cooldude
07-19 12:22 AM
My lawyer sent me the fedex tracking sheet for the I-485 package sent to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
I did not see any PO Box on the Fedex tracking sheet. I am not sure if she put the PO Box on the shipping label or not??
Is it a big deal?? Will my application be accepted.
Please help
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
I did not see any PO Box on the Fedex tracking sheet. I am not sure if she put the PO Box on the shipping label or not??
Is it a big deal?? Will my application be accepted.
Please help
wallpaper Beautifull Love Quotes on
a_yaja
01-16 11:44 AM
In a way you are right but not entirely. It is the responsibility of the sponsoring company (that filed H1 for the person) to pay while he/she is employed with the company. Its does not matter whether he/she has a client project or not. So, as long as the sponsoring company say they are going to pay him he/she is legal.
The original poster said that she was "laid off". So the question of her sponsoring company paying her does not arise. And hence she is without a job and she knows it. On this basis I said that it would be considered fraud if she goes for H1B stamping.
The original poster said that she was "laid off". So the question of her sponsoring company paying her does not arise. And hence she is without a job and she knows it. On this basis I said that it would be considered fraud if she goes for H1B stamping.
gc28262
07-16 07:30 AM
Murthy Bulletin
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
2011 love quotes for her from the
jetflyer
02-15 03:17 PM
If each state in India were a country
There would have been no backlog.
You are correct then only Andhra Pradesh have been retrogressed. If you remove AP from that equation. everything will be normal.
I can bet 90 percent of the GC applicants are from India are from AP.
Jet
There would have been no backlog.
You are correct then only Andhra Pradesh have been retrogressed. If you remove AP from that equation. everything will be normal.
I can bet 90 percent of the GC applicants are from India are from AP.
Jet
more...
eastindia
12-20 01:40 PM
We need to have a working group to generate awareness @ grassroot levels about legal EB immigrations - common voters, media, people working around you.
This is a good idea.
How about you take your idea further and start this group. I am sure many folks who agree with you will join you. What do you think?
This is a good idea.
How about you take your idea further and start this group. I am sure many folks who agree with you will join you. What do you think?
paskal
01-22 06:22 PM
rock!
more...
no_more_anger
05-07 06:21 PM
Who asked for a combined AP and EAD?
What help will it offer really?
It would have been better to ask for a 5 year EAD. But some person would have posted asking for a combined document?
What will we really do with a 2 in 1 document????
Really....you can't see how good that is? I am surprised to the core.
A single document means simplification in filing....not having to keep track of when
which document expires. It will obviously come with lower total filing costs. I prefer if
they just give a single card (like EAD) that has all the details, 485/EAD/AP....so wherever
you go, you just present that card and you are done.....instead of carrying multiple
documents.
What help will it offer really?
It would have been better to ask for a 5 year EAD. But some person would have posted asking for a combined document?
What will we really do with a 2 in 1 document????
Really....you can't see how good that is? I am surprised to the core.
A single document means simplification in filing....not having to keep track of when
which document expires. It will obviously come with lower total filing costs. I prefer if
they just give a single card (like EAD) that has all the details, 485/EAD/AP....so wherever
you go, you just present that card and you are done.....instead of carrying multiple
documents.
2010 sad love quotes for him from
nk2006
07-05 11:59 AM
Its a very good point. Immigration related issues are highly political and rouse emotions on either side. Our opponents used those same emotions to get their desirable results - in the form failure to any immigration related bill. Now I think we have a good opportunity to use this fiasco to our benefit.
The lawsuit - whatever its outcome maybe can run its own course. AILF is taking care of that. We as 485 filers and potential filers can simultaneously work on educating lawmakers. To the immigrant friendly lawmakers we can magnify the arrogance of DOS/USCIS in disregarding thousands of immigrants aspirations and revising a bulleting literally at the last "second". We can also project the miscommunication/clashes between the two orgnizations (without that element its impossilbe they would come to the conclusion in mid-june that there will be plenty of visas unavailable to make every one current; and suddenly after two weeks realize that there are none to anyone).
We can even reach out to extreme right (like sof Tancredo) and expose how
USCIS approved cases in haste at last minute just to avoid the rush from July 2nd. Who knows how many cases they approved are not supposed to be approved in the normal circumstances.
Is IV taking advice from lobbists on this matter or they just deal with senate/house bills.
The lawsuit - whatever its outcome maybe can run its own course. AILF is taking care of that. We as 485 filers and potential filers can simultaneously work on educating lawmakers. To the immigrant friendly lawmakers we can magnify the arrogance of DOS/USCIS in disregarding thousands of immigrants aspirations and revising a bulleting literally at the last "second". We can also project the miscommunication/clashes between the two orgnizations (without that element its impossilbe they would come to the conclusion in mid-june that there will be plenty of visas unavailable to make every one current; and suddenly after two weeks realize that there are none to anyone).
We can even reach out to extreme right (like sof Tancredo) and expose how
USCIS approved cases in haste at last minute just to avoid the rush from July 2nd. Who knows how many cases they approved are not supposed to be approved in the normal circumstances.
Is IV taking advice from lobbists on this matter or they just deal with senate/house bills.
more...
sonu9
07-30 12:45 PM
hi thank you . yes we can, receiving letters from "x" address is not at all problem then is it fine to put X adress ? no problem right ? thank you once again.
hair sad love quotes for broken
veni001
07-06 05:30 PM
Yes, only if approved I-140 is not withdrawn or canceled before new I-140 approval.
If you are in AC21 safety net then you can recapture PD (after 180 days of 1-485 filing) even if your initial sponsoring employer withdraws his initial I-140.:o
once I-140 approved then that PD is locked for you , you can port that date with your new I-140 filing. no need to file 485 and wait for 6 months, this only for Ac-21 porting with new employer.
If you are in AC21 safety net then you can recapture PD (after 180 days of 1-485 filing) even if your initial sponsoring employer withdraws his initial I-140.:o
once I-140 approved then that PD is locked for you , you can port that date with your new I-140 filing. no need to file 485 and wait for 6 months, this only for Ac-21 porting with new employer.
more...
auburn2009
02-27 07:02 PM
Hi Guys,
I would like to know if we are eligible to claim our withheld medicare and soc.sec taxes for the year 2008. I was working initially while on F1visa and changed to H1B halfway through the year 2008.
Will appreciate if u could help.
Thank you in advance.
I would like to know if we are eligible to claim our withheld medicare and soc.sec taxes for the year 2008. I was working initially while on F1visa and changed to H1B halfway through the year 2008.
Will appreciate if u could help.
Thank you in advance.
hot love quotes for broken hearts.
supers789
07-18 04:10 PM
I have i140 approved from previous employer with PD Nov 2005 (which became current with Aug bulletin). New employer has not yet started GC and my 6 years of H1B are getting over in next 6 months.
Can I get 1 year h1B extension based on the fact that I have i140 approved. Please note that its approved with old employer and I cannot file 485 with him.
Thanks!
Can I get 1 year h1B extension based on the fact that I have i140 approved. Please note that its approved with old employer and I cannot file 485 with him.
Thanks!
more...
house cute love quotes for him from
mk6
07-17 06:58 PM
my lawyer missed the 2nd july deadline even when he had all the papers. Now i am asking him to meet 30th july deadline he is not responding . what are the papers needed to file I485. Can I file it without lawyers help? He does have my immunization papers
tattoo broken heart quotes; love and
omved
05-05 02:25 AM
Gurus / Attorney,
Please suggest..
I got RFE for my employment verification and bona fide marital status..I have following questions..
I am still working on current position but my salary is more now compared to two years ago when I submitted my I485. Both past and current salary is more than Labor requirement. In my employment verification RFE letter, should I mention my current salary OR would it be a problem for I485 petition.
I am submitting joint tax return as a proof of bona fide marital status. My annual modified gross income is more than my current salary as a result of yearend bonus. Once again, I hope it won't create a problem for I485 application.
I would highly appreciate your any advice in this regard.
Thanks,
EB2 - India / PD 04/06, I485 receipt date 09/07
Please suggest..
I got RFE for my employment verification and bona fide marital status..I have following questions..
I am still working on current position but my salary is more now compared to two years ago when I submitted my I485. Both past and current salary is more than Labor requirement. In my employment verification RFE letter, should I mention my current salary OR would it be a problem for I485 petition.
I am submitting joint tax return as a proof of bona fide marital status. My annual modified gross income is more than my current salary as a result of yearend bonus. Once again, I hope it won't create a problem for I485 application.
I would highly appreciate your any advice in this regard.
Thanks,
EB2 - India / PD 04/06, I485 receipt date 09/07
more...
pictures love quotes and hearts.
rick_rajvanshi
03-20 03:55 PM
USCIS Announces New Requirements for Hiring H-1B Foreign Workers
Changes Apply to Companies that Receive TARP Funding
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced additional requirements for employers, who receive funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program or under section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (covered funding), before they may hire a foreign national to work in the H-1B specialty occupation category.
The new �Employ American Workers Act,� (EAWA), signed into law by President Obama as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Feb. 17, 2009, was enacted to ensure that companies receiving covered funding do not displace U.S. workers. Under this legislation any company that has received covered funding and seeks to hire new H-1B workers is considered an �H-1B dependent employer.� All H-1B dependent employers must make additional attestations to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) when filing the Labor Condition Application.
EAWA applies to any Labor Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after Feb. 17, 2009, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status. The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before Feb. 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.
EAWA does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorized category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer.
USCIS is revising Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to include a question asking whether the petitioner has received covered funding. USCIS will post this revised form on the USCIS Web site in time for the next cap subject H-1B filing period that begins on April l, 2009. While USCIS encourages petitioners, whenever possible, to use the most up-to-date form, USCIS will not require use of the revised form in time for the start of the filing period for fiscal year 2010.
However, USCIS urges H-1B petitions who have already prepared packages for mailing using the previous Form I-129 (January 2009 version) to complete only the page in the revised version of the Form I-129 (March 2009) which has the new question on EAWA attestation requirements and to file this single page with the prepared package. The single page referenced is the first page on the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement.
USCIS reminds petitioners that a valid LCA must be on file with DOL at the time the H-1B petition is filed with USCIS. This means that if the petitioner indicates on its petition that it is subject to the EAWA, but the Labor Condition Application does not contain the proper attestations relating to H-1B dependent employers, USCIS will deny the H-1B petition.
For more information, please see the accompanying Questions and Answers document about the Employ American Workers Act and its effect on H-1B petitions.
Changes Apply to Companies that Receive TARP Funding
WASHINGTON � U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced additional requirements for employers, who receive funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program or under section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (covered funding), before they may hire a foreign national to work in the H-1B specialty occupation category.
The new �Employ American Workers Act,� (EAWA), signed into law by President Obama as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Feb. 17, 2009, was enacted to ensure that companies receiving covered funding do not displace U.S. workers. Under this legislation any company that has received covered funding and seeks to hire new H-1B workers is considered an �H-1B dependent employer.� All H-1B dependent employers must make additional attestations to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) when filing the Labor Condition Application.
EAWA applies to any Labor Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after Feb. 17, 2009, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status. The EAWA also applies to new hires based on a petition approved before Feb. 17, 2009, if the H-1B employee had not actually commenced employment before that date.
EAWA does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking to change the status of a beneficiary already working for the employer in another work-authorized category. It also does not apply to H-1B petitions seeking an extension of stay for a current employee with the same employer.
USCIS is revising Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, to include a question asking whether the petitioner has received covered funding. USCIS will post this revised form on the USCIS Web site in time for the next cap subject H-1B filing period that begins on April l, 2009. While USCIS encourages petitioners, whenever possible, to use the most up-to-date form, USCIS will not require use of the revised form in time for the start of the filing period for fiscal year 2010.
However, USCIS urges H-1B petitions who have already prepared packages for mailing using the previous Form I-129 (January 2009 version) to complete only the page in the revised version of the Form I-129 (March 2009) which has the new question on EAWA attestation requirements and to file this single page with the prepared package. The single page referenced is the first page on the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement.
USCIS reminds petitioners that a valid LCA must be on file with DOL at the time the H-1B petition is filed with USCIS. This means that if the petitioner indicates on its petition that it is subject to the EAWA, but the Labor Condition Application does not contain the proper attestations relating to H-1B dependent employers, USCIS will deny the H-1B petition.
For more information, please see the accompanying Questions and Answers document about the Employ American Workers Act and its effect on H-1B petitions.
dresses quotes about roken hearts
authrd
07-26 01:25 PM
I do not have the approval notice used to obtain a visa to enter the country for the very first time in 2001.
All attempts to obtain a copy of the I-797 from company/attorney have failed and so I have filed a I-824 for a duplicate. That will take a few months.
I am wondering what will happen if USCIS issues a RFE on my I-485 asking for evidence of lawful presence all these years.
I don't have all the I-94s either. I do have the visa stamp on my passport.
All attempts to obtain a copy of the I-797 from company/attorney have failed and so I have filed a I-824 for a duplicate. That will take a few months.
I am wondering what will happen if USCIS issues a RFE on my I-485 asking for evidence of lawful presence all these years.
I don't have all the I-94s either. I do have the visa stamp on my passport.
more...
makeup sad love quotes for him from
karan2004m
01-05 05:38 PM
I am not an expert but i can tell u confidently that he can get a jail term for sure with these wordings... this is totally illegal and is just to scare you so that you should not leave the firm..
girlfriend orkut scraps love quotes.
pcs
06-21 02:52 PM
it is free & great
hairstyles cute love quotes for him from
Jerrome
10-19 09:57 AM
I don't have an A#? Where can i find that.
shortchanged
08-17 08:38 AM
In addition to checking the appropriate response in your I-485 form, you (wife)have to confirm that you are filing as a derivative of the husbands primary petition (Part 2, response should be "b" please make sure again! you may even use highlighter pen) you may include your husbands I-140 as well as Labor certification copies and highlight the Priority dates in these forms with brilliant colors.
Marriage Certificate is a must.
Also I would include the last years tax returns for your husband and the sealed medical clearance from your doctor, to make it rejection proof!
A cover letter as well as a "DO NOT OPEN IN MAIL ROOM" addressing the Service center director, and placing it over a double bagged packaging of the whole thing may also help.Somehow you have to convince the morons in the mail room that it is "RESUBMISSION DUE TO USCIS ERROR"
Wish you all the best!
Marriage Certificate is a must.
Also I would include the last years tax returns for your husband and the sealed medical clearance from your doctor, to make it rejection proof!
A cover letter as well as a "DO NOT OPEN IN MAIL ROOM" addressing the Service center director, and placing it over a double bagged packaging of the whole thing may also help.Somehow you have to convince the morons in the mail room that it is "RESUBMISSION DUE TO USCIS ERROR"
Wish you all the best!
cabal
08-30 12:16 PM
I had asked this question to the immigration lawyer at IV. She said that if you are working for the same company at their offices aboard & go for Consular Processing ( it is the only option as you can not go 485 route) it should be just fine. However, if the company that you are working for when you are abroad and the company that did your GC are not the same thenit is almost impossible to prove that the job exists when you arrive in USA after CP.
It is an interesting question i am also worried about. I was told by my company attorney that i need to file I-140 asap as USCIS is in process of changing how long you can wait with approved LC before filing I-140. Once you have I-140 approved, basically you can come back to the US on an H-1 to work for the company (you will need a new h-1, even if you have a 3 yr. extension based on approved I-140). Then if and when the priority dates become current you should be able to file for I-485
It is an interesting question i am also worried about. I was told by my company attorney that i need to file I-140 asap as USCIS is in process of changing how long you can wait with approved LC before filing I-140. Once you have I-140 approved, basically you can come back to the US on an H-1 to work for the company (you will need a new h-1, even if you have a 3 yr. extension based on approved I-140). Then if and when the priority dates become current you should be able to file for I-485
No comments:
Post a Comment