smads
03-07 10:42 AM
sorry guyz have still been trying to find out what needs to be done....
sendmailtojk,
i was on a vacation and boarded from australia....it was a unique situation....when i left my PP was valid for 7 months when i came back it was valid for 5 months....
watzgc,
I renewed my PP on time but never did anything about my I-94.
I did a lot of research and have some updates for everyone.
1) My lawyer says we file for a petition that typically asks for forgiveness so that i dont get a 3 yr bar. dont know what that petition is called but it translates as "now for then". [can only be prepared by a lawyer and would cost me $1000]
2)I spoke to an immigration officer and he said it is a very common mistake and most of the times they just question the person and let them go. he said not to worry abt the 3 yr bar. he also said that the 3 yr and 10yr bar is more for the tourist visas where people actually think they have a 10yr visa so they can stay here for 10 yrs.
And yes like watzgc he also said file for extention I-539 i think.[costs only $300, anyone can fill it out and send it to USCIS]
now lets see if my lawyer will go with what she thinks is right or will she go with what the immigration officer thinks needs to be done.
I also think that these lawyers try to scare us and get all fancy things done so that they can charge as much as they feel like.
thanks for being so prompt and sorry for not replying sooner,
smads
sendmailtojk,
i was on a vacation and boarded from australia....it was a unique situation....when i left my PP was valid for 7 months when i came back it was valid for 5 months....
watzgc,
I renewed my PP on time but never did anything about my I-94.
I did a lot of research and have some updates for everyone.
1) My lawyer says we file for a petition that typically asks for forgiveness so that i dont get a 3 yr bar. dont know what that petition is called but it translates as "now for then". [can only be prepared by a lawyer and would cost me $1000]
2)I spoke to an immigration officer and he said it is a very common mistake and most of the times they just question the person and let them go. he said not to worry abt the 3 yr bar. he also said that the 3 yr and 10yr bar is more for the tourist visas where people actually think they have a 10yr visa so they can stay here for 10 yrs.
And yes like watzgc he also said file for extention I-539 i think.[costs only $300, anyone can fill it out and send it to USCIS]
now lets see if my lawyer will go with what she thinks is right or will she go with what the immigration officer thinks needs to be done.
I also think that these lawyers try to scare us and get all fancy things done so that they can charge as much as they feel like.
thanks for being so prompt and sorry for not replying sooner,
smads
wallpaper Kelsey Chow» Kelsey Chow:
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Junky
10-28 08:02 AM
Happy diwali to every one.
May the festival of lights fill your hearts with hope, peace and serenity
May the festival of lights fill your hearts with hope, peace and serenity
2011 kelsey chow fake. posted a
indio0617
02-08 09:29 AM
Yes. Travelling through Europe has become a big hassle these days. Avoid the London route. It is the worst. I have travelled via Frankfurt (Lufthansa) several times. But Lufthansa is getting troublesome too these days.
The South Asian route via Singapore is the best. SIA In- flight service is excellent and you will notice a marked difference in their "attitudes". I have heard about China Airlines too. You might want to check that out as well.
The South Asian route via Singapore is the best. SIA In- flight service is excellent and you will notice a marked difference in their "attitudes". I have heard about China Airlines too. You might want to check that out as well.
more...
irrational
04-04 11:33 AM
Folks,
Here is some update. Hopefully, someone might find this useful.
Today (4/4/2008) I took an InfoPass appointment in Dallas:
The lady at the window said, the case is in TSC and that particular office(Local Office???) has not recieved the file yet. So she asked me to write a letter to TSC.
I thought I would call the TSC first and see if I can get a quicker response:
I called the TSC using the key combo (Thanks guys)
The agent was helpful:
- The Notice which was returned was the Reciept Notices..It seems those will not be resent, so I should not worry about it.
- My Wife's address was still wrong on the file, I recorrected it. This is after I got a confirmation in the mail :confused: :( -- Is there anyway we/Lawyer can confirm it ?
- Our Finger Print Notices are initiated but not yet scheduled by the local ASC. We'll get notices once the FPs are scheduled (What does this mean???)
Key Combo used:
1-800-375-5283
1 -> 2 -> 2 -> 6 -> 1 .. Application Number .. 1 -> 1 -> 3 -> 4
If the message something like, "No agents are available at TSC.. trasfering to NSC" hangup and try again.
Hope this helps someone else too.
Here is some update. Hopefully, someone might find this useful.
Today (4/4/2008) I took an InfoPass appointment in Dallas:
The lady at the window said, the case is in TSC and that particular office(Local Office???) has not recieved the file yet. So she asked me to write a letter to TSC.
I thought I would call the TSC first and see if I can get a quicker response:
I called the TSC using the key combo (Thanks guys)
The agent was helpful:
- The Notice which was returned was the Reciept Notices..It seems those will not be resent, so I should not worry about it.
- My Wife's address was still wrong on the file, I recorrected it. This is after I got a confirmation in the mail :confused: :( -- Is there anyway we/Lawyer can confirm it ?
- Our Finger Print Notices are initiated but not yet scheduled by the local ASC. We'll get notices once the FPs are scheduled (What does this mean???)
Key Combo used:
1-800-375-5283
1 -> 2 -> 2 -> 6 -> 1 .. Application Number .. 1 -> 1 -> 3 -> 4
If the message something like, "No agents are available at TSC.. trasfering to NSC" hangup and try again.
Hope this helps someone else too.
m306m
07-31 04:18 PM
Hello,
I have a question, this is about my mom's H1 B visa. Her H1B visa is about to expire in one month.(she had a maximum stay for 6 years). But my grandfather had applied for a greencard process for my mom through family based and we are 2 months away from getting the visa numbers. So Is there any way my mom can extend her H1B. She is currently working as a teacher. (There are lot of options for people who applied for Greencard process through employment, but I don't see any for family based greencard process). Any help would be really appreciated.
Thank You.
Are you sure she is 2 months away in getting her visa number current? For example if her priority date is Jan 1st 1998 and they are currently processing Nov 1st 1997. It seems like you mother will be current in 2 months but it could take USCIS 2 years to move forward 2 months in processing. Processing dates don't move by calendar time.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your question. If so please ignore the above.
If she has been out of the country for any significant amount of time during the 6 years she can file an extension for that time. I would not recommend that she continue to work if the H1 has expired and I think you should consult an attorney to figure out her options.
I have a question, this is about my mom's H1 B visa. Her H1B visa is about to expire in one month.(she had a maximum stay for 6 years). But my grandfather had applied for a greencard process for my mom through family based and we are 2 months away from getting the visa numbers. So Is there any way my mom can extend her H1B. She is currently working as a teacher. (There are lot of options for people who applied for Greencard process through employment, but I don't see any for family based greencard process). Any help would be really appreciated.
Thank You.
Are you sure she is 2 months away in getting her visa number current? For example if her priority date is Jan 1st 1998 and they are currently processing Nov 1st 1997. It seems like you mother will be current in 2 months but it could take USCIS 2 years to move forward 2 months in processing. Processing dates don't move by calendar time.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your question. If so please ignore the above.
If she has been out of the country for any significant amount of time during the 6 years she can file an extension for that time. I would not recommend that she continue to work if the H1 has expired and I think you should consult an attorney to figure out her options.
more...
vandanaverdia
09-09 01:05 PM
Calling all WASHINGTONIANS!!! Pls respond!!!
2010 Kelsey Chow Cassie Scerbo:
nanneh
04-27 04:04 PM
Hi,
Can some one help me out on the above subject, i had birthcertificate which contains only my Father's name( This birth certificate got from MRO office at AP, India). One of my friend told me that the birth certificate should contain both Mother and Father's Name.
Can some one provide me sample birth certficate , so that it will helpfull to me send to my parents, so that i will get BC from MRO office, AP, India.
Thanks inadvance
Can some one help me out on the above subject, i had birthcertificate which contains only my Father's name( This birth certificate got from MRO office at AP, India). One of my friend told me that the birth certificate should contain both Mother and Father's Name.
Can some one provide me sample birth certficate , so that it will helpfull to me send to my parents, so that i will get BC from MRO office, AP, India.
Thanks inadvance
more...
jsb
10-25 03:53 PM
I agree with you....You should be able to file the G28 form to get someone else to be yr representative 2 or 4
..
My understanding is that you need to send a Cancel G-28 notice (as a simple letter, or using a G-28 form) to USCIS. Your current attorney does not have to do anything. You hired your attorney, so you can drop him/her anytime and advise USCIS.
..
