akhilmahajan
04-23 09:41 AM
Thanks a lot guys for your inputs. I hope everything goes fine.......
heard these days it is taking more then 6 months for I140 approval...........
mine was filed in marcha, 07 in the Texas processing center...........
heard these days it is taking more then 6 months for I140 approval...........
mine was filed in marcha, 07 in the Texas processing center...........
wallpaper short missing you poems
485Mbe4001
03-06 02:11 PM
so now people give red dots just for asking a question about EB3...where is ACLU:D
Guys:
Everyone is talking EB2....what are the prospects for EB3 - India??
Is it going to move forward..??
Good Luck..??
Guys:
Everyone is talking EB2....what are the prospects for EB3 - India??
Is it going to move forward..??
Good Luck..??
Leo07
05-14 01:18 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
2011 short missing you poems
perm2gc
12-03 04:30 PM
hello all,
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
It will take 2 weeks once you submit all the documents.
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
It will take 2 weeks once you submit all the documents.
more...
kevinkris
05-08 02:43 PM
05/08/2008: Fashion Model Nonimmigrant Visa Reclassification and Relief Legislation Inching Ahead - 05/08/2008 Mark-Up
* Currently, foreign fashion models come to work in the U.S. under the nonimmigrant visa classification of H-1B. A legislative bill , H.R. 4080, was introduced last December in the House to reclassify the visa classification from H-1B to P visas for artists and athlets. This morning, the House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee is scheduled to debate 9:30 a.m. on this bill and it is expected that this bill will move ahead to the House floor. For the full text of the bill, please click the bill number.
* Currently, foreign fashion models come to work in the U.S. under the nonimmigrant visa classification of H-1B. A legislative bill , H.R. 4080, was introduced last December in the House to reclassify the visa classification from H-1B to P visas for artists and athlets. This morning, the House Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee is scheduled to debate 9:30 a.m. on this bill and it is expected that this bill will move ahead to the House floor. For the full text of the bill, please click the bill number.
krishna_brc
05-05 08:54 AM
Yes, we don't need original I-485 receipt notice to travel.
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
more...
yawl
07-26 01:46 PM
Greg Siskind reported that there is another amendment(2448) by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that would allocate 61,000 green cards unused in prior years to Schedule A nurses and physical therapists:
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/schumer-nurse-i.html
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/schumer-nurse-i.html
2010 short i miss you poems. short i miss you poems. miss
perm2gc
08-02 02:17 PM
Hello All,
As it is very urgent , i kindly request anyone to reply with a detailed or on which clause is it possible to enter usa in this situation.
"My brother entered into the U.S around 2004 with
valid H1B stamping for company A. He was there only
for few months . He didnt work on any project
and he doesnt have any pay stubs. Before he left the
US, company B filed for his H1B visa . After filing
H1B he went back to india and later accepted
a different position in singapore . H1B for company B
was approved successfully after few months.
Its been nearly almost 2 years since that happened .
H1B for company B is valid till sep 2007
Now company C filed for his H1 just few weeks before
and it was approved successfully. He wants
to travel to U.S now and start working for company C .
He went to singapore U.S consulate for H1B visa
stamping for company B. Unfortunately it was rejected.
221(g) . Reason officer gave him was " u
need to have 13 years experience to take up this job".
My brother tried to explain to them . But they wouldnt
listen. Also they retained all the H1B documents
related to comapny B.Also they have put an entry in
his passport saying 221(g) and the date.
Company C is still asking him to travel to U.S , since
he has a valid visa stamping with company A until Aug
26 2006. My brother has valid H1B petition thru
company C which is valid till june 2009.
1)Is it safe and legal to travel with Visa stamping till august 2006 from company A , with 221 (g) stamped in his passport (when he went for
visa for company B), with proper H1B documents valid till 2009 from company
C?
2)Will there be questions at the port of entry ?
3)Will there be any issues because of the 221(g)
stamping in the passport (company B visa)?
4)Any chance he wont be let inside U.S ?
5)Can he show them the h1b approvals for company C ?
6)Any tips to handle the officer at POE?
7)If every thing goes smooth, will his new I-94 be
valid till june 2009 (date on his company C petition)
or just another 4 weeks (company A petition)?
8)If by any chance if he is deported, will it affect
his future prospects in the U.S?
Any little help is also appreciated.
