h1-b forever
04-23 10:18 AM
Hope things will work out good. the disaappearence of H1B memo from USCIS policy website itself is a good sign, let them announce formally also that they have withdrawn that memo.
May GOD Bless all.
USCIS Policy Memo site link below see for yourself.
USCIS - Policy Memoranda (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD)
Finally USCIS is acting with some sense in them. They did not think through when they were complying with Sen. Grassley. Their minds were so concentrated in getting the IT industry that they did not realize the back lash will come from all H1Bs, from all sectors including doctors and nurses; and most importantly these people do not have any clue of the present day business models, so they got hammered by businesses too, plus AILA took it on its legality.
May GOD Bless all.
USCIS Policy Memo site link below see for yourself.
USCIS - Policy Memoranda (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=7dc68f236e16e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD)
Finally USCIS is acting with some sense in them. They did not think through when they were complying with Sen. Grassley. Their minds were so concentrated in getting the IT industry that they did not realize the back lash will come from all H1Bs, from all sectors including doctors and nurses; and most importantly these people do not have any clue of the present day business models, so they got hammered by businesses too, plus AILA took it on its legality.
wallpaper wallpaper primavara. mar ackground primavara; mar ackground primavara
gcformeornot
12-31 01:23 PM
vote
GC Struggle
03-11 03:05 PM
PM me if you have any questions
2011 Motoare De Primavara Yamaha
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
add78
06-08 08:21 AM
$100
Transaction ID: 8VJ563474N368532E
Transaction ID: 8VJ563474N368532E
eucalyptus.mp
02-18 09:02 AM
As my employer is asking me to go back to India , what options I am having to get extention ? Can I file GC my own ?
more...
Tantra
08-03 11:18 PM
This just confirms the pathetic state of concern and sincerity USCIS associates to people awaiting these updates. Guess nobody bothered to even review this report before making it public. Oh, it was reviewed but in the same manner our applications are adjudicated. Go figure!
2010 Primavara incepe cu tine 1 by
sayantan76
07-08 10:39 PM
this is BS.
The interests of indian citizens resident in the USA (all decent taxpayers) are not being taken care of by the US political system. There is a clear pattern of exploitation by employers and neglect by CIS, FBI and others.
In this situation, the interests of Indian citizens should be taken up by the Indian parliament. If they want to shy away from their duty, it should be taken up by the UN.
As far as I know - a large number of us in the USA do not need to pay Indian taxes on our US income.......unlike USA - Govt of India does not tax its overseas citizens' foreign income......(for that matter GC holders are also liable to pay US taxes when they are outside USA).
Under these circumstances and the fact the Govt of India has much more serious issues on hand- I find it very selfish to go ask for their help for a set of relatively well to do, highly educated professionals working for mostly personal gains outside their motherland.......
Its one thing GoI stepping in against exploitation of labor in middle east or advocating for med students in UK - most of us are established professionals who have consciously chosen our battles - we should not shy away from those battles and suddenly ask for motherland's help.....
BTW - I am in the same boat......actually a bit worse perhaps..since I am filed under EB1 and was current till last month and only 2 months or so away from GC before current bulletin......
The interests of indian citizens resident in the USA (all decent taxpayers) are not being taken care of by the US political system. There is a clear pattern of exploitation by employers and neglect by CIS, FBI and others.
In this situation, the interests of Indian citizens should be taken up by the Indian parliament. If they want to shy away from their duty, it should be taken up by the UN.
As far as I know - a large number of us in the USA do not need to pay Indian taxes on our US income.......unlike USA - Govt of India does not tax its overseas citizens' foreign income......(for that matter GC holders are also liable to pay US taxes when they are outside USA).
Under these circumstances and the fact the Govt of India has much more serious issues on hand- I find it very selfish to go ask for their help for a set of relatively well to do, highly educated professionals working for mostly personal gains outside their motherland.......
Its one thing GoI stepping in against exploitation of labor in middle east or advocating for med students in UK - most of us are established professionals who have consciously chosen our battles - we should not shy away from those battles and suddenly ask for motherland's help.....
BTW - I am in the same boat......actually a bit worse perhaps..since I am filed under EB1 and was current till last month and only 2 months or so away from GC before current bulletin......
more...
sai
07-09 11:37 PM
I am in the same boat..
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
hair wallpaper primavara.
lord_labaku
09-16 10:59 PM
Infopass would not hurt.....so just take Infopass to ease ur mind. Explain to the IO ur exact situation & ask them to confirm if ur 485 is ok. u will have the answer from the horse's mouth/
more...
vnsriv
03-28 10:25 AM
Well Jnayar & Berkeleybee,
Thanks for your help.
Thanks for your help.
hot wallpaper primavara.
ThinkTwice
07-11 05:14 PM
Please join in guys......
People who want to volunteer:
Please PM Franklin or/and me your e-mail address and phone number so that we can share the phone list. There are 380 numbers to call. So if e'one takes 50
we need seven members.
People who want to volunteer:
Please PM Franklin or/and me your e-mail address and phone number so that we can share the phone list. There are 380 numbers to call. So if e'one takes 50
we need seven members.
more...
house wallpaper primavara. white vector wallpaper; white vector wallpaper
pbuckeye
09-02 02:04 PM
[B]
I am 100% sure , H4 visa holders cannot work in any position which pays them. It is a violation of the visa.
Does that also apply to a case where the person is employed in another country and getting paid there? What about a case where the H4 holder travels to their home country and works for 3 months at a local company and gets paid for it?
Correct me if I am wrong but I would think the rule only applies if you work and earn money in the US.
I am 100% sure , H4 visa holders cannot work in any position which pays them. It is a violation of the visa.
Does that also apply to a case where the person is employed in another country and getting paid there? What about a case where the H4 holder travels to their home country and works for 3 months at a local company and gets paid for it?
Correct me if I am wrong but I would think the rule only applies if you work and earn money in the US.
tattoo wallpaper primavara. free spring wallpaper. hd; free spring wallpaper. hd
pappu
01-14 07:24 PM
There is also a hearing scheduled for this
http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=403
This is all because people affected by it worked hard to get relief.
See the report from National Immigration Forum:
House Immigration Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Naturalization Backlog
Last year, USCIS received a near-record number of naturalization applications. There were a number of reasons for this. The climate towards immigrants has become hostile in the last few years, and obtaining citizenship offers a measure of protection from possible changes to the law that might make life harder for legal residents. There is also an unprecedented drive to help immigrants become citizens in the Ya es hora campaign, now being conducted by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La Raza, the We Are America Alliance, Service Employees International Union, and their regional partners. In addition, USCIS proposed and implemented a record fee increase for naturalization, raising the price from $330 to $595.
In the two months prior to the fee increase, USCIS received about as many naturalization applications as in the entire previous Fiscal Year—700,000. In all, there were approximately 1.4 million applications in the Fiscal Year that ended in September 2007. Although it was expected that the fee increase would produce a surge in applications, and although advocates had kept USCIS apprised of the Ya es hora campaign, USCIS was not adequately prepared for the volume of work it received.
Only recently has USCIS finished sending receipts to applicants who submitted their applications in June and July. USCIS says that there is now an 18-month backlog in processing those applications. In other words, if USCIS does not successfully address the problem of the current backlogs, immigrants who applied to be citizens back in July of last year may not be able to vote in the upcoming national election.
This problem will be the subject of a hearing in the House Immigration Subcommittee on January 17th.
Sign-On Letter Regarding Naturalization Backlogs
The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights has drafted an organizational sign-on letter urging USICS to take whatever steps necessary to expeditiously eliminate the backlog. Deadline for signing on is Wednesday January 16 at 1:00 PM Eastern Time (Noon Central, 10:00 Pacific). For the text of the letter and sign-on instructions, see below.
http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=403
This is all because people affected by it worked hard to get relief.
See the report from National Immigration Forum:
House Immigration Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Naturalization Backlog
Last year, USCIS received a near-record number of naturalization applications. There were a number of reasons for this. The climate towards immigrants has become hostile in the last few years, and obtaining citizenship offers a measure of protection from possible changes to the law that might make life harder for legal residents. There is also an unprecedented drive to help immigrants become citizens in the Ya es hora campaign, now being conducted by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La Raza, the We Are America Alliance, Service Employees International Union, and their regional partners. In addition, USCIS proposed and implemented a record fee increase for naturalization, raising the price from $330 to $595.
In the two months prior to the fee increase, USCIS received about as many naturalization applications as in the entire previous Fiscal Year—700,000. In all, there were approximately 1.4 million applications in the Fiscal Year that ended in September 2007. Although it was expected that the fee increase would produce a surge in applications, and although advocates had kept USCIS apprised of the Ya es hora campaign, USCIS was not adequately prepared for the volume of work it received.
Only recently has USCIS finished sending receipts to applicants who submitted their applications in June and July. USCIS says that there is now an 18-month backlog in processing those applications. In other words, if USCIS does not successfully address the problem of the current backlogs, immigrants who applied to be citizens back in July of last year may not be able to vote in the upcoming national election.
This problem will be the subject of a hearing in the House Immigration Subcommittee on January 17th.
Sign-On Letter Regarding Naturalization Backlogs
The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights has drafted an organizational sign-on letter urging USICS to take whatever steps necessary to expeditiously eliminate the backlog. Deadline for signing on is Wednesday January 16 at 1:00 PM Eastern Time (Noon Central, 10:00 Pacific). For the text of the letter and sign-on instructions, see below.
more...
pictures wallpaper primavara.
newbie2020
09-27 10:57 AM
thats a good idea, Instead of starting at 200K raffle, Start small may be 10K raffle or 20K raffle, that would be a good start.
dresses Imagini de primavara pentru
mp2007
07-31 02:36 PM
Hi Sportsguy,
Please consult a lawyer, you dont want her to land in trouble because you did not get the correct advice.
MP
Please consult a lawyer, you dont want her to land in trouble because you did not get the correct advice.
MP
more...
makeup Primavara XIII
gcformeornot
08-10 11:03 AM
Hello All
My employer paid me for my 485 application,he gave me his personal checks in the name of uscis, i applied with those checks, now i hear that
"The Address Printed On your checks Must Match the adress given in work sheets[in 485]"
I am confused,will they accept the application,checks are not cashed yet,applied on july18th
Please Help
if employer or Lawyers are issuing check then how this will happen.(unless your employer, lawyer and you live in same address):)
My employer paid me for my 485 application,he gave me his personal checks in the name of uscis, i applied with those checks, now i hear that
"The Address Printed On your checks Must Match the adress given in work sheets[in 485]"
I am confused,will they accept the application,checks are not cashed yet,applied on july18th
Please Help
if employer or Lawyers are issuing check then how this will happen.(unless your employer, lawyer and you live in same address):)
girlfriend wallpaper primavara. wallpaper
deecha
08-06 11:17 AM
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
Mine is not labor substitution though. My lawyer never received the original hardcopy of the labor certification.
Mine is not labor substitution though. My lawyer never received the original hardcopy of the labor certification.
hairstyles wallpaper primavara. wallpaper
H1B-GC
07-17 01:53 PM
wow..indeed a long and arduous GC Journey. Congrats!
Dhundhun
07-10 06:30 PM
On I-797 from Y it doesn't have I-94 number on it anywhere. since its through consular processing.
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
fromnaija
03-28 01:05 PM
You will need to have your H1 amended to show that you are employed part time. You should be fine with that.
My LC is languishing in Philly backlog center. Not sure if I beleive that they will have it completed by Sep 2007. In any case, I am blessed enough to be able to switch to a part time status at work. I am enrolling in a part time graduate program. My question is - will going part time at work hurt me with LC or even later with 140, 485, or maybe even green card interview?? Thanks.
My LC is languishing in Philly backlog center. Not sure if I beleive that they will have it completed by Sep 2007. In any case, I am blessed enough to be able to switch to a part time status at work. I am enrolling in a part time graduate program. My question is - will going part time at work hurt me with LC or even later with 140, 485, or maybe even green card interview?? Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment