uma001
12-07 03:05 PM
My brother chose to leave USA on his own, after working for 6 years, without applying GC. He was getting 120K here in USA. In India, he joined Oracle Corp and his salary is almost same (about Rs.55Lacs). Indian salaries are becoming excellent these days.
Which position did your brother apply for and which technology?. 55 lakhs is too high for a person who has only 6 years of US experience.
Which position did your brother apply for and which technology?. 55 lakhs is too high for a person who has only 6 years of US experience.
wallpaper Daily Billboard
eb3retro
04-20 03:39 PM
i have a question to you guys..how much time NSC is taking these days to process AP applications? I sent my AP application online and documents last week. Whats the average time these days for getting AP renewal done? any inputs???
shyamiv
08-13 11:45 AM
USA which is a so called developed country, takes 6 months to issue a passport due to the fact that USCIS is over...........loaded with work. So Flashing story is an old one and will only fit in Hollywood world.
The US Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs issues a US passport to eligible citizens. Applying for passport and issuance is not a USCIS affair and hence is a lot faster i would say a month or less at most ! Had it been a USCIS affair.... most americans will still be tracking their passport case status online ! :)
The US Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs issues a US passport to eligible citizens. Applying for passport and issuance is not a USCIS affair and hence is a lot faster i would say a month or less at most ! Had it been a USCIS affair.... most americans will still be tracking their passport case status online ! :)
2011 BEST FASHION BILLBOARD 2010
thomachan72
11-23 02:40 PM
Makes perfect sense. Hopefully one day Indian and chinese EB applicants will have the complete backing of the immigrant citizens from these countries. If that happens then EB voice will be heard. Until then we can take comfort in reading such articles:o:o
more...
milind70
08-28 10:13 AM
is it not required for the beneficiary to sign the approved labor before attaching it to the I140 petition ?
i dont think so, i never signed anything while filing for 140 ,my attorney took care of everything, i did not sign even the G 28 Form. I filed i 140 in March 2007 got approval in April /may 2007.
At 485 stage i only signed G 28 form as i was filing thru an attorney.File 485 in July 2007.
Relax chill, i think you are fine.
i dont think so, i never signed anything while filing for 140 ,my attorney took care of everything, i did not sign even the G 28 Form. I filed i 140 in March 2007 got approval in April /may 2007.
At 485 stage i only signed G 28 form as i was filing thru an attorney.File 485 in July 2007.
Relax chill, i think you are fine.
rampaadh@hotmail.com
05-19 07:31 AM
I sent a detailed mail to Chennai Consulate yesterday for scheduling an appointment and got response in 2 hours! They said Transportation Letter is required for this case and i need to carry required documents to prove that my daughter's case was approved. Fee is around $175. Initially I thought I should apply for Returning resident visa, but they said it is not necessary and Transportation letter is fine.
Transportation Letter - U.S. Consulate General Chennai, India (http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/immigrantstous/lost/stolen-green-card.html)
Transportation Letter - U.S. Consulate General Chennai, India (http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/immigrantstous/lost/stolen-green-card.html)
more...
shsk
07-20 08:57 PM
I checked with my attorney, they advised better not to change address until EAD is received.
If it is emergency then address can be changed but with this confusion and emergency filing it adds to some more confusion :confused:
If it is emergency then address can be changed but with this confusion and emergency filing it adds to some more confusion :confused:
2010 This psychedelic illboard for
gc_on_demand
04-04 07:38 AM
Lets post here if you are Post July 2007 applicant and have received email /mail from NVC ( National Visa Center ) to pay visa fees. Share your PD and other details you received from NVC.
People who have selected CP option in their I 140 application will get notice for fees from NVC.
Note : NVC sends out fee invoice in advance if they think date will be current for given applicant in near future. ( Approx 4-6 months ). I have read on internet that people with PD up to Nov 2007 are getting fees invoice. I want to track if any IV members beyond July 2007 got such invoice. This will be true indicator where date will land in last quarter.
People who have selected CP option in their I 140 application will get notice for fees from NVC.
Note : NVC sends out fee invoice in advance if they think date will be current for given applicant in near future. ( Approx 4-6 months ). I have read on internet that people with PD up to Nov 2007 are getting fees invoice. I want to track if any IV members beyond July 2007 got such invoice. This will be true indicator where date will land in last quarter.
more...
priya82
02-17 08:02 PM
Hello,
I have a question regarding my employment & H1B.
I was working for company "A" and my project ended in Jan and the company "A" gave me 1 month to find employment.
So I have applied for H1B transfer last week with company "B"
I got a call today from company "A" offering me a job.
Is it possible for me to work with company "A", while my application for H1B transfer is pending?
I want to join company "B" when H1B transfer is approved but in the meantime can I work for company "A" because it is very hard to find a job in this economic situation
Any help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
I have a question regarding my employment & H1B.
I was working for company "A" and my project ended in Jan and the company "A" gave me 1 month to find employment.
So I have applied for H1B transfer last week with company "B"
I got a call today from company "A" offering me a job.
Is it possible for me to work with company "A", while my application for H1B transfer is pending?
I want to join company "B" when H1B transfer is approved but in the meantime can I work for company "A" because it is very hard to find a job in this economic situation
Any help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
hair These action-packed illboards
madhavig
04-04 05:37 PM
You and your spouse should go to the nearest IRS office with the new SSN and old ITIN letters. They can immediately make the updates in the system and you will receive the letter from IRS about invalidating the ITIN and replacing it with SSN.
Even if you do not have ITIN letter, you can still tell them but do take the SSN card and photo identity for any verification.
Even if you do not have ITIN letter, you can still tell them but do take the SSN card and photo identity for any verification.
more...
singhv_1980
01-22 05:46 PM
There is a possibility that you are also stuck in PIMS verifications. There is a whole bunch of threads going on with the topic. I believe security checks are done if your job profile is sensitive (like semi conductors, nuclear ).
Good Luck!
Good Luck!
hot Wolf teaser illboard.
redelite
08-27 10:48 AM
Here's my go at it...
Calvin & Hobbes -> http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47743&stc=1&d=1219871683 http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47744&stc=1&d=1219871687
Btw, that Sonic is awesome! :thumb2:
Calvin & Hobbes -> http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47743&stc=1&d=1219871683 http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47744&stc=1&d=1219871687
Btw, that Sonic is awesome! :thumb2:
more...
house 2011 fashion illboard
cooldude0807
06-01 05:10 PM
I recd an RFE too even though i filed AC21 in feb. My lawyer sent the required docs & from May26th there has been a soft LUD everyday...the status says "Response to request for evidence received, and case processing has resumed". Also there is no RFE on my wife's case.
tattoo How cool is this illboard?
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.
more...
pictures On Daily Billboard#39;s recent
sri_chicago
05-14 06:24 PM
Hello friends,
On May 01,2009 my wife's I-485 status changed online that they requested additinal evidence. I have not received RFE letter as of now and also I am touch base with my attorney, my attorney's office also not received RFE letter. Please advice me what steps I have to take in this regard.
On May 01,2009 my wife's I-485 status changed online that they requested additinal evidence. I have not received RFE letter as of now and also I am touch base with my attorney, my attorney's office also not received RFE letter. Please advice me what steps I have to take in this regard.
dresses HBO: #39;True Blood#39; Friends,
sanjay02
10-17 02:19 PM
I had a interview in Feb 2009 , keep all the documents ready. Your wife and youself can go at the same time.
1) Marriage certificate( If ur married :-))
2) All your transcripts for your schools
3) Passports
4) H1-B, EAD, AP copies, I-485 receipt # copies.
5) Any other communications you had with USCIS copies of it.
6) W-2 for last 3 yrs( if you have them), pay slips.
7) Employment letter from your employer
8) AC-21 etc.
9) Copies of your utilities bill, mortgage/lease papers.
10) Birth certificate of all applicants.
11) Family photos etc ( optional).
Interview will be in the 2nd floor not more than 20 or 25 mins. Take an lawyer/attorney with you if necessary.
Thnks
1) Marriage certificate( If ur married :-))
2) All your transcripts for your schools
3) Passports
4) H1-B, EAD, AP copies, I-485 receipt # copies.
5) Any other communications you had with USCIS copies of it.
6) W-2 for last 3 yrs( if you have them), pay slips.
7) Employment letter from your employer
8) AC-21 etc.
9) Copies of your utilities bill, mortgage/lease papers.
10) Birth certificate of all applicants.
11) Family photos etc ( optional).
Interview will be in the 2nd floor not more than 20 or 25 mins. Take an lawyer/attorney with you if necessary.
Thnks
more...
makeup Aldo Shoes illboards just
sury
10-29 06:20 AM
I haven't applied yet. I don't know if I can apply for kid or not.
girlfriend Both television illboards
satishku_2000
08-30 12:32 PM
My PD is 2002 Aug
Is it a sub. labor? I heard that in sub labor cases scrutiny is much higher
Is it a sub. labor? I heard that in sub labor cases scrutiny is much higher
hairstyles Thor movie illboard Sunset
va_jan_03
06-07 10:57 AM
can't make it to DC, made a contribution.
Transaction ID: 94R50453J99520901
Good Luck !!!
Transaction ID: 94R50453J99520901
Good Luck !!!
indianabacklog
10-31 07:20 AM
My EAD is pending for more than 90 days now.My received date is 27th July and Notice date is 31st Aug. I called USCIS and told that my application is pending for more than 90 days. The Level 1 officer acknowledged the fact and escalated the call to Level 2. The level 2 IO was very rude and simply deny to accept the fact that 90 days are over. She simply said that the USCIS is counting 90 days from the notice date not the received date. I told her that It is mentioned on the USCIS website that 90 days are from the received date. The IO officer scolded at me and said if I don't believe her words, then do not call USCIS.:mad:
I guess there is no point calling USCIS and checking status on EAD. I am hoping that the situation will improve and i will soon get EAD card.
If you want to try to speed this up, go online, make an infopass appointment at your local office and have them send an email or fax on your behalf.
I am not excusing the IO's right now but can you imagine the amount of calls they have had to endure since the July fiasco and the mounds of applications that they are having to deal with through no fault of their own.
I guess there is no point calling USCIS and checking status on EAD. I am hoping that the situation will improve and i will soon get EAD card.
If you want to try to speed this up, go online, make an infopass appointment at your local office and have them send an email or fax on your behalf.
I am not excusing the IO's right now but can you imagine the amount of calls they have had to endure since the July fiasco and the mounds of applications that they are having to deal with through no fault of their own.
sharadara
09-02 10:17 AM
Thanks GCDreamer and sbmallik.
Are you saying that an H4 visa holder cannot work online for an Indian co. and earn Indian income while residing in the US?
Are you saying that an H4 visa holder cannot work online for an Indian co. and earn Indian income while residing in the US?
No comments:
Post a Comment