shivaz90
07-16 10:40 PM
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
wallpaper smiley face cartoon pictures.
indianabacklog
11-10 04:04 PM
You can volunteer in a role that is always undertaken by individuals who are volunteers, such as in a hospital setting. In reality if you are volunteering for a for profit they are really getting unpaid assistance which technically should be done by an employee.
If you go serve dinners at a homeless mission or work as a hospital volunteer for example then you are just fine.
I do have this information from a lawyer incidentally as this question arose in our family.
If you go serve dinners at a homeless mission or work as a hospital volunteer for example then you are just fine.
I do have this information from a lawyer incidentally as this question arose in our family.
jonty_11
11-09 02:52 PM
Another important thing to note is that although GC is for a future employment oppportunity...you clearly state in Labor Application whether the employee is working with u currently....if u answer yes to that (which is the most common scenario) ...u have to provide the address of the location he works at...which shud be consistent with the Recruiting efforts undertaken (in that same area) by the employer......
So simple by saying that GC is for future employment, u cannot move around unless you clarify that in labor cert.
So simple by saying that GC is for future employment, u cannot move around unless you clarify that in labor cert.
2011 Smiley Face
sobers
07-04 12:06 PM
"It's like living in a holding pattern continuously," said Swati Srivastava, 28, a member of Immigration Voice, a new grass-roots organization of skilled foreign workers pushing for immigration reform. The Internet-based group formed late last year and has about 5,000 members scattered around the country.
"We work in [the] U.S. legally in high-skilled jobs, but we still get penalized for playing by the rules," Immigration Voice co-founder Aman Kapoor said in an e-mail. "Since no one was working on our issues, we decided to organize."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-skilledvisa3jul03,1,1670817.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1
"We work in [the] U.S. legally in high-skilled jobs, but we still get penalized for playing by the rules," Immigration Voice co-founder Aman Kapoor said in an e-mail. "Since no one was working on our issues, we decided to organize."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-skilledvisa3jul03,1,1670817.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1
more...
humdesi
02-17 11:02 PM
I was wondering what are the rules regarding the 'overflow' stuff. Any document ?
It's discussed here in detail:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=205986
It's discussed here in detail:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=205986
masouds
08-30 02:49 AM
Hi frnds,
I used to work for a company A in california.. Boss is kind of using very bad language constantly and torchers almost everyday. Is there any1 who can help me out or has similar situations. Is there any1 that i can file a complain. Since he knew that I am on H1B and international student he was continuously abusing. any help would appreciated.
Tanx.
You sure you want to go there? People talk tough (use f word, b word and Samuel L. Jackson's favorite word a lot to create an impression of "Don't you mess with me I am one tough guy"
Is he bad with H1-B people only or everyone regardless of their race/background/favorite color/etc?
Before you do anything, consult with a lawyer. In most places, you can complain to your boss' boss, or to HR. But please do that after talking to a lawyer (labor law). In some environments it is normal to be like that.
having said that, have you tried to find out what his real problem is? (assuming he is a he. )
I used to work for a company A in california.. Boss is kind of using very bad language constantly and torchers almost everyday. Is there any1 who can help me out or has similar situations. Is there any1 that i can file a complain. Since he knew that I am on H1B and international student he was continuously abusing. any help would appreciated.
Tanx.
You sure you want to go there? People talk tough (use f word, b word and Samuel L. Jackson's favorite word a lot to create an impression of "Don't you mess with me I am one tough guy"
Is he bad with H1-B people only or everyone regardless of their race/background/favorite color/etc?
Before you do anything, consult with a lawyer. In most places, you can complain to your boss' boss, or to HR. But please do that after talking to a lawyer (labor law). In some environments it is normal to be like that.
having said that, have you tried to find out what his real problem is? (assuming he is a he. )
more...
Green.Tech
09-24 01:47 PM
Thanks for the clear answer thepaew. That is what I thought. I currently have the opportunity to start the green card process with my employer under EB3 ROW, but I am also planning to go for an MBA in the US within the next few years. I am just into my 5th year of H1. It seems that I should not start the green card process if I am sure about going for an MBA in the US within the next few years. That would be terrible if you get into a school you like but cannot attend since you cannot switch from H1 to F1.
Seba,
If you don't plan to start your GC process for the next few years (waiting to enroll in an MBA program), how do you intend to extend your H-1 beyond the alloted 6-year time frame?
Seba,
If you don't plan to start your GC process for the next few years (waiting to enroll in an MBA program), how do you intend to extend your H-1 beyond the alloted 6-year time frame?
2010 How to Draw A Smiley Face
lost_in_migration
11-08 02:05 PM
Why are number of I-485 less than number of I-130
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
more...
hibhagya
05-15 12:03 PM
Great job and hope the current immigrations bill will pass this year.
hair baby_2u - Smiley Face.jpg
vbkris77
04-22 11:20 PM
First of all, this is a wrong forum to went our your points about illegals.. We in IV encourage a legal immigration. But the moment we start excluding people, the list can go on and on.. You start with so called illegasl today (with due sympathy for using that word..), but this exclusion will go on to legals, new doctors, engineers willing to come, settle and work in USA. Remember this is a land of immigrants. If you have any doubt, just look at the new bills introduced by senators to effectively kill H1B program the only legal option for most educated to come to US.
Lets for instance say we want everyone to go back to their own countries.. Where do you want to draw that line to go back, 1980?, 1900? how about 1600??
Grow up and learn to innovate new ways to get employed and live a happy life. Don't try to ruin the very foundation on which this country is built. Trust me there are more patriots in this forum than you could imagine..
Lets for instance say we want everyone to go back to their own countries.. Where do you want to draw that line to go back, 1980?, 1900? how about 1600??
Grow up and learn to innovate new ways to get employed and live a happy life. Don't try to ruin the very foundation on which this country is built. Trust me there are more patriots in this forum than you could imagine..
more...
LostInGCProcess
09-19 05:51 PM
meaning I can work for company B now and even though my h1b renewal approves with company A? then when I feel like I can go out and reenter before the h1b renewal period ends?
sabr, could you be more elaborate regarding the 2 companies, where do u work, and who is offering you the job, how do they want to hire you, etc... Please explain clearly what your question is? Iam trying to say something and you are interpreting it differently and it looks like we are off pace somewhere.
sabr, could you be more elaborate regarding the 2 companies, where do u work, and who is offering you the job, how do they want to hire you, etc... Please explain clearly what your question is? Iam trying to say something and you are interpreting it differently and it looks like we are off pace somewhere.
hot cool smiley face backgrounds.
deejk
03-10 11:11 AM
They started it from March 4, 2011. I have asked the USCIS representative when i called today about when they are starting the Secure Mail Initiative to track Green Card/EAD. The procedure is still the same, if its lost in mail, you will have to file I-90. But atleast you will know if it has been mailed, to which city, state, zipcode it has been mailed to.
more...
house of the Smiley Face will
zCool
02-25 10:38 PM
Do not move to IT!
Are you crazy?? IT is indentured servitude for some desi consultant!
stay away.. there are already plenty of slaves..
Are you crazy?? IT is indentured servitude for some desi consultant!
stay away.. there are already plenty of slaves..
tattoo sad smiley face clip art.
gsc999
02-08 10:33 PM
well i got marriage church, but we didn't got are license yet, because my husband have some problem in court.( he is a citzen) We'll know if he will go to jail or not in march 31.
my question is:
since we don't know if he will or not. I need to know if i can start my paper with the immigration?
because if he goes to jail.. how we will do the interview if he is not here to go?
what i can do??
somebody can help me?:confused:
Hello estrela,
Thanks for posting your message. It seems that you are talking about immigration to USA based on marriage. This may not be the right place for advise regarding that issue.
This forum is dedicated to the plight of high-skilled employment based immigrants.
Please consult an immigration attorney to look into this matter because your question is unclear and you mention court issues and other legal issues. We do not want to give you incorrect advise regarding such crucial issue.
Best of luck
my question is:
since we don't know if he will or not. I need to know if i can start my paper with the immigration?
because if he goes to jail.. how we will do the interview if he is not here to go?
what i can do??
somebody can help me?:confused:
Hello estrela,
Thanks for posting your message. It seems that you are talking about immigration to USA based on marriage. This may not be the right place for advise regarding that issue.
This forum is dedicated to the plight of high-skilled employment based immigrants.
Please consult an immigration attorney to look into this matter because your question is unclear and you mention court issues and other legal issues. We do not want to give you incorrect advise regarding such crucial issue.
Best of luck
more...
pictures smiley-face.gifquot; altquot;Big
sapota
02-27 01:51 PM
From March 05 to Sep 06 data can be found at :
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/OFLC_Report_v11_8-23-07.pdf
This is the kind of transparency people are looking for. USCIS does publish statisics too. Hoping that they take all this data & propose legislation and or administrative solutions to address bottleneck issues.
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/OFLC_Report_v11_8-23-07.pdf
This is the kind of transparency people are looking for. USCIS does publish statisics too. Hoping that they take all this data & propose legislation and or administrative solutions to address bottleneck issues.
dresses Smiley Face Wallpapers
optimystic
03-19 03:13 PM
Its unfortunate that you have a very recent RD. I talked to an IO at NSC yesterday and i was told that they will process the case based on the order they recieved. So they go by RD. If this is true then i guess you will have to wait some more time. Because thousands of people applied I-485 between June first to July 30.
Sure, but Nebraska, where my case is at, has a processing date of July 30 07, same as my receipt date. So I assume they must be processing cases that are filed on the same day as mine at this point. So at the most the number of cases before mine is the total number of cases filed on the same day as mine at the Nebrasks service center , right? I mean it could still be a huge number of cases, but they have been on July 30 date for almost a month now. I hope they are getting close to my case.
On a side note, do these Processing dates also retrogress? When are they updated? Along with Visa bulletin updates?
Sure, but Nebraska, where my case is at, has a processing date of July 30 07, same as my receipt date. So I assume they must be processing cases that are filed on the same day as mine at this point. So at the most the number of cases before mine is the total number of cases filed on the same day as mine at the Nebrasks service center , right? I mean it could still be a huge number of cases, but they have been on July 30 date for almost a month now. I hope they are getting close to my case.
On a side note, do these Processing dates also retrogress? When are they updated? Along with Visa bulletin updates?
more...
makeup Smiley Face
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
girlfriend Smiley Face
espoir
06-21 05:56 AM
As per my understanding, once you have a receipt notice for EAD and/or AP, it will be processed completely. Approval/rejection of EAD/AP is NOT linked with visa number availability. Many are under the misconception that they won't get their EAD and AP if the PD dates move back.
Given the current and anticipated volume, one should expect delays in processing times.
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
Given the current and anticipated volume, one should expect delays in processing times.
IN the same context, how about EAD.
If I file I-485 and lets say the dates retrogess and my PD is not current, then as mentioned and if an EAD is not yet issued does the EAD issuance and I-485 both are "suspended" till PD becomes current or is it just the I-485...
I guess what I want to ask is that is EAD linked to PD date ?
hairstyles Smiley Face Clip Art 082210
digital2k
08-03 06:25 PM
*
ck_b2001
07-17 07:37 PM
Hi All,
I applied for my 485 on June 30th 2007, It reached USCIS on July 2nd. On July 2nd morning USCIS announced that all applications will be rejected because there are no VISA numbers. Considering that I went to Mexico on July 12th and got my H1 stamped. Today USCIS has announced that it will accept applications through 8/17/2007.
My question is: In my 485 app. I entered my old I-94# and VISA #. Since I went to Mexico and got my H1 stamped and entered US my I-94 and VISA #'s have changed. Will this be an issue?
I heard that USCIS will verify my status using the I-94 on the 485 form before issuing a 485 reciept. In which case my old I-94 would show that I have left the country & USCIS can abondon my application!! Is this true? Has this happend to any of you?
Please advise.
Thanks,
Nachi
You should seek legal advice. you are correct in saying that at POE they need to know that you had applied for 485 so that when they issue I-94, your filed petition is still vaild and not considered abandoned.
I applied for my 485 on June 30th 2007, It reached USCIS on July 2nd. On July 2nd morning USCIS announced that all applications will be rejected because there are no VISA numbers. Considering that I went to Mexico on July 12th and got my H1 stamped. Today USCIS has announced that it will accept applications through 8/17/2007.
My question is: In my 485 app. I entered my old I-94# and VISA #. Since I went to Mexico and got my H1 stamped and entered US my I-94 and VISA #'s have changed. Will this be an issue?
I heard that USCIS will verify my status using the I-94 on the 485 form before issuing a 485 reciept. In which case my old I-94 would show that I have left the country & USCIS can abondon my application!! Is this true? Has this happend to any of you?
Please advise.
Thanks,
Nachi
You should seek legal advice. you are correct in saying that at POE they need to know that you had applied for 485 so that when they issue I-94, your filed petition is still vaild and not considered abandoned.
dehradoon
11-13 06:08 PM
ok. let's say I-140 approved and pass 180 days. the person is working using ac21 and ead with a new company. the person is travelling using AP , the old company withdraw I-140, will he be able to come back in the us ?
once the person is working for the new company can he send the offer letter to avoid problem with 485. kinda of preemption - proactive approach or does the person needs to wait until ins request?
Dude, you really need to use the search feature on this forum. after I140 is approved and 485 pending for 180 days, the I140 stays in effect even if the company tried to revoke it.
Once you invoke AC21, it is not required (although suggested) to send papers to USCIS. I have read that you should not do anything until you get an RFE which I think is the best way, This makes sure that your case is being properly handled if you are unlucky enough to get an RFE. Y would anyone what to raise a flag by sending in paperwork to USCIS indicating the use of AC21, I personally know atleast 15 friends who have done this with out telling USCIS and have received their GC's
So, The bottom line is if -
I140 approved and 485 pending for more than 180.
START LIVING YOUR DREAM, DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. CHANGE YOUR JOB, GET A RAISE, OPEN A COMPANY, BUY A HOUSE .... WHATEVER, DON'T GET MARRIED - SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT WHILE YOU WERE ON H1
THE AC21 IS A LAW - USE IT, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT USING A LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY YOUR SITUATION IN FRONT OF AN AGENCY THAT REQUIRES YOU BY LAW TO PROVE IT.
OH! AND AS FAR AS TRAVEL IS CONCERNED, JUST HAVE THE DOCS IN HAND AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS (don't commit a crime though, or be drunk in front of the immigration officer). LOL
once the person is working for the new company can he send the offer letter to avoid problem with 485. kinda of preemption - proactive approach or does the person needs to wait until ins request?
Dude, you really need to use the search feature on this forum. after I140 is approved and 485 pending for 180 days, the I140 stays in effect even if the company tried to revoke it.
Once you invoke AC21, it is not required (although suggested) to send papers to USCIS. I have read that you should not do anything until you get an RFE which I think is the best way, This makes sure that your case is being properly handled if you are unlucky enough to get an RFE. Y would anyone what to raise a flag by sending in paperwork to USCIS indicating the use of AC21, I personally know atleast 15 friends who have done this with out telling USCIS and have received their GC's
So, The bottom line is if -
I140 approved and 485 pending for more than 180.
START LIVING YOUR DREAM, DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. CHANGE YOUR JOB, GET A RAISE, OPEN A COMPANY, BUY A HOUSE .... WHATEVER, DON'T GET MARRIED - SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT WHILE YOU WERE ON H1
THE AC21 IS A LAW - USE IT, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT USING A LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY YOUR SITUATION IN FRONT OF AN AGENCY THAT REQUIRES YOU BY LAW TO PROVE IT.
OH! AND AS FAR AS TRAVEL IS CONCERNED, JUST HAVE THE DOCS IN HAND AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS (don't commit a crime though, or be drunk in front of the immigration officer). LOL
No comments:
Post a Comment