mirage
02-06 10:38 PM
^^Bump^^
wallpaper Beautiful Mountain Screesaver
pappu
12-26 11:07 PM
Thank you go_gc_way, for this effort. Hundreds of members may have seen your thread but nobody could spend 15 minutes on this simple effort. I hope by tomorrow you will have good company.
sayantan76
08-23 11:10 AM
Hi, I hope somebody helps in my dilemma.
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
i am not a lawyer -so get expert opinion.....
but the logic of L1A becoming instantly invalid for someone already in US office if the foreign office closes does not sound logical, even by USCIS standards. I would suggest taking a good 2nd opinion.
Also - if you are in L1A - you should technically qualify for EB-1 which is current for all countries and if that category applies to your situation - you would not need to go through Labor Cert - a couple of friends of mine got their GC in less than 90 days using the EB1 route.
All the best!
I am currently on an L1A visa. I heard that my main office (where I am now working) is closing the foreign office where I come from. Based on L1 requirements and facts, it states that once the subsidiary closes, my L1 becomes invalid. Given this, the company is willing to sponsor my green card as soon as possible. It will probably still take a year before the subsidiary officially closes. What are my options? If they have to close the company while my green card is being process, would it be cancelled ?
Thanks.
i am not a lawyer -so get expert opinion.....
but the logic of L1A becoming instantly invalid for someone already in US office if the foreign office closes does not sound logical, even by USCIS standards. I would suggest taking a good 2nd opinion.
Also - if you are in L1A - you should technically qualify for EB-1 which is current for all countries and if that category applies to your situation - you would not need to go through Labor Cert - a couple of friends of mine got their GC in less than 90 days using the EB1 route.
All the best!
2011 Juan Mountains wallpaper,
sw33t
01-18 08:19 PM
Since my statement about making copies of offical US documents is causing confusion, let me rephrase & elaborate -
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
I, as many of you were, was stopped and requested to provide proof of immigration status. I had a color photocopy of my US Visa Stamp of my passport.
Besides the fact that the Border Patrol agent denied the photocopy as proof of immigration status, he did let me go as soon as I provided my College ID and a DL, warning me that it is against the law to make a photocopy of an official US IMMIGRATION document FOR PERSONAL USE. I did argue about the scenario if I ended up losing my passport and vital documents, which is why I had made copies. He shook his head and repeated the same - NO PHOTOCOPIES OF OFFICIAL US IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE. So, while you are allowed to provide photocopies of official US documents for official government purposes, you cannot make copies of official US IMMIGRATION documents for personal use. I have a pretty busy schedule so I don't have the patience to search, cut and paste the section of the law which refers to this since I did research this at that time and deemed correct the Border Agent's warning.
more...
gcpain
06-25 11:07 AM
I was working with employer -A till 2006 and got I140 approved (June 2003 priority date) in EB3. In November 2006 I joined employer B as it is good for my carrier. I talk to employer A (body shopper) and he is ready to support for my green card as I worked for him for six long years and still he did not cancel my old H1B. My main aim here is to apply I485 as soon as I can.
1. I have two options here my old employer (A) is body-shopper. So he will agree for both future or current employment. I have very good permanent job and bright future prospects with new employer (B). In this case what you guys advice me? Apply I485 as future employment or quit present job and join old employer (A) and apply I485 as current employment?
2. If I do not join old employer (with whom I have I140 approved) now, in this case what are my options for I485 applying? (Only future employment I485/ I can file current employment I485 and not drawing any salary from old employer )
3. Will I485 as future employment has any problems?
4. Can I use AC21 after 180 days on my I485 future employment application?
5. My new employer (B) already applied PERM LC for my GC in EB2 three months back and did not here anything from Atlanta DOL till now. What you guys advice me? Is it worthful to wait for this new EB2 LC or apply I485 as future employment with approved I140-EB3 with priority date June 2003.
I am in really dilemma and unable to decide. Appreciate your advice in this matter. Thanks in advance to all your replies and wish you best of luck.
1. I have two options here my old employer (A) is body-shopper. So he will agree for both future or current employment. I have very good permanent job and bright future prospects with new employer (B). In this case what you guys advice me? Apply I485 as future employment or quit present job and join old employer (A) and apply I485 as current employment?
2. If I do not join old employer (with whom I have I140 approved) now, in this case what are my options for I485 applying? (Only future employment I485/ I can file current employment I485 and not drawing any salary from old employer )
3. Will I485 as future employment has any problems?
4. Can I use AC21 after 180 days on my I485 future employment application?
5. My new employer (B) already applied PERM LC for my GC in EB2 three months back and did not here anything from Atlanta DOL till now. What you guys advice me? Is it worthful to wait for this new EB2 LC or apply I485 as future employment with approved I140-EB3 with priority date June 2003.
I am in really dilemma and unable to decide. Appreciate your advice in this matter. Thanks in advance to all your replies and wish you best of luck.
yadavnay
07-23 09:16 AM
Yes you can work on h1B , but you need to file for a change of status , which normally take 2-3 months in normal processing and 15 days if you file premium. Ask your H1b employer to file for the change of staus under premium.
Please note that once your status is changed you can no longer continue on L1A. Mine was the same case and I followed the same steps some year back.
Thanx
Please note that once your status is changed you can no longer continue on L1A. Mine was the same case and I followed the same steps some year back.
Thanx
more...
bayarea07
09-10 02:20 PM
I dont think its the Right Link the link that you sent has lot of action going on but
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html
has people moving all over the place and no action
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
2010 Mountain
ultimo
07-24 08:56 AM
Is there anyone like my case - concurrently submitting 140 and 485 who submitted WITHOUT current employment letter ?
my friends lawyer also told the same no need for employment letter . if you have applied for i140
my friends lawyer also told the same no need for employment letter . if you have applied for i140
more...
nixstor
07-04 09:44 PM
Please stop posting this on every thread. In one line you are just spamming. We all visit Attorney Oh's website often. He does not need any publicity
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
hair pictures Mountains Wallpapers
needGCcool
03-12 09:51 AM
I do care for the dates..but I am more disappointed with the language you use....This is a public forum...Learn some manners is all my point was to you.
Aadarniyah Mittar,
Aapki date current nahi hooyi toh mera kya kasoor...Lagta hai aapko bhi October tak inteyaar karna padega.
Aadarniyah Mittar,
Aapki date current nahi hooyi toh mera kya kasoor...Lagta hai aapko bhi October tak inteyaar karna padega.
more...
reddymjm
09-10 12:38 PM
EB2 I/C won't be current in the next 4-5 Years, the EB2 I/C demand till date (Today’s Date) is in the 100K - 120K Range. The EB2I/C demand till Jul/Aug 2007 is easily in the 40-45K Range so it will require a very over optimistic scenario to clear by Sep 2011. EB3 ROW will reach end of 2006 by FY 2011. So there is a very long way to go. All the movement is under many assumptions most important being the economy and unemployment, anytime this changes all spillover will collapse and there will really be no difference between EB2 I/C and EB3 I/C.
where is this 120k EB2I and C coming up from, those who haven't filed 485 yet? So you are expecting another july 2007 making all EB2 Current.
where is this 120k EB2I and C coming up from, those who haven't filed 485 yet? So you are expecting another july 2007 making all EB2 Current.
hot Renn-Louie#39;s wallpaper
.soulty
02-15 09:21 PM
nice wip screens there guys, looking good :thumb:
thirdworldman thats looking amazing, you going to have that perspective view as your final frame or you going to check for another shot when you finished rendering?
great stuff.. ;)
thirdworldman thats looking amazing, you going to have that perspective view as your final frame or you going to check for another shot when you finished rendering?
great stuff.. ;)
more...
house w880 wallpapers mountains
leoindiano
03-17 10:19 AM
EB2 India PD came only up till April 2004 before it retrogressed. There is no way anybody whose PD is between April to Sept 2004 could have applied before July 2007. They might have applied only in July 2007 when USCIS made EB2 PD current by mistake.
Before retrogression started in "October 2005 Bulletin, Nov 2005 effective", there are quite a few people who applied for I-485 and had PD upto sept 2004. Those cases are approved. I know couple of cases myself.
Before retrogression started in "October 2005 Bulletin, Nov 2005 effective", there are quite a few people who applied for I-485 and had PD upto sept 2004. Those cases are approved. I know couple of cases myself.
tattoo images wallpapers mountain
ajthakur
07-14 07:14 PM
I left a message for my previous employer. I am not sure whether they will provide this information to me.
That is the reason I was asking you to try to find from your ex-employer if you could get any news.General procedure from what I have read is to issue a NOID but they have given you a RFE which keeps you alive for now.Maybe your ex-emplyer cancelled your 140 after 180 days but again all this is a shot in the dark and only your ex-employer has the answer for this.
That is the reason I was asking you to try to find from your ex-employer if you could get any news.General procedure from what I have read is to issue a NOID but they have given you a RFE which keeps you alive for now.Maybe your ex-emplyer cancelled your 140 after 180 days but again all this is a shot in the dark and only your ex-employer has the answer for this.
more...
pictures dawns knight mountains evening
ambrishmisra
04-11 01:49 PM
Thanks a lot... :)
dresses images Mountains Wallpaper
fullerene
07-04 08:18 PM
If we don't raise our concerns at the moment, how can we let lawmakers understand our situations and our requests? The goal of this forum is to speak out our voice. This is a very good chance to unify all of us to speak out loudly. We shall not to care too much about the outcome of the lawsuit. As far as I understand, none of us knows better on immigration laws and litigations than these lawyers. If they has decided to do something, we shall concentrate ourselves on supporting them instead of questioning them. Meanwhile we shall urge the lawmakers to pass SKILL or at least to make a more stable and predictable process to practice the immigration law.
We shall let all the lawmakers who support the CIR understand how they can resolve problems practically for 12M without any legal documents in the USA if our problems on the process cannot be resolved. The basises for addressing 12M illegal immigrants are and only are to have an effective and efficient border control system AND an effective and efficient process to handle all the legal applicants.
We shall let all the lawmakers who support the CIR understand how they can resolve problems practically for 12M without any legal documents in the USA if our problems on the process cannot be resolved. The basises for addressing 12M illegal immigrants are and only are to have an effective and efficient border control system AND an effective and efficient process to handle all the legal applicants.
more...
makeup Mountain Lake Live Wallpaper
bigboy007
06-19 05:11 PM
its illegal to take color photocopies of driver licences, ONLY send b/w
girlfriend Simonsberg Mountains
pmb76
03-18 04:58 PM
Link is here: http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4285&page=26
Ron Gotcher said on his reply to some readers questions:
The mystery is solved. I have corresponded with Charlie Oppenheim in the Visa Office. He confirmed that the 27% limit does apply. He explained that during this fiscal year, the CIS consumed an unusually large number of Indian EB2 visas, thus making the category unavailable despite a retrogression in the cuoff date which was intended to hold number use within the limit.
He said that based on his discussions with the CIS, he was informed that the CIS did not feel that the current amount of pending Indian first preference demand would be insufficient to use all available numbers under the limit. Therefore, he allowed some of those numbers to fall down into Indian second preference.
So, the Indian second preference numbers used to establish a cutoff date for April are coming from left over Indian first preference, not worldwide numbers.
__________________
Your statement about 27% limit holding does not make sense ! As per the visa bulletin if numbers are not filled up in a particular category they will go to unsubscribed countries. Here is the excerpt from the April Visa bulletin:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially.
Ron Gotcher said on his reply to some readers questions:
The mystery is solved. I have corresponded with Charlie Oppenheim in the Visa Office. He confirmed that the 27% limit does apply. He explained that during this fiscal year, the CIS consumed an unusually large number of Indian EB2 visas, thus making the category unavailable despite a retrogression in the cuoff date which was intended to hold number use within the limit.
He said that based on his discussions with the CIS, he was informed that the CIS did not feel that the current amount of pending Indian first preference demand would be insufficient to use all available numbers under the limit. Therefore, he allowed some of those numbers to fall down into Indian second preference.
So, the Indian second preference numbers used to establish a cutoff date for April are coming from left over Indian first preference, not worldwide numbers.
__________________
Your statement about 27% limit holding does not make sense ! As per the visa bulletin if numbers are not filled up in a particular category they will go to unsubscribed countries. Here is the excerpt from the April Visa bulletin:
D. INDIA EMPLOYMENT SECOND PREFERENCE VISA AVAILABILITY
Section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter, then the unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual �per-country� limit. It has been determined that based on the current level of demand being received, primarily by Citizenship and Immigration Services Offices, there would be otherwise unused numbers in the Employment Second preference category. As a result, numbers have once again become available to the India Employment Second preference category. The rate of number use in the Employment Second preference category will continue to be monitored, and it may be necessary to make adjustments should the level of demand increase substantially.
hairstyles Wallpaper - Mountain
ramaonline
08-21 12:54 PM
The I485 Supplement A is for 245 i which means you had to be present in the US in the year 2000. Since you never entered the US until 2003 it does not look like this form is required in your case. Please call the USCIS customer service number to confirm this.
vin13
03-09 01:45 PM
I cannot express my anguish.
I can understand the anguish. When you are really close and the bulletin does not move.
I can understand the anguish. When you are really close and the bulletin does not move.
sprash
02-02 01:42 PM
Out of status is usually checked until date of I-485 filing. One exception being working without valid and active EAD when I-485 is pending.
H1 status, one should be paid what is mention in H1 LCA and it is not related to LC Salary for green card. LC Salary comes into picture for ability-to-pay issues.
Thanks for your inputs Desi.
I have been following this thread with great interest. I'm the guy who posted the RFE scans on Pg1.
In my case the RFE was issued 1.5 years after filing for AOS (I filed in July 07 and this RFE was on Oct 08). Also, I'm not the only person who got this. I know many folks who work for big companies like Intel etc, who got such an RFE.
Also if I remember correctly, Belle on Murthy Forums (who also seems in the know) mentioned that one must be employed at all times on EAD. I didn't find any specific timeframe -- most people said you could get into trouble if an RFE (such as mine) is raised and you're out of a job. On the other hand, it is might be safe till such an RFE is issued (???)
I tried to look for that thread, but couldn't find it. However I did find another similar thread on which she (he?) has said the same thing:
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=9941019581&r=3791069581#3791069581
In tumultuous times such as these, I would expect USCIS to raise many more such RFEs.
H1 status, one should be paid what is mention in H1 LCA and it is not related to LC Salary for green card. LC Salary comes into picture for ability-to-pay issues.
Thanks for your inputs Desi.
I have been following this thread with great interest. I'm the guy who posted the RFE scans on Pg1.
In my case the RFE was issued 1.5 years after filing for AOS (I filed in July 07 and this RFE was on Oct 08). Also, I'm not the only person who got this. I know many folks who work for big companies like Intel etc, who got such an RFE.
Also if I remember correctly, Belle on Murthy Forums (who also seems in the know) mentioned that one must be employed at all times on EAD. I didn't find any specific timeframe -- most people said you could get into trouble if an RFE (such as mine) is raised and you're out of a job. On the other hand, it is might be safe till such an RFE is issued (???)
I tried to look for that thread, but couldn't find it. However I did find another similar thread on which she (he?) has said the same thing:
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=9941019581&r=3791069581#3791069581
In tumultuous times such as these, I would expect USCIS to raise many more such RFEs.
No comments:
Post a Comment