I need answer mainly for question 1 and 8
1)Is it safe and legal to travel with Visa stamping till august 2006 from company A , with 221 (g) stamped in his passport (when he went for
visa for company B), with proper H1B documents valid till 2009 from company
C?
No Safe as he will be questioned at port of entry
2)Will there be questions at the port of entry ?
A Lot
3)Will there be any issues because of the 221(g)
stamping in the passport (company B visa)?
Yes.
4)Any chance he wont be let inside U.S ?
90%
5)Can he show them the h1b approvals for company C ?
No..as it will confusing for immigration officer with so many 797 forms.
6)Any tips to handle the officer at POE?
Can try with chinese or african-american.Little liberal
7)If every thing goes smooth, will his new I-94 be
valid till june 2009 (date on his company C petition)
or just another 4 weeks (company A petition)?
Just 4 weeks
8)If by any chance if he is deported, will it affect
his future prospects in the U.S?
Yes.. He may not not reenter US for next 10 Yrs.
I am not an Immigration Lawyer.Better Talk to the Attorney. Its your brother's future
As it is very urgent , i kindly request anyone to reply with a detailed or on which clause is it possible to enter usa in this situation.
"My brother entered into the U.S around 2004 with
valid H1B stamping for company A. He was there only
for few months . He didnt work on any project
and he doesnt have any pay stubs. Before he left the
US, company B filed for his H1B visa . After filing
H1B he went back to india and later accepted
a different position in singapore . H1B for company B
was approved successfully after few months.
Its been nearly almost 2 years since that happened .
H1B for company B is valid till sep 2007
Now company C filed for his H1 just few weeks before
and it was approved successfully. He wants
to travel to U.S now and start working for company C .
He went to singapore U.S consulate for H1B visa
stamping for company B. Unfortunately it was rejected.
221(g) . Reason officer gave him was " u
need to have 13 years experience to take up this job".
My brother tried to explain to them . But they wouldnt
listen. Also they retained all the H1B documents
related to comapny B.Also they have put an entry in
his passport saying 221(g) and the date.
Company C is still asking him to travel to U.S , since
he has a valid visa stamping with company A until Aug
26 2006. My brother has valid H1B petition thru
company C which is valid till june 2009.
1)Is it safe and legal to travel with Visa stamping till august 2006 from company A , with 221 (g) stamped in his passport (when he went for
visa for company B), with proper H1B documents valid till 2009 from company
C?
2)Will there be questions at the port of entry ?
3)Will there be any issues because of the 221(g)
stamping in the passport (company B visa)?
4)Any chance he wont be let inside U.S ?
5)Can he show them the h1b approvals for company C ?
6)Any tips to handle the officer at POE?
7)If every thing goes smooth, will his new I-94 be
valid till june 2009 (date on his company C petition)
or just another 4 weeks (company A petition)?
8)If by any chance if he is deported, will it affect
his future prospects in the U.S?
Any little help is also appreciated.
I need answer mainly for question 1 and 8
1)Is it safe and legal to travel with Visa stamping till august 2006 from company A , with 221 (g) stamped in his passport (when he went for
visa for company B), with proper H1B documents valid till 2009 from company
C?
No Safe as he will be questioned at port of entry
2)Will there be questions at the port of entry ?
A Lot
3)Will there be any issues because of the 221(g)
stamping in the passport (company B visa)?
Yes.
4)Any chance he wont be let inside U.S ?
90%
5)Can he show them the h1b approvals for company C ?
No..as it will confusing for immigration officer with so many 797 forms.
6)Any tips to handle the officer at POE?
Can try with chinese or african-american.Little liberal
7)If every thing goes smooth, will his new I-94 be
valid till june 2009 (date on his company C petition)
or just another 4 weeks (company A petition)?
Just 4 weeks
8)If by any chance if he is deported, will it affect
his future prospects in the U.S?
Yes.. He may not not reenter US for next 10 Yrs.
I am not an Immigration Lawyer.Better Talk to the Attorney. Its your brother's future
more...
villamonte6100
06-27 11:05 AM
Why are you trusting your lawyer if they cannot even remember where the A# came from? Makes me wonder how they justify their existence if this the level of their competence. If I was that bad at my job I would have been on a plane out of the US within a week or arriving.
She's a good lawyer and I trust her and she has made a lot of successful H's, I140, Labor and GC cases. Very honest as well. So far in my case, we never had any problems and everything went smooth particularly when we were filing my PERM (which was very new during that time), she was really very cautious about it.
Regarding the A# which I pointed out to her, I actually confused her with my question. With the number of cases she's preparing right now, I think she just forgot where you could find the A#.
She's a good lawyer and I trust her and she has made a lot of successful H's, I140, Labor and GC cases. Very honest as well. So far in my case, we never had any problems and everything went smooth particularly when we were filing my PERM (which was very new during that time), she was really very cautious about it.
Regarding the A# which I pointed out to her, I actually confused her with my question. With the number of cases she's preparing right now, I think she just forgot where you could find the A#.
hair short i miss you poems. short i miss you poems.
gotgc?
08-06 10:45 AM
I have a EB2 - I140 (PERM) pending at Texas from 06/2006 and another EB3-I140 (RIR) pending from 06/2007. When my lawyer filed the EB2-I140, he filed it with a copy of labor from DOL (not original hard copy). He says he did not know it would cause such a delay. My EB3-I140 however was filed on labor approved from the Dallas BEC. It was filed with the original copy of labor. Are there any people like me, who have endured a long wait because they did not have the original labor ? Please post your experiences here .......
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
more...
Anders �stberg
May 2nd, 2005, 02:38 PM
Thanks Brent!
I'll experiment a bit the next time, it's just practice runs so far so I can afford some misses.
I'll experiment a bit the next time, it's just practice runs so far so I can afford some misses.
hot miss you poems. short missing
Jerrome
05-21 12:42 PM
well i have not used AC21, jsut changed the employer, so you mean to say i have to send the letter from the employer who originally sponsered me? right?
No you have to send AC21 with new EVL.
No you have to send AC21 with new EVL.
more...
house short missing you poems. short i love you poems. cute
trueguy
08-11 12:19 AM
Bump
tattoo short i miss you poems. i will
koppula09
01-04 12:51 PM
Hi,
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
I have a serious problem and I am not sure what would be the solution. My wife came on H4 in 2001 and we applied for H1B and we got an approval which was valid until Oct 2006. But, in Mar 2006, due to some personal reasons we applied for COS from H1B to H4 and we got H4 approval which was valid until Aug 27, 2006. Before the expiry of H4 status in August 2006, we decided to apply for H1B and since her H1B was valid until Oct 2006, our attorney applied for H1B under I-539 and they didn't apply for H4 extension simultaneously. Meanwhile, while the H1B was in process, we applied for premium processing later which added few problems. We got an RFE on this case and our attorney answered it by sending appropriate docs but again we got a second RFE which is not answered yet.
Right now she is out of status and also, what will happen if her H1 is rejected and is it possible to apply for H4 right now, since it was expired in Aug 2006. If her H1 is rejected, can we apply for H4 even though her H4 was expired few months back or she has leave the country. Please help us out.
Thanks & Regards,
-- Venkat
more...
pictures short missing you poems. miss
rameshraju11
11-01 06:03 PM
Hello,
since your H1b has not been rejected yet , you still can re-file H1b at the same time
call USCIS and request for additional time for RFE and send RFE documents for the
original H1B
tx
since your H1b has not been rejected yet , you still can re-file H1b at the same time
call USCIS and request for additional time for RFE and send RFE documents for the
original H1B
tx
dresses miss you poems. short i miss
miapplicant
10-06 08:55 PM
Vnsriv...
Thanks..I was just kind of curious to see, is anyone on the same boat as mine? Coz, most of my friends/network whom I had asked, got their status changed along with their spouses'. If its the same with the community, then I have to do something. But yah, It didn't occur to me that, if there is no answer, means, probably there aren't that many ppl in the same situation as mine...Thanks again...
My spouse got his EAD card yesterday. We haven't recd any RNs or for that matter any notices so far. I applied as his dependent. I guess my case is similar to yours.
Thanks..I was just kind of curious to see, is anyone on the same boat as mine? Coz, most of my friends/network whom I had asked, got their status changed along with their spouses'. If its the same with the community, then I have to do something. But yah, It didn't occur to me that, if there is no answer, means, probably there aren't that many ppl in the same situation as mine...Thanks again...
My spouse got his EAD card yesterday. We haven't recd any RNs or for that matter any notices so far. I applied as his dependent. I guess my case is similar to yours.
more...
makeup Short i miss you poems
Springflower
08-30 04:56 PM
Contratulations babu !
--------------------------------------------------------------
Contributed $50. Signed up for $50/month recurring contribution.
PD: March 2004 (EB3 - India)
Labor approved: Jan 2006
I-140 approved: Feb 2006 (NSC)
I-485/EAD/AP applied: July 6th, 2007 (NSC)
Checks cashed: ?
Receipts received: ?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends
I'm very excited to say that I got my green card approved. Thank you for all of your support.
My status change will not change a bit of my support to IV. I will continue to contribute what I contribute now, until we are sucessful. I'm not successful, until everyone of you is not successful in pursuing your green card. I hope and pray that my stand will motivate non contributing friends to contribute.
Friends and folks, we did not have any organization to support ourselves. So far we had to take anything shoved upon us. But the emergence of IV changed all that. Contribute and support IV. Because IV is our voice!!!
thanks
babu
--------------------------------------------------------------
Contributed $50. Signed up for $50/month recurring contribution.
PD: March 2004 (EB3 - India)
Labor approved: Jan 2006
I-140 approved: Feb 2006 (NSC)
I-485/EAD/AP applied: July 6th, 2007 (NSC)
Checks cashed: ?
Receipts received: ?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends
I'm very excited to say that I got my green card approved. Thank you for all of your support.
My status change will not change a bit of my support to IV. I will continue to contribute what I contribute now, until we are sucessful. I'm not successful, until everyone of you is not successful in pursuing your green card. I hope and pray that my stand will motivate non contributing friends to contribute.
Friends and folks, we did not have any organization to support ourselves. So far we had to take anything shoved upon us. But the emergence of IV changed all that. Contribute and support IV. Because IV is our voice!!!
thanks
babu
girlfriend i love you and miss you poems.
kaisersose
08-24 01:50 PM
One a 485 is applied and is pending, it is possible to replace the underlying 140, even if it is from a different employer.
Reasons why one would do this -
1. Moved away from sponsored employer within 180 days and a job offer from this employer is no longer available
2. Job Role changed significantly enough to warrant a new Labor.
3. AN old Labor with an earlier PD suddenly got approved. Get a 140 approved for this Labor and replace the earlier 140 with this one.
4. Upgrade from eb3 to eb2.
Reasons why one would do this -
1. Moved away from sponsored employer within 180 days and a job offer from this employer is no longer available
2. Job Role changed significantly enough to warrant a new Labor.
3. AN old Labor with an earlier PD suddenly got approved. Get a 140 approved for this Labor and replace the earlier 140 with this one.
4. Upgrade from eb3 to eb2.
hairstyles short i miss you poems. i miss
sledge_hammer
02-18 12:08 PM
If the question is whether AC21 can be used or not, then the answer is YES. If the question is whether it is legal or not, then the answer is illegal. If the applicant never had the intention to work for the company that filed for GC, then it is fraud.
Besides, with VSG Inc. in such a big mess, who knows what USCIS is going to decide about these cases!
Incorrect.
As per Yates memo (link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf))
It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Besides, with VSG Inc. in such a big mess, who knows what USCIS is going to decide about these cases!
Incorrect.
As per Yates memo (link (http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/I140_AC21_8403.pdf))
It should be noted that there is no requirement in statute or regulations that a beneficiary of a Form I-140 actually be in the underlying employment until permanent residence is authorized. Therefore, it is possible for an alien to qualify for the provisions of �106(c) of AC21 even if he or she has never been employed by the prior petitioning employer or the subsequent employer under section 204(j) of the Act.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
WeldonSprings
01-29 09:14 PM
E-Verify was a bargaining chip for Senate Democrats against Senate Republicans.
What happened was - When Senator Menendez from NJ (Dem.) floated the Visa Recapture Bill; he said that he and other Dems will only support Permanent extension of E-Verify a bill designed to extend it for four additional years; if the Senate Republicans support Visa Recapture Bill.
But the Visa Recapture Bill didn't happen.
So, E-Verify also didn't happen.
However, as a Last Minute "ideal gift" from the Great President Bush to all Legal Immigrants; he issued an Executive order to extend E-Verify till March 06, 2009.
Therefore, E-Verify is active today in the system.
Now, House and Senate Republicans want to permanently extend E-Verify after March 06, 2009; especially the antis and yes NumbersUSA.So, they added this amendment to extend E-Verify for additional 4 years in the Stimulus Bill that passed this Wednesday.
However, the Stimulus Bill has to pass the Senate to become law. Thus, permanent extension of E-Verify has nothing to do with giving Stimulus money to only legal immigrants. It, is just that two immigrant hating politicians added the clause to the bill; in the hopes of seeing it pass. But IT SHOULD FAIL!!!
How is e-Verify going to affect legal immigrants ?
What happened was - When Senator Menendez from NJ (Dem.) floated the Visa Recapture Bill; he said that he and other Dems will only support Permanent extension of E-Verify a bill designed to extend it for four additional years; if the Senate Republicans support Visa Recapture Bill.
But the Visa Recapture Bill didn't happen.
So, E-Verify also didn't happen.
However, as a Last Minute "ideal gift" from the Great President Bush to all Legal Immigrants; he issued an Executive order to extend E-Verify till March 06, 2009.
Therefore, E-Verify is active today in the system.
Now, House and Senate Republicans want to permanently extend E-Verify after March 06, 2009; especially the antis and yes NumbersUSA.So, they added this amendment to extend E-Verify for additional 4 years in the Stimulus Bill that passed this Wednesday.
However, the Stimulus Bill has to pass the Senate to become law. Thus, permanent extension of E-Verify has nothing to do with giving Stimulus money to only legal immigrants. It, is just that two immigrant hating politicians added the clause to the bill; in the hopes of seeing it pass. But IT SHOULD FAIL!!!
How is e-Verify going to affect legal immigrants ?
rongha_2000
04-30 05:24 PM
Its kind of an interesting thought process, but I am curious why do you assume that NON-Perm cases will be very few? And also forgive me for being negative here but you are "assuming" all those parameters which are critical to the decision making process. This is a very interesting approach and if we can get real data to back this up, then nothing like it. (BEC cases will be a big factor in this calculation)
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly critique it. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
The rational are as follows (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Fact 1: Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 2: Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 3: Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
Fact 4: FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
Fact 5: Per FLC data , 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47, 251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumption 1: Based on Fact 1, let us assume for FY’06 50K Eb2 and Eb3 visas were used for the people stuck in BEC.
Assumption 2: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 200,000 labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
Assumption 3: The visa backlog is not an issue for the ROW countries. In other words, their dates could be made current.
Assumption 4: NIW applications are negligible
Assumption 5: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 3, let us assume in BEC accounted for 50K visa in FY’07.
Assumption 6: 50% of visas are used by retrogressed countries.
Calculation 1: BEC visa used in FY’06 = 122,121- 6,000 – 46,340 = 69,781
Calculation 2: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2006 = 200,000-69,781-50,000= 80,219
Calculation 3: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2007: Since total visas issued in FY07 > (47,251 + 80,219) therefore negligible. Also, assume that balance 8,000 application went to NIW.
So in other words, the dates in any case has to be greater than 10/01/2005 for the retrogressed countries. For the simple reason that Non-Perm cases would very few.
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly critique it. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
The rational are as follows (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Fact 1: Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 2: Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Fact 3: Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
Fact 4: FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
Fact 5: Per FLC data , 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47, 251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumption 1: Based on Fact 1, let us assume for FY’06 50K Eb2 and Eb3 visas were used for the people stuck in BEC.
Assumption 2: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 200,000 labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
Assumption 3: The visa backlog is not an issue for the ROW countries. In other words, their dates could be made current.
Assumption 4: NIW applications are negligible
Assumption 5: Based on Fact 1 and Fact 3, let us assume in BEC accounted for 50K visa in FY’07.
Assumption 6: 50% of visas are used by retrogressed countries.
Calculation 1: BEC visa used in FY’06 = 122,121- 6,000 – 46,340 = 69,781
Calculation 2: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2006 = 200,000-69,781-50,000= 80,219
Calculation 3: BEC people remaining as on 10/01/2007: Since total visas issued in FY07 > (47,251 + 80,219) therefore negligible. Also, assume that balance 8,000 application went to NIW.
So in other words, the dates in any case has to be greater than 10/01/2005 for the retrogressed countries. For the simple reason that Non-Perm cases would very few.
No comments:
Post a Comment