My understanding is that you need to send a Cancel G-28 notice (as a simple letter, or using a G-28 form) to USCIS. Your current attorney does not have to do anything. You hired your attorney, so you can drop him/her anytime and advise USCIS.
hair Audrey It-Girl: Kelsey Chow
ken
09-29 11:40 PM
I opted for renewing the AP online on Sept 22,2009.Got the receipt at the same time, and next day which is Sept 23 i sent the supporting documents along with the cover letter,2 photographs ,confirmation receipt ,485 receipt, DL copy and passport copy from Priority Mail with delivery confirmation. Today when I tried to check the status on postal website it says that document scanned on Sept 23 which means they haven't reached the destination, now this concerns me because previously when ever I applied AP and sent the supporting documents they normally take 2 to 3 business days to reach.
Now my question:
1) If suppose the AP supporting documents get lost in mail then can I send the documents again and if in the mean time postal service delivers the first set
In between I see soft LUD's of 9/28 on my wife AP
All responses to the above matter is highly appreciated
Now my question:
1) If suppose the AP supporting documents get lost in mail then can I send the documents again and if in the mean time postal service delivers the first set
In between I see soft LUD's of 9/28 on my wife AP
All responses to the above matter is highly appreciated
more...
gccube
08-30 05:05 PM
EB2 or EB3?
hot Kelsey Chow
Becks
02-01 09:49 PM
Few of my friends had expressed their views that John McCain is better than others when immigration matters. But who ever comes they have to understand legal skilled immigrants problem because these are the people who contribute more to the economy.
more...
house kelsey chow feet. kelsey chow pair of kings. kelsey chow pair of kings.
eb3retro
02-06 11:17 PM
I have seen lots of thread talking about filing 485 and getting EAD and having the opportunity to jump jobs. I faced a unique situation where I realized being on H1 is lot better than having EAD and invoking AC21. Correct me if I am wrong.
H1B:
1. Spouse cannot work.
2. Do not worry about 485 rejection.
3. Jump companies and go up the ladder as you are in H1 and not in EAD and still port the PD. THIS IS VERY USEFUL. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.
4. No expenses for the employee for H1 related issues ( legally).
5. Stamping required. But only once in three years if you get 3 year extn after 140 approval.
EAD / AC21:
1. Spouse can work.
2. Invoke AC21, but you have to switch to similar job. This is very frustrating if you are looking to go up the ladder.
3. If you dont have any time left in your first 6 years of H1, you will be in big trouble if your 485 gets rejected for unknown reasons.
4. No stamping, but advance parole required.
5. Spend yearly on parole, EAD.
Anything else to be added to the above list?
EAD vs H1 - which is better.. my answer is whichever stage u are in - "Supporting IV is always better"...
H1B:
1. Spouse cannot work.
2. Do not worry about 485 rejection.
3. Jump companies and go up the ladder as you are in H1 and not in EAD and still port the PD. THIS IS VERY USEFUL. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.
4. No expenses for the employee for H1 related issues ( legally).
5. Stamping required. But only once in three years if you get 3 year extn after 140 approval.
EAD / AC21:
1. Spouse can work.
2. Invoke AC21, but you have to switch to similar job. This is very frustrating if you are looking to go up the ladder.
3. If you dont have any time left in your first 6 years of H1, you will be in big trouble if your 485 gets rejected for unknown reasons.
4. No stamping, but advance parole required.
5. Spend yearly on parole, EAD.
Anything else to be added to the above list?
EAD vs H1 - which is better.. my answer is whichever stage u are in - "Supporting IV is always better"...
tattoo Kelsey Chow Long Wavy Cut
maddila
07-30 02:31 PM
One of my friends had the same problem from Madras consulate. they eventually called him to come back with the passport after 3 weeks. You will get it but it's just matter of time.........
more...
pictures Kelsey Chow Pictures
valatharv
07-15 02:39 PM
I filed I-485 in Nov. 2007 and waiting.... :(
Problem is I noticed that name of my father in my passport is reversed example it shows <lastName> then <FirstName>.
But in my birth certificate it is vice versa <FirstName> then <lastName>....
I got the RFE in July 2009 for my date of birth certificate which I have provided to USCIS mentioning father name as in my birth certificate i.e. <FirstName> then <lastName>.
I renewed my passport in April 2010 and corrected father name, but in all the old forms before RFE, my father name shows as <lastName> then <FirstName>.
Will it be issue, I am frustrated and worried on what to do, is it going to have major impact on my GC processing as all the forms I have submitted to USCIS and my passport have my father name as <lastName> then
<FirstName>.
Please suggest I am very worried...
Thanks
Problem is I noticed that name of my father in my passport is reversed example it shows <lastName> then <FirstName>.
But in my birth certificate it is vice versa <FirstName> then <lastName>....
I got the RFE in July 2009 for my date of birth certificate which I have provided to USCIS mentioning father name as in my birth certificate i.e. <FirstName> then <lastName>.
I renewed my passport in April 2010 and corrected father name, but in all the old forms before RFE, my father name shows as <lastName> then <FirstName>.
Will it be issue, I am frustrated and worried on what to do, is it going to have major impact on my GC processing as all the forms I have submitted to USCIS and my passport have my father name as <lastName> then
<FirstName>.
Please suggest I am very worried...
Thanks
dresses kelsey chow bikini. china
thamizhan
07-17 10:15 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701582.html
more...
makeup Selena Gomez in Bikini for
ski_dude12
08-10 11:43 AM
Do you think USCIS cares who pays for it or where someone lives as long as the check goes through?
girlfriend Kelsey Chow
greenerpastures
07-20 03:09 PM
I have a few questions and much thanks for those who answer.
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
MScapbust,
You are exempt from the H1B cap if you have/had H1B visa in 2002 for some time and have been staying in US legally till now. If you have been out of US for more than a year, then you are counted against the H1B cap. But, I assume you were on F1 during the past few years and never stayed out of US for more than a year. So, you should be eligible for 6 years H1B minus the time you were on H1 during 2002 (even though adv degree cap gets filled). I would suggest you to talk to an immigration attorney or the attorneys/HR of the company that you might be joining in August.
Good luck
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
MScapbust,
You are exempt from the H1B cap if you have/had H1B visa in 2002 for some time and have been staying in US legally till now. If you have been out of US for more than a year, then you are counted against the H1B cap. But, I assume you were on F1 during the past few years and never stayed out of US for more than a year. So, you should be eligible for 6 years H1B minus the time you were on H1 during 2002 (even though adv degree cap gets filled). I would suggest you to talk to an immigration attorney or the attorneys/HR of the company that you might be joining in August.
Good luck
hairstyles kelsey chow feet. kelsey chow and mitchel musso.
smiledentist
10-21 04:55 PM
I work as a dentist in a company which was held in partnership by 2 partners.I have a approved H1b and my I 140 is filed in May 2006.Now as of Oct 01 2006 the original company is finished as the partners have seperated.I am confused about my case, if I have to file a new H1b and 140 or an ammendment or just nothing.The tax id number for the company which will now give my paycheck has changed.As for me my work location has not changed and I still work in the same position.Can I take paychecks from the new company which now belongs to one of the partners or do I need to inform immigration to refile H1 or I140 or both.Any advice is appriciated.
Please help, in my case my I 140 is approved under EB2 but the old company is split.I have since then joined a new company and have a new H1b but yet to start thr PERM process.I am still in good terms with both partners of the old company.Can I file 485 from the old company and use ac21.
Please help, in my case my I 140 is approved under EB2 but the old company is split.I have since then joined a new company and have a new H1b but yet to start thr PERM process.I am still in good terms with both partners of the old company.Can I file 485 from the old company and use ac21.
apnair2002
02-16 09:15 AM
The Backlog centers should be ashamed of themselves. They make the state DMVs look like an efficient government departments.
18 more months!!! And they congratulate themselves?
You know, there is a saying "If you have infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time, eventually they would come up with the exact creation of Shakespeare".
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/
I hope they are sincere in meeting the 18 month timeline. That would have to mean the certifications are bound to come one after another starting in 2-3 months max.
18 more months!!! And they congratulate themselves?
You know, there is a saying "If you have infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time, eventually they would come up with the exact creation of Shakespeare".
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/
I hope they are sincere in meeting the 18 month timeline. That would have to mean the certifications are bound to come one after another starting in 2-3 months max.
satishbsk
07-08 05:58 PM
How do u know that?
When I and my wife gave DNA, the volunteer who collected told that they collected 20 k so far and it is tough to get a match, and it might be only Indian DNA may match to Vinay.
When I and my wife gave DNA, the volunteer who collected told that they collected 20 k so far and it is tough to get a match, and it might be only Indian DNA may match to Vinay.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق