archanais
07-04 06:33 PM
I am ina worst situation. Prior employer is not ready to give Future employement letter inspite I have paid $8650 in GC processing cost and $5500 in transeferring H1b Visa and renewing the H1b. They even cancelled my H1b once I resigned.They have earned lot of money during my almost 2yrs of stay with them.
wallpaper friendship quotes for facebook
mahujam
07-29 03:13 PM
how did you find out ?
svm
03-09 11:53 PM
. I had the same. you should be getting an Interview at the local office soon(in one or two months time). They want to verify something regarding your case. In my case it was the missing vaccination document
2011 valentine friendship quotes.
bytegame
07-17 04:14 PM
Instead of flowers, lets make IV strong by contributing more to it. The battle isn't over yet. We may still end up living rest of our lives on EADs and APs.
Again, pl. contribute!!
Again, pl. contribute!!
more...
techbuyer77
06-20 11:20 AM
File i-485 with evl from old employer as future employee. after 180 days invoke ac21 and switch to current (given both jobs are similar in duties and such)
joydiptac
05-14 03:56 PM
My heart goes out to the parents of this victim of immigration impasse. A minor accompanying parents illegally or otherwise cannot be termed illegal.
How many more innocents will become victims for the crime they have not committed?
Republicans wake up to this gruesome reality. Even legal immigration applicants like us are still without a green card after being in this country for 10 years.
Even if you forget us, and the illegal adults the issue with the "illegal" minors must be addressed.
Their future cannot wait for your petty political gains.
How many more innocents will become victims for the crime they have not committed?
Republicans wake up to this gruesome reality. Even legal immigration applicants like us are still without a green card after being in this country for 10 years.
Even if you forget us, and the illegal adults the issue with the "illegal" minors must be addressed.
Their future cannot wait for your petty political gains.
more...
gc_on_demand
04-04 10:41 AM
I have a question - If a person has not even filed for 485 as is the case because dates never moved beyond July 2007 then how come NVC sends out fee invoice?
When you are in USA and want to adjustment of status with USCIS then only you need to fill out I 485. If you are in USA or not and want to apply for gc at abroad consulate then you select option in I 140 form which will route your I 140 once approved to NVC. NVC keep I 140 with them until they think date will be current soon. and they send out fee invoice.
If you pay fees and still your date doesn't become current for year , you loose fees since consulate return file back to NVC after a while. Generally NVC be little cautious and guess date so applicant don't loose fees, from this I think if any one get fees notice beyond July 2007 then we can safely say that date will be atleast there at the end of year.I read online that one lawyer mentioned his / her client got fee notice for Nov 2007 case. To me date will go upto Nov 2007 by Sep 2011. I would like to find if more people are getting such fee invoice mail / email.
When you are in USA and want to adjustment of status with USCIS then only you need to fill out I 485. If you are in USA or not and want to apply for gc at abroad consulate then you select option in I 140 form which will route your I 140 once approved to NVC. NVC keep I 140 with them until they think date will be current soon. and they send out fee invoice.
If you pay fees and still your date doesn't become current for year , you loose fees since consulate return file back to NVC after a while. Generally NVC be little cautious and guess date so applicant don't loose fees, from this I think if any one get fees notice beyond July 2007 then we can safely say that date will be atleast there at the end of year.I read online that one lawyer mentioned his / her client got fee notice for Nov 2007 case. To me date will go upto Nov 2007 by Sep 2011. I would like to find if more people are getting such fee invoice mail / email.
2010 friendship quotes in
sounakc
07-10 05:04 PM
the family based 2 nd group PD cut off is 15 jan 2005
EB-2 PD cut off is 01 oct 2003
say my if my PD is jan 2004 and I have filed for my I-485 (EB-2) during july 07 window (couldnt add my wife since was not married at that time). Can I now file for the I-485 or AOS for my wife now.
cheers
EB-2 PD cut off is 01 oct 2003
say my if my PD is jan 2004 and I have filed for my I-485 (EB-2) during july 07 window (couldnt add my wife since was not married at that time). Can I now file for the I-485 or AOS for my wife now.
cheers
more...
pyaradesi
01-10 12:09 PM
Hi H1TechSlave,
I am guessing you are basing your proposal on the UC Davis report/link in your post. Yes, there are companies and individuals who are misusing the H1b system, but this is the case with any law, regulation not just immigration. You will never have a perfect system. An example of this is democracy, we are well aware that democracy with its virtues, comes with a price of chaos and corruption. This does not mean we opt for a totalitarian system.
The H1b represents the American Dream for Indians and a lot of other folks from across the world. Plumbers, carpenters, coal workers, homeless people, and literally bums were allowed to immigrate thorough Ellis Island without even needing a visa. Now to come and say that you need to be a genius to get an H1b visa, and IITs are not the best institutions is just preposterous. This report basically states that mojority of H1bs are incompetent folks who come from weak US universities. The Amercican Dream is a universal concept that should be protected at any cost. Protectionist legislation with stymie growth.
The report focuses on H1bs stealing American Jobs, is there any data on the kind of people being displaced, their qualifications?
Put aside the h1b for a minute, what about the agricultural workers who come here, do you need to be the best cherry picker in all of Mexico to work in the US?
Now, this report was published in 2003, it has been buried for good reason.
How do you define "Genius", is Albert Einstein a genius? Is this a measurable concept? Do geniuses create jobs? History tells us that geniuses made a lot of news and history but very little else. The world runs not because of geniuses, but because of a few smart people and millions of average folks.
Do we need to tackle mom&pop h1b sweatshops? yes, but not by changing the fundamental nature of "h1b".
I am guessing you are basing your proposal on the UC Davis report/link in your post. Yes, there are companies and individuals who are misusing the H1b system, but this is the case with any law, regulation not just immigration. You will never have a perfect system. An example of this is democracy, we are well aware that democracy with its virtues, comes with a price of chaos and corruption. This does not mean we opt for a totalitarian system.
The H1b represents the American Dream for Indians and a lot of other folks from across the world. Plumbers, carpenters, coal workers, homeless people, and literally bums were allowed to immigrate thorough Ellis Island without even needing a visa. Now to come and say that you need to be a genius to get an H1b visa, and IITs are not the best institutions is just preposterous. This report basically states that mojority of H1bs are incompetent folks who come from weak US universities. The Amercican Dream is a universal concept that should be protected at any cost. Protectionist legislation with stymie growth.
The report focuses on H1bs stealing American Jobs, is there any data on the kind of people being displaced, their qualifications?
Put aside the h1b for a minute, what about the agricultural workers who come here, do you need to be the best cherry picker in all of Mexico to work in the US?
Now, this report was published in 2003, it has been buried for good reason.
How do you define "Genius", is Albert Einstein a genius? Is this a measurable concept? Do geniuses create jobs? History tells us that geniuses made a lot of news and history but very little else. The world runs not because of geniuses, but because of a few smart people and millions of average folks.
Do we need to tackle mom&pop h1b sweatshops? yes, but not by changing the fundamental nature of "h1b".
hair friendship quotes
gcformeornot
12-31 10:21 PM
what % have got FP notices. Out of 25500 members I see only few votes...
more...
hianupam
04-16 01:36 PM
Trust me. That's a move you will surely enjoy....I moved in the opposite direction.......Houston to Allentown
Houston is the best. Lovely weather, Really "BIG" city so you can get or do whatever you want. The metro system is not the best but if you only need it to commute to work(downtown) then no problem. By the way they don't give a crap about driver's licenses in houston, too many applications. They'll give you 6yrs easily on ur license.
Thanks. Everybody else that I talk to seems to make a big deal about the commute downtown. Actually It is my wife who will be facing the commute. I get to work from home mostly when I am not travelling.
How's allentown treating you?
Houston is the best. Lovely weather, Really "BIG" city so you can get or do whatever you want. The metro system is not the best but if you only need it to commute to work(downtown) then no problem. By the way they don't give a crap about driver's licenses in houston, too many applications. They'll give you 6yrs easily on ur license.
Thanks. Everybody else that I talk to seems to make a big deal about the commute downtown. Actually It is my wife who will be facing the commute. I get to work from home mostly when I am not travelling.
How's allentown treating you?
hot altquot;friendship quotes
yabadaba
06-18 12:29 PM
right.. thats what i thought.. thanks for your opinion.....at least that means i was thinking along the same lines. i ll doubl check with my attorney.
thx again
thx again
more...
house Cute Friendship Quotes For
avi101
06-29 03:41 PM
Labor and I140 (except NIW cases) are applied through employer and is employer centric (unforunately) and they have every right not to give it to you. The lawyers won't give it to you either as they can be sued by company for doing that (based on what a well known lawyer told me).
Your best bet is to petition through Freedom of Information Act (google or check immigrationportal forums for more info) for these things and you can get a copy from USCIS. People seem to have done this successfully. However, this takes time.
Your best bet is to petition through Freedom of Information Act (google or check immigrationportal forums for more info) for these things and you can get a copy from USCIS. People seem to have done this successfully. However, this takes time.
tattoo Sell friendship quotes
needGCcool
09-03 10:46 PM
My PD is current - Going for consular processing a good idea?
i dont know how much u...but changing the option is not like picking a different item from menu..............this requires a lot more documesnts + time..........
i dont know how much u...but changing the option is not like picking a different item from menu..............this requires a lot more documesnts + time..........
more...
pictures friendship quotes quotes.
dwhuser
09-14 05:11 PM
Curious to see if there is any luck for spouse approvals in the September 2009 PD movement ?
dresses Friendship Quotes
485Mbe4001
06-29 03:57 PM
i dont think you will get the copies of I140, it is owned by the company and they have every right to keep it. Nothing much you can do about it, its perfectly legal for them to do that. If its a desi lawyer you might have change of getting a copy but most of the lawyers will not suggest your company to give it. i went through the same, my company was ok with giving me the copy but the lawyers suggested against it.
more...
makeup friendship quotes in telugu.
help43
09-11 05:03 PM
i am applying for H1-B amendment before going to the stamping
is it a good step to handle the situation?
They said like you have been applied for a new H1-B, NOT for Change of status thats y u didnt got the I-94.
Please advise on these options....
is it a good step to handle the situation?
They said like you have been applied for a new H1-B, NOT for Change of status thats y u didnt got the I-94.
Please advise on these options....
girlfriend quotes for friends.
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.
hairstyles girlfriend friendship quotes
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..??
sabbygirl99
03-28 04:45 PM
You can't have an F1 AND an H1. So if she was on an F1, then that means she did not have an H1....which means she was not working....but employer still did this for her? It's all moot anyways - b/c no way would my employer do anything like this for me. They barely understand my situation.
A member posted that s/he did labor certification and I-140 on F1. I don't remember the name of the thread.
You can do labor certification without H1 as long as employer is willing.
A member posted that s/he did labor certification and I-140 on F1. I don't remember the name of the thread.
You can do labor certification without H1 as long as employer is willing.
k_usa
12-16 10:52 AM
I got mine renewed in July'08 based on EAD in Lodi, NJ (Bergen county).
They renewed until EAD expiry date + 3 months.
They renewed until EAD expiry date + 3 months.
No comments:
Post a Comment