h1techSlave
04-15 09:39 AM
There is already one for this.
CAn some one create survey for this?
CAn some one create survey for this?
wallpaper The 2011 Billboard Music
kshitijnt
07-29 03:09 PM
I filed my I-485 on Aug 13, 2007 (Received date) under EB3 ROW (> 180 days). My I-140 was filed for job "Systems Analyst". I am now being offered a job as "Director of Development" managing the development process along with 30-40 people for another company. I know this theme has been discussed and has risks but would it be OK to take the job. I have approved EAD and AP due to expire on Nov 21 (will renew tomorrow just in case GC does not get approved by then). Has anyone been in this position? I have valid H1-B visa and have not used EAD or AP.
Any advice highly appreciated. thanks!
While I am not a lawyer, I would have a few questions:
1) Is your I140 approved?
2) How many years do you have on H1?
If you have time, discuss with the attorney/law firm of the new company. If they can certify the job is similar to your previous job, no questions.
2) Otherwise, I would definitely take this offer, file H1 transfer, start GC/Labor/I140 again.
The second step works well if you have atleast 2 years left on H1. Technically, you may know, you need to file the labor 365 days before your H1 expiration date, but you know attorneys and perm process will take sweet 3-6 months, so please plan accordingly.
3) Defer the offer by 3-6 months (But this is fraught with risks). If you dont get GC in this time frame, you will lose the offer.
Depends on what is more important for you? GC or better opportunity? Only you can decide.
Any advice highly appreciated. thanks!
While I am not a lawyer, I would have a few questions:
1) Is your I140 approved?
2) How many years do you have on H1?
If you have time, discuss with the attorney/law firm of the new company. If they can certify the job is similar to your previous job, no questions.
2) Otherwise, I would definitely take this offer, file H1 transfer, start GC/Labor/I140 again.
The second step works well if you have atleast 2 years left on H1. Technically, you may know, you need to file the labor 365 days before your H1 expiration date, but you know attorneys and perm process will take sweet 3-6 months, so please plan accordingly.
3) Defer the offer by 3-6 months (But this is fraught with risks). If you dont get GC in this time frame, you will lose the offer.
Depends on what is more important for you? GC or better opportunity? Only you can decide.
milind70
10-09 10:48 AM
I think something same along the lines in VA is in place.
2011 Justin-Bieber-and-Selena-Gomez
calaway42
10-04 12:19 AM
ok! well let me go try your steps .. wish me a luck :)
more...
cgs
04-03 09:34 AM
Renewal of passport doesn't invalidate the visas in old passport. You have to carry both the passports while traveling foreign country.
You can get correct information about passport renewal processing details by contacting near by Indian embassy. You can also check if there is same day (or faster renewal for extra fee) renewals.
You can get correct information about passport renewal processing details by contacting near by Indian embassy. You can also check if there is same day (or faster renewal for extra fee) renewals.
vinay@ocean
06-09 12:39 AM
Thanks a lot for the VISA issue....
Cant i travel via germany to india with stolen visa issue ?
Cant i travel via germany to india with stolen visa issue ?
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.
2010 Justin Bieber accepting
razis123
06-02 04:34 PM
Hi,
I am ready to send my EAD/AP renewal forms - not sure where to send is it NSC or TSC. My I485 is currently pending at TSC. All my previous applications have receipt numbers starting with SRC.
My lawyer (actually para-legal) mentioned that she will send them to NSC - I am not sure since she screwed it up once before.
Please let me know if we have to send EAD/AP renewals to same service center where our I-485 is currently pending or it does not matter.
Thanks a lot.
- nk
I am in a similar situation.Somebody please give advice on this
Thanks in advance
I am ready to send my EAD/AP renewal forms - not sure where to send is it NSC or TSC. My I485 is currently pending at TSC. All my previous applications have receipt numbers starting with SRC.
My lawyer (actually para-legal) mentioned that she will send them to NSC - I am not sure since she screwed it up once before.
Please let me know if we have to send EAD/AP renewals to same service center where our I-485 is currently pending or it does not matter.
Thanks a lot.
- nk
I am in a similar situation.Somebody please give advice on this
Thanks in advance
more...
kaisersose
05-29 11:14 AM
Hi,
I'm on L1B for Company A.
My visa, Petition, I-94 are expiring this September.
I was about to begin L1-B Extension.
Now I got news from company B that my H1B petition has been selected in Lottery..
(this is for COS from my L1B to H1B).
Can I go ahead with L1B extension work ?
I do not want to do this, if it will affect the H1 Petition approval.
Please help. Thanks.:confused:
So you want to have both H-1b and L-1 status starting October 1st?
You can have only one at a time. For now, your status will become H from Oct 1st after which you can no longer be employed by company A.
I'm on L1B for Company A.
My visa, Petition, I-94 are expiring this September.
I was about to begin L1-B Extension.
Now I got news from company B that my H1B petition has been selected in Lottery..
(this is for COS from my L1B to H1B).
Can I go ahead with L1B extension work ?
I do not want to do this, if it will affect the H1 Petition approval.
Please help. Thanks.:confused:
So you want to have both H-1b and L-1 status starting October 1st?
You can have only one at a time. For now, your status will become H from Oct 1st after which you can no longer be employed by company A.
hair Justin Bieber picked up an
ksrk
08-21 07:40 PM
I have a strange situation where I was thinking of AC21 all the while since January (Jul 02 Filer, TSC with Receipt# SRC 0722...).
Now, I finally made my mind and about to get an offer (after labor day, they say).
The lawyer says "don't think about AC21 now, because most probably your GC will be here within 3 months"
My PD is July 31st, 2006.
Dilemma: I don't want to screw up (or stretch the case un-necessarily) by changing employment just in case if there is an RFE. But then, I have to stay with my current employer for 6+ months AFTER GC as well, to be able to prove "permanent employment" intent.
please advise if the timing (within 3 months) makes sense.
Please also shed light on the permanent intent thing .
Many thanks
Not sure of terminology here, but some companies have policies to "go after" employees who leave immediately after getting their employment-based permanent residence. God knows there may be a law that allows the company to sue you for your "intent" of staying with the company for the sole purpose of getting your green card and not because you have a vested interest in doing your job for the company.
While these policies/laws allow for the employee to leave the company after a "reasonable" amount of time (usually six months), if, however, the employee leaves the company within that timeframe, the company has good cause to argue that the employee had an intent of leaving the company from the beginning right after s/he obtained employment-based permanent residence.
Not sure how much sense this made - the law is kinda fuzzy here, AFAIK. As is good with such matters, get professional advice from a good immigration attorney about what you need to do - always worth the money; the risk is not.
Now, I finally made my mind and about to get an offer (after labor day, they say).
The lawyer says "don't think about AC21 now, because most probably your GC will be here within 3 months"
My PD is July 31st, 2006.
Dilemma: I don't want to screw up (or stretch the case un-necessarily) by changing employment just in case if there is an RFE. But then, I have to stay with my current employer for 6+ months AFTER GC as well, to be able to prove "permanent employment" intent.
please advise if the timing (within 3 months) makes sense.
Please also shed light on the permanent intent thing .
Many thanks
Not sure of terminology here, but some companies have policies to "go after" employees who leave immediately after getting their employment-based permanent residence. God knows there may be a law that allows the company to sue you for your "intent" of staying with the company for the sole purpose of getting your green card and not because you have a vested interest in doing your job for the company.
While these policies/laws allow for the employee to leave the company after a "reasonable" amount of time (usually six months), if, however, the employee leaves the company within that timeframe, the company has good cause to argue that the employee had an intent of leaving the company from the beginning right after s/he obtained employment-based permanent residence.
Not sure how much sense this made - the law is kinda fuzzy here, AFAIK. As is good with such matters, get professional advice from a good immigration attorney about what you need to do - always worth the money; the risk is not.
more...
roseball
11-19 12:45 PM
i am going for the h1 stamping first time . in form 156 how long do you intend to stay in usa ? for that i wrote 3 years . is it ok ? and my sister is also in usa .so for one question i wrote the same thing because we should be honest thats why.
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
This shouldnt be a problem as H1 is a dual intent visa.....Its not like F1 or Visitors Visa where you have to show intent to return home......You should be fine.....
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
This shouldnt be a problem as H1 is a dual intent visa.....Its not like F1 or Visitors Visa where you have to show intent to return home......You should be fine.....
hot Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber
![justin bieber 2011 billboard awards. [PICS] Justin Bieber and](http://www.myvisitingcard.com/wp-content/uploads/PICS-Justin-Bieber-and-Eminem-Scoop-2011-Billboard-Music-Awards-21.jpg "[PICS] Justin Bieber and")
r2i2009
05-15 04:26 PM
The reason for my saying so....this election is different from others. Very tight race and either party do not want to pass any bill that would negatively affect the results.
Our problem is the least of the problems the country is facing right now.
They would pass bill which would stimuate economy not help EB3 folks(who already have EADs) to get GC and make them sleep easily.
So let us be patient. Even if we get GCs...it is not useful for either parties....because we cannot vote.
Secondly, GOVT would lose EAD renewal, AP revenue etc.
So let us get out the illusion that our bills would be passed....it is not going to help the ailing economy. It might help lawyers to earn some good bucks.
Our problem is the least of the problems the country is facing right now.
They would pass bill which would stimuate economy not help EB3 folks(who already have EADs) to get GC and make them sleep easily.
So let us be patient. Even if we get GCs...it is not useful for either parties....because we cannot vote.
Secondly, GOVT would lose EAD renewal, AP revenue etc.
