signin241
07-24 07:49 PM
Somebody told me that I can get a letter from Indian consulate certifying by Date of Birth using my passport and I can use that in place of the Birth certificate for 485 ?? IS this true, if yes, will this be accepted by USCIS ??
In the first case if I proceed as of now and when I get an RFE, what should I do ???
Thanks
In the first case if I proceed as of now and when I get an RFE, what should I do ???
Thanks
wallpaper quotes for students
sunny1000
06-26 09:56 PM
Thanx once again Ms. Sen for you so valuable response. Is there anyways, you could tell me the email address. It will be then easy for me to talk to him when I have all the information. Another question, has the email to be sent out only by the lawyer, or the company can directly do that?
Thanx once again...
It is:
streamline.tsc@dhs.gov
There is a specific format to send this email. Here is the link to the PDF:
http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tsc-streamline-procedure.pdf
Here is the original post:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/22849-tsc-streamline-processing.html
Thanx once again...
It is:
streamline.tsc@dhs.gov
There is a specific format to send this email. Here is the link to the PDF:
http://www.laborimmigration.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tsc-streamline-procedure.pdf
Here is the original post:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/22849-tsc-streamline-processing.html
actonwang
06-16 02:05 PM
it sounds like PD is a MUST for approval but for actual processing order , as in backlog queue, it seems purely by luck :(
2011 Motivational Quotes for Students
gc_chahiye
11-02 10:54 AM
Schedule A workers first get GCs from EB3 quota and when they finsih that, they take the recapture numbers. When there is no recapture rule, they are treated as other regular EB3s.
exactly! this is almost a disaster for EB folks, most people dont realize that: they think the queue is getting smaller. The queue will remain the same, the chance (& amount) of recapture that might happen for regular EB folks is getting reduced. One recapture was alreayd done for Nurses back in 2005-06. This is the second one. One or two more such recaptures, and there will nothing for US to recapture.
exactly! this is almost a disaster for EB folks, most people dont realize that: they think the queue is getting smaller. The queue will remain the same, the chance (& amount) of recapture that might happen for regular EB folks is getting reduced. One recapture was alreayd done for Nurses back in 2005-06. This is the second one. One or two more such recaptures, and there will nothing for US to recapture.
more...
gcventure
04-07 04:32 PM
ggc,
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
vinzak
01-03 12:36 AM
School has no interest in insisting on a specific immigration status when you meet the admission requirements and pay your tuition. With I-485 receipt most colleges will accept you as a resident student without any issues.
However, I think you have to let the H1 status go when you leave your current position, and that should not matter as you have the option to get EAD for any future work.
GC is for future employment, and with the current backlog in EB3-I you will easily finish your MBA before you get your GC. Hence, go for it and good luck!
If a student is taking more than 18 hrs in credits, the school is liable to make sure the student's immigration status is legit. So the school does have an interest. I'm not sure if you did Master's or when you did it. But under SEVIS, the liability schools have on foreign students are far more stringent than before.
However, I think you have to let the H1 status go when you leave your current position, and that should not matter as you have the option to get EAD for any future work.
GC is for future employment, and with the current backlog in EB3-I you will easily finish your MBA before you get your GC. Hence, go for it and good luck!
If a student is taking more than 18 hrs in credits, the school is liable to make sure the student's immigration status is legit. So the school does have an interest. I'm not sure if you did Master's or when you did it. But under SEVIS, the liability schools have on foreign students are far more stringent than before.
more...
chaukas
10-15 01:39 PM
I work for a large ( very large ) software company ( No its not MSFT or Oracle ).
We have quite a few interns from India and they don't even talk about working here. Their goal is to do a masters and go back to India.
We have quite a few interns from India and they don't even talk about working here. Their goal is to do a masters and go back to India.
2010 quotes for students
vin13
05-19 10:57 AM
How come Mexican president doing Illegal immigration stuff. Indian PM can at least talk about waiting people, family reunion and backlogs.
I can understand where you coming from.. Mera Bharath Mahan
But I cant but differ from your views. Indian Prime Minister is not so great as you think. He is only a puppet in Dynasty tantras
Look i am not trying to say "mera bharat Mahan". All i am saying is tell me why should the Indian PM work to get us the Green Card. If you feel the Indian PM is incompetent, that is not related to immigration. Even