LongJourny
02-03 10:54 PM
Hi Guys,
Thought you might interested in my case status. I have visited chennai consulate and my case was approved without any questions raised. They did not even asked any documents for verification. All I submitted were DS 156, DS 157 AND I797. I am glad to share my experience. Thanks for offering suggestions and sharing your experience. :D
Thought you might interested in my case status. I have visited chennai consulate and my case was approved without any questions raised. They did not even asked any documents for verification. All I submitted were DS 156, DS 157 AND I797. I am glad to share my experience. Thanks for offering suggestions and sharing your experience. :D
wallpaper Jaden and Willow Smith rocked
hariswaminathan
01-21 07:15 PM
If your husband is on H1-B he should NOT have an expired I-94 as this would mean he is out of status. I presume you have extended his H1-B (I797 approval) which would have your new I-94 attached to it.
beyond this - i concur with others that i recently did go to India on vacation with family on AP and there is no longer a requirement that visit outside while I-485 requires a valid reason. This clause was for an old situation when all categories were current and people got their GCs within months of filing I-485 and they didnt like you travelling during this short period. With GCs now taking years for approval they cannot ask you to remain in this country indefinitely without travel.
that being said - I have heard of horror stories from people arriving at certain ports of entry (SFO If im not mistaken) where the uninformed IO has questioned them on their reason for leaving and threatening to take action because "vacation" is not considered as valid emergency travel. I would therefore prepare some kind of answer incase you come across one of these buffoons.
Can soneone help me with this question.....please....
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
beyond this - i concur with others that i recently did go to India on vacation with family on AP and there is no longer a requirement that visit outside while I-485 requires a valid reason. This clause was for an old situation when all categories were current and people got their GCs within months of filing I-485 and they didnt like you travelling during this short period. With GCs now taking years for approval they cannot ask you to remain in this country indefinitely without travel.
that being said - I have heard of horror stories from people arriving at certain ports of entry (SFO If im not mistaken) where the uninformed IO has questioned them on their reason for leaving and threatening to take action because "vacation" is not considered as valid emergency travel. I would therefore prepare some kind of answer incase you come across one of these buffoons.
Can soneone help me with this question.....please....
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
walking_dude
11-21 11:08 AM
Your links are working ,despite how they show up in your post. Click on them and see for yourself!
Let's work for our cause, instead of worrying about what benefits others are getting due to political reasons.
Cubans are politically active and highly vocal in advocacy of their cause. Are you?
Let's work for our cause, instead of worrying about what benefits others are getting due to political reasons.
Cubans are politically active and highly vocal in advocacy of their cause. Are you?
2011 2011 Kids#39; Choice Awards
braindrain
09-02 11:45 PM
I am planning to sponsor visitors visa for my parents and and based on the available documentation I need to submit my birth certificate as part of the required docs.
My parents name in the their passport is not exactly the same as in my birth certificate. The last name is good and the issue is with the first and middle names not being exactly the same. Will this be an issue when they go for VISA. Should I get the names corrected in my parents passport before applying for VISA.
If we need to correct the names in the passport in India, does anyone have an idea of the process and how long it might take.
Any advice/help is greatly appreciated.
My parents name in the their passport is not exactly the same as in my birth certificate. The last name is good and the issue is with the first and middle names not being exactly the same. Will this be an issue when they go for VISA. Should I get the names corrected in my parents passport before applying for VISA.
If we need to correct the names in the passport in India, does anyone have an idea of the process and how long it might take.
Any advice/help is greatly appreciated.
more...
digitalborealis
01-10 10:51 AM
That probably was unnecessary and may triggered the additional check due to export control of high end researches.
I can imagine.. I work on Assisted GPS platform on US Wireless Carrier Phones. So When he heard GPS, he (VO) must have raised the flag. Having said that, I am a direct employee, not through any consulting company or so. it is just a matter of time. Just wait and watch.
I will update any reply I would get.
D
I can imagine.. I work on Assisted GPS platform on US Wireless Carrier Phones. So When he heard GPS, he (VO) must have raised the flag. Having said that, I am a direct employee, not through any consulting company or so. it is just a matter of time. Just wait and watch.
I will update any reply I would get.
D
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...
liche
04-20 06:23 PM
USCIS said you should receive receipt dated no later than June 2
you can check their official press release (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=183f301458e49110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD).
you can check their official press release (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=183f301458e49110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD).
2010 Miley Cyrus, Will Smith,
gc_bulgaria
11-25 09:22 PM
I called TSC and spoke to someone. Forgot to get the date though. Will do so tomorrow.
1-800-375-5283
1, 2, 2, 6, 1
Now enter your receipt number
1, 1 (now listen to the case update info)
3, 4
1-800-375-5283
1, 2, 2, 6, 1
Now enter your receipt number
1, 1 (now listen to the case update info)
3, 4
more...
seahawks
09-09 12:59 PM
^^^ bump ^^^
hair will smith kids choice awards.
prash20
05-29 09:26 PM
the reason for denial was regarding the Company B , they were saying that Company B doesnt qualify as a employer or agent so cannot employ me
The transfer was from Company A h1 to Company B h1 not from university h1 to compnay B h1
The transfer was from Company A h1 to Company B h1 not from university h1 to compnay B h1
more...
aadimanav
11-02 12:31 AM
Thanks SatyaRaj and Paskal.
hot Will Smith 58 spottings
seekerofpeace
10-05 11:05 PM
that was hilarious GCN007...BTW my wife got approved to finally....
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
more...
house Kids#39; Choice Awards 2011:
ivgclive
12-19 08:34 AM
Hi All,
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him, ....
AJ
I asked my friend about this, since he has not had any idea he asked his friend, who suggsted to talk to another friend of his friend who knows little about immigration and he told my friend of friend of friend that "Tell your friend or be assured that you can not talk for your friend in immigration related issues".
Guys, we are entering 2010...
One of my friend is in a bad situation, I am posting on behalf of him, ....
AJ
I asked my friend about this, since he has not had any idea he asked his friend, who suggsted to talk to another friend of his friend who knows little about immigration and he told my friend of friend of friend that "Tell your friend or be assured that you can not talk for your friend in immigration related issues".
Guys, we are entering 2010...
tattoo (CBS) Singer Willow Smith will
james_bond_007
05-01 07:25 PM
Since the stamped visa is valid till Sep 2009, you can travel without stamping the new visa. BUT it is extremely important that you show the approved H1B notice (I-797) at the port of entry. This will make sure your I-94 will be valid till 2011. You will have issues with H1B stamping / renewal if the I-94 dates are incorrect. One of my friend went thru the same situation and he has to correct the I-94 dates by going to a local immigration office.
more...
pictures Willow Smith to Sing at Kids#39;
lahiribaba
02-12 02:08 AM
When I had posted a similar concept a few months back in this site I was ridiculed and called a madman...but now I see appreciation from the same people about a similar idea.
Well no bitter feeling about this but just wanted to highlight the fact that Indians in general offer the most resistance to a new idea specially if it comes from someone of their own.
We get what we deserve..:)
Well no bitter feeling about this but just wanted to highlight the fact that Indians in general offer the most resistance to a new idea specially if it comes from someone of their own.
We get what we deserve..:)
dresses 2011 Kids#39; Choice Awards,
skd
07-19 12:20 PM
My lawyer did not ask for Tax return for filing i-485 .He just asked for W-2's only ??
Is Tax Return for last 3 years is required document ?
Is Tax Return for last 3 years is required document ?
more...
makeup Black Eyed Peas, Kid#39;s Choice
PD_Dec2002
07-07 09:58 PM
Thanks for your reply. We just published the ad a week ago. Is that a big deal to revise now ? It went into computer world and stuff. I am not sure how difficult it would be.
Hence for this matter, I have another employer willing to file my LC this month. But I am thinking since I was not with them when they sent out the ad and requesting wage details, IS this something considered equivalent to LC subsitution if I join them and file my LC with already sent out ad ??
Your answer is highly important.
Thanks
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But before you get flamed (and correctly so) by everyone, I just have one advice for you: "What goes around comes around".
Never, never ever do anything in life that will come back to haunt you. Dishonesty can only go so far...
Good luck.
Thanks,
Jayant
Hence for this matter, I have another employer willing to file my LC this month. But I am thinking since I was not with them when they sent out the ad and requesting wage details, IS this something considered equivalent to LC subsitution if I join them and file my LC with already sent out ad ??
Your answer is highly important.
Thanks
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But before you get flamed (and correctly so) by everyone, I just have one advice for you: "What goes around comes around".
Never, never ever do anything in life that will come back to haunt you. Dishonesty can only go so far...
Good luck.
Thanks,
Jayant
girlfriend pictures will smith kids
sathyaraj
11-02 10:38 AM
I think you still do not understand my point, EB3 PDs are stuck at 2001/2002. How will nurses be able to use these EB3 visas with their PD > 2006 ?
No. It will not help.
Schedule A workers first get GCs from EB3 quota and when they finsih that, they take the recapture numbers. When there is no recapture rule, they are treated as other regular EB3s.
Do you think there are only 61K nurses waiting in line?
Nurses from the whole world will want to come here if it is made easy for them and are qualfied. Who will not? Ask yourself.
No. It will not help.
Schedule A workers first get GCs from EB3 quota and when they finsih that, they take the recapture numbers. When there is no recapture rule, they are treated as other regular EB3s.
Do you think there are only 61K nurses waiting in line?
Nurses from the whole world will want to come here if it is made easy for them and are qualfied. Who will not? Ask yourself.
hairstyles will smith kids 2009.
ravi2patel
07-23 11:19 PM
Hi,
My situation is as follows:
1) approved RIR labor 2002
2) approved perm labor 2005
3) approved i-140 2006 (PD 2005)
4) ALL of above for company-A. 2006 company-B took over.
My lawyer said i cannot file and have to start again with new labor as merger/acquistion was 'asset only' type.
I want to self-file i-485 giving the company "name change" letter as the only proof along with the rest of regular documents. Company-B employer is in 100% support of my application.
SHOULD I just waste $$$$ money or take a chance ? PLEASE HELP...TIRED OF WAITING FOR LAST 5 years :(
Regards,
-Ravi
My situation is as follows:
1) approved RIR labor 2002
2) approved perm labor 2005
3) approved i-140 2006 (PD 2005)
4) ALL of above for company-A. 2006 company-B took over.
My lawyer said i cannot file and have to start again with new labor as merger/acquistion was 'asset only' type.
I want to self-file i-485 giving the company "name change" letter as the only proof along with the rest of regular documents. Company-B employer is in 100% support of my application.
SHOULD I just waste $$$$ money or take a chance ? PLEASE HELP...TIRED OF WAITING FOR LAST 5 years :(
Regards,
-Ravi
raj1998
05-20 09:55 PM
Its been real fast. Yesterday I received my Approval letter, today I received my Card in mail.
Application was approved on 13 may after opening SR on 6th may. So canceling INFOPASS... :)
Application was approved on 13 may after opening SR on 6th may. So canceling INFOPASS... :)
transpass
08-01 12:42 PM
I am pleasantly surprised and would like to thank Sen Menendez on behalf of all the IV members in his constituency for sponsoring visa recapture bill in Senate. Few days back when we called his office, his position was different. But because of we all calling and requesting for his support, he graciouly has agreed to take up our case. Speaking with his staff, I came to know that more than thousand calls were made to his office in support of the visa recapture bill.
This is just my thinking...
Sen Menendez vigorously supports family based immigration...I watched the failed comprehensive immigration debate on senate floor almost in its entirety. There, he was like a lone warrior arguing against the senators (Like Sessions) who said CIR bill encourages chain migration, etc...He was totally supporting visas that enable family reunions.
hr 5882 supports recapture of lost family based visas along with those of employment based. So no surprise Sen Menendez introduced the senate version of the house bill...And that's good for us...and we will take it...
This is just my thinking...
Sen Menendez vigorously supports family based immigration...I watched the failed comprehensive immigration debate on senate floor almost in its entirety. There, he was like a lone warrior arguing against the senators (Like Sessions) who said CIR bill encourages chain migration, etc...He was totally supporting visas that enable family reunions.
hr 5882 supports recapture of lost family based visas along with those of employment based. So no surprise Sen Menendez introduced the senate version of the house bill...And that's good for us...and we will take it...
No comments:
Post a Comment