So let us get out the illusion that our bills would be passed....it is not going to help the ailing economy. It might help lawyers to earn some good bucks.
more...
house Justin Bieber on 2011
gc_on_demand
07-19 11:33 AM
Does any one on this forum know under what section of law family to emp based spill over happens ? Last year DOS allocated some 10k family visas ( unused) to emp quota but it was distributed.
Just checking if this allocation is by book of law or interpretation of DOS based on some law. There are some chances that this year family based quota could be more and if DOS make them to fall down from Eb1 -- > Eb2 --> Eb3 -- > Eb4 -- > Eb5. then it could make C for all EB2 and those visas can fall down to Eb3 and this way in Oct 2010 atleast EB3 India get some 10-15 k extra visas. but if DOS allocate them across all category from day one then Eb2 row and Eb1 , 4, 5 keep consuming them and during last quarter spill over come down less..
Lets find out if there is any thing in law.
Just checking if this allocation is by book of law or interpretation of DOS based on some law. There are some chances that this year family based quota could be more and if DOS make them to fall down from Eb1 -- > Eb2 --> Eb3 -- > Eb4 -- > Eb5. then it could make C for all EB2 and those visas can fall down to Eb3 and this way in Oct 2010 atleast EB3 India get some 10-15 k extra visas. but if DOS allocate them across all category from day one then Eb2 row and Eb1 , 4, 5 keep consuming them and during last quarter spill over come down less..
Lets find out if there is any thing in law.
tattoo Justin Bieber Wins Fan
somegchuh
10-26 01:11 PM
I hope they mail it back because that's something I definitely need. I didn't know they will look at my I797. I wish I had known this before my wife went for visa stamping. There's alway a new kink, isn't it :-)
My wife had her visa stamped in Bombay consulate - and during the interview they asked to see the I797 - but i had instructed her to ask for it back and she specifically asked the officer if she could have it back because I needed it - and he promptly gave it.
maybe Delhi Consulate works differently. Hopefully they will mail you back the 797 notice with the passport.
My wife had her visa stamped in Bombay consulate - and during the interview they asked to see the I797 - but i had instructed her to ask for it back and she specifically asked the officer if she could have it back because I needed it - and he promptly gave it.
maybe Delhi Consulate works differently. Hopefully they will mail you back the 797 notice with the passport.
more...
pictures justin-ieber-selena-gomez-
sreeanne
11-21 03:36 PM
You can contact USCIS and you wont be out of status based on the fact that you dont have I-94 with you. Your information will be in their systems showing that your stay is legal. I think they will issue duplicate I-94 for you.
Above all is my guess but contact USCIS or your lawyer, thats the best way.
Above all is my guess but contact USCIS or your lawyer, thats the best way.
dresses [PICS] Justin Bieber and
ujjvalkoul
07-17 06:45 PM
contribute please.....
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
Those that are tearing up..u can call IV on the numbers mentioned..I just dd and congratulated the, on a job well done and pledged my contiuing support until all our oissues are resolved
more...
makeup in Awards. Justin Bieber and
ski_dude12
07-16 09:33 AM
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
Please change the misleading title. Already lot of people are frustrated with this flip-flop and posting something with a misleading title will make things worse.
Thanks,
-Ski
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
Please change the misleading title. Already lot of people are frustrated with this flip-flop and posting something with a misleading title will make things worse.
Thanks,
-Ski
girlfriend The Billboard 2011 Music
diqingshen
07-16 09:19 AM
How can we make the scale lean towards our side?
Phone campaign?
Phone campaign?
hairstyles Justin Bieber Kisses Selena
unseenguy
06-09 12:53 PM
When i went to Mumbai last december i got my H1B stamped. while coming to US i showed the POE my H1B stamped visa he asked me for Advanced parol document and i was Parolled.When i asked him i have a H1B stamped in my passport why do i need to be parolled. He answered AP has a higher preference than H1B.
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
I entered on H1 visa this year. Me and my wife both arrived at the airport, I told the officer, my wife has AP and I have H1 visa. To which he said, where is your AP. I said, I have it but I prefer to use H1. Is it possible? He said thats fine. Your choice.
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
I entered on H1 visa this year. Me and my wife both arrived at the airport, I told the officer, my wife has AP and I have H1 visa. To which he said, where is your AP. I said, I have it but I prefer to use H1. Is it possible? He said thats fine. Your choice.
aka
10-30 07:04 PM
Hi, Why did you ask me rename the thread with a broader name?, it is June 07 filers - General Tracker, seems broader enough.
Thanks.
People might mistake this as a thread for people who filed on June 7th, simply because there are other threads out there for people who filed in specific date ranges. I believe you meant June 2007 in your title, right?
Thanks.
People might mistake this as a thread for people who filed on June 7th, simply because there are other threads out there for people who filed in specific date ranges. I believe you meant June 2007 in your title, right?
miththoo
08-22 05:08 PM
Does it invalidate the old I-140 if the PD is recaptured for the new I-140 ? I mean what happens to the old I-140 ? May we still use it in future if for some reason the new I-140 does not work out ?
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento