senk1s
10-09 04:54 PM
i thought this was just an interpretation of AC21 (and how it applies to the current situation)
wallpaper The rollout from Java Hut
vivache
10-05 07:17 PM
yep .. that was my thinking.
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
sioux
12-24 10:33 AM
How long is the AP approval taking these days?
2011 bob#39;s java hut was quite
cjain
08-10 04:36 PM
...if you want...i'll post here..
Great find..
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
Great find..
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
more...
ysnraju
07-25 10:45 PM
So far not come across
But for Filing only Primary and dependent after that all the dependents and primary applicants will have their own Application Numbers and so.
So no wonder Dependent may get approval.....
But lot of questions araises
Just for argument shake please do not expect to happen but for argument
if the Primary applicants is not eligible then what they will do ........ :)
.......
But for Filing only Primary and dependent after that all the dependents and primary applicants will have their own Application Numbers and so.
So no wonder Dependent may get approval.....
But lot of questions araises
Just for argument shake please do not expect to happen but for argument
if the Primary applicants is not eligible then what they will do ........ :)
.......
bbenhill
11-16 12:52 PM
I believe u can apply ur own H4. because u have the H1 approval from ur spouse. just download form from uscis website. there is complete instruction over there.
Thx
you have to options -
1. your employer files change of status H1 to H4 (form I-539)
2. you go out of country and come back on previously stamped H4. you need not to apply H4 again as long as previous H4 is valid. remember - if you decide to work in future, your employer has to file change of status application from H4 to H1 again.
please double check before you make any decision.
Thx
you have to options -
1. your employer files change of status H1 to H4 (form I-539)
2. you go out of country and come back on previously stamped H4. you need not to apply H4 again as long as previous H4 is valid. remember - if you decide to work in future, your employer has to file change of status application from H4 to H1 again.
please double check before you make any decision.
more...
lazycis
12-21 01:31 PM
Here is a shortened version:
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
1151
d) Worldwide level of employment-based immigrants
(1) The worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to—
(A) 140,000, plus
(B) the number computed under paragraph (2). (i.e. unused family-based visas from the previous year)
1153
(b) Preference allocation for employment-based immigrants
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 1151 (d) of this title for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as follows:
(EB-1) Priority workers
Visas shall first be made available in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (4) and (5)
(EB-2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph (1), to qualified immigrants who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.
(EB-3) Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), to the following classes of aliens who are not described in paragraph (2):
(4) Certain special immigrants
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified special immigrants described in section 1101 (a)(27) of this title (other than those described in subparagraph (A) or (B) thereof), of which not more than 5,000 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 1101 (a)(27)(C)(ii) of this title, and not more than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described in section 1101 (a)(27)(M) of this title.
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging in a new commercial enterprise (including a limited partnership)—
i.e. for each country EB1 gets (140,000 + number of unused FB visas from the previous year) * 0.07 * 0.286 = 2802 + something insignificant, same for EB2 and EB3.
If there are unused visas, they go from EB1 to EB2 to EB3, but they are lost at the end of the fiscal year. Unused visas from 4th and 5th category can be added to that number as well (usually in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year). Please note that at the end of the fiscal year per country limits may be lifted if there are unused visas left.
2010 Laurel of the Java Hut (makes
irock
08-09 02:30 PM
From posts here, it seems they used to give 3 year based on approval date rather than date of filing. But USCIS recent faq says that they will look for date of filing. May be all the IOs don't yet know the latest rule/FAQ.
btw, I applied my H1 extension on July 11th and approved on Aug 3rd. Got three year extension. Go figure.
btw, I applied my H1 extension on July 11th and approved on Aug 3rd. Got three year extension. Go figure.
more...
DyersEve
10-03 02:17 AM
Awesome, it worked great....god this forum is great. w00t :)
hair John#39;s Java Hut, 2008,
DesiTech
06-01 07:10 PM
:) Thanks for you info.
more...
pratikgr
08-10 08:00 AM
how about applying for a tourist visa for that time period?
Can we apply for tourist visa from US?
I checked at NY Kaplan. they have 3months course for $1800 and 4months course for TOEFL for $5500. Since we need atleast 4 months I20, I guess I have to check some community college if they offer something cheap.
One more question is, the community college usally have admission from spring. They don't issue I20 in summer. So I guess I have to start from January itself. In that case is it possible to get admission in January and start the class in summer? In that way I can save some money.
Can we apply for tourist visa from US?
I checked at NY Kaplan. they have 3months course for $1800 and 4months course for TOEFL for $5500. Since we need atleast 4 months I20, I guess I have to check some community college if they offer something cheap.
One more question is, the community college usally have admission from spring. They don't issue I20 in summer. So I guess I have to start from January itself. In that case is it possible to get admission in January and start the class in summer? In that way I can save some money.
hot More Java Hut Pics Later
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...
house JAVA HUT EXPRESS - Close-Up
joydiptac
05-26 01:50 PM
This is not a good advice...USCIS may have the file as active, and may approve EAD...If and when USCIS starts working on the application and issues RFE, etc., ...they may decide that the application was abandoned. If the poster worked on the EAD based on the abandoned GC application, then it is likely that USCIS will consider her to be out-of-status from the time she had no basis for EAD, which may mean a long illegal presence, triggering 10 years or permanent ban, etc.
Thanks Saikat, for pointing out some potential pitfalls.
I am sure USCIS has its own checks and balances to determine the validity of an application, and whether it is abandoned. But I do not believe in being proactive and raising flags to jeopardize what may be totally legit.
One more thing that slipped my mind is you can always check online status to see if your application is active or rejected. :)
Here are a few tidbits of law (information) I am aware of. I am not a lawyer so please seek help or search online for the validity of my statements :
1. During AOS (adjustment of Status, I485 pending) you do not accrue Illegal presence period. However, if you were on a Non Immigrant visa and that has expired you will be in illegal status until you went out and came back using AP - but that is usually OK. Unless there is an unrelated issue that flags your case you are safe. But mind you - still no Illegal presence is accrued. This is the law.
2. While on AOS it is OK to go out of the country for short periods of time (I don't think this is very well defined hence a gray area). In case you do not have any other non immigrant visa you need to have applied for AP before leaving the country otherwise you are considered to have abandoned your I485 application.
Example: My boss from one of my previous companies was on AOS was working from B'lore in the same company for more than or close to a year. He came back on his L1A visa. He had a long talk with Immigration and explained that our company had sent him abroad for all this while, which was true. He came back in, within a few months got his GC this tells me that his I485 was not considered to be abandoned. Well it is a different story that he did not stay after that as being a truly global manager, he was sent to France and then to India within 6 months.
HTH
Thanks Saikat, for pointing out some potential pitfalls.
I am sure USCIS has its own checks and balances to determine the validity of an application, and whether it is abandoned. But I do not believe in being proactive and raising flags to jeopardize what may be totally legit.
One more thing that slipped my mind is you can always check online status to see if your application is active or rejected. :)
Here are a few tidbits of law (information) I am aware of. I am not a lawyer so please seek help or search online for the validity of my statements :
1. During AOS (adjustment of Status, I485 pending) you do not accrue Illegal presence period. However, if you were on a Non Immigrant visa and that has expired you will be in illegal status until you went out and came back using AP - but that is usually OK. Unless there is an unrelated issue that flags your case you are safe. But mind you - still no Illegal presence is accrued. This is the law.
2. While on AOS it is OK to go out of the country for short periods of time (I don't think this is very well defined hence a gray area). In case you do not have any other non immigrant visa you need to have applied for AP before leaving the country otherwise you are considered to have abandoned your I485 application.
Example: My boss from one of my previous companies was on AOS was working from B'lore in the same company for more than or close to a year. He came back on his L1A visa. He had a long talk with Immigration and explained that our company had sent him abroad for all this while, which was true. He came back in, within a few months got his GC this tells me that his I485 was not considered to be abandoned. Well it is a different story that he did not stay after that as being a truly global manager, he was sent to France and then to India within 6 months.
HTH
tattoo Java Hut workers Unionizing
irrational
06-18 10:37 PM
Folks,
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
I am due for an EAD renewal. However, my I-485 Receipt Notice got lost in mail. :(
Can I still e-file. A lot of you said, we have to send a copy of the receipt notice as a supporting document. Can I do without it.
Any pointers would be really appreciated.
Thank You
-Bipin
more...
pictures Bué, al parecer este Java (que
DudefromBombay
08-11 02:59 PM
Democrats are losers. Socialist. They can only sponsor illegal immigrants. Republican party is pro legal immigration.
dresses the Java Hut coffee shop
indio0617
04-06 11:03 AM
Wonderful Summary !
Thanks...
Thanks...
more...
makeup logo at this java hut.
s.m.srinivas
03-31 10:42 PM
Company A in my case has not revoked my H1B, it's still in valid status. I had been to India too & I came back with same VISA on MARCH 12 2009. I have mentioned in the post also.
"snathan", can you tell me what are the options for me now in this situation?
"snathan", can you tell me what are the options for me now in this situation?
girlfriend Surfdog#39;s Java Hut Coffee
add78
06-11 08:56 AM
This is a first step in the full reinstatement of PP for 140. As USCIS has said before, due to the immense backlog they cannot adjudicate all 140 PPs in the 15-day window but they are in need of the extra $1500 that PP fetches them. This will enable them to get a little more $$ for a relatively smaller 140 cases upgraded to PP which they could adjudicate in 15 days. It also alleviates the stranded folks who could not extend H-1 if Perm was <365 and 140 pending. Let us see in time (a few months at least) how much backlog is cleared as USCIS diverts more resources to 140 cases.
hairstyles Springs Pub and Java Hut).
eldrick
08-16 02:56 PM
I'm scared now. The problem is as per the company's policy we're not allowed to contact the lawyer directly.
I've read somewhere before that if you did not sign G-28 it means the receipt will go directly to you. But, I'm not sure.
I've read somewhere before that if you did not sign G-28 it means the receipt will go directly to you. But, I'm not sure.
RiaonH4
01-18 11:13 AM
Cool. Thanks for your replies. One more question. Are you guys currently in US and have applied 485. How do i use Canadian citizenship and 485 pending to maximize my opportunities in us and also have Canadian citizenship as a backup?
Ria
:D
King37 sent you a PM
Ria
:D
King37 sent you a PM
gc_lover
06-20 12:24 PM
Hi gc_lover,
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
No comments:
Post a Comment