same. This seems typical of standard employment letter RFE that is issued to the principal applicant.
Is there a way you contact the IO to get confirmation if the RFE is for you or principal applicant? Do keep us updated on how your attorney plans to respond to this.
Is there a way you contact the IO to get confirmation if the RFE is for you or principal applicant? Do keep us updated on how your attorney plans to respond to this.
karthiknv143
06-20 12:27 PM
^^^^^^^^
pappu
11-10 10:57 PM
USCIS Ombudsmun Report - Total I140 approved:
Approved
2000:89,583
2001: 99,659
2002: 93,533
2003:62,281
2004:67,552
2005:94,211
2006:104,168
Oct 2006 to April 2007: 65,098
found this on another site
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
Approved
2000:89,583
2001: 99,659
2002: 93,533
2003:62,281
2004:67,552
2005:94,211
2006:104,168
Oct 2006 to April 2007: 65,098
found this on another site
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table10d.xls
No comments:
Post a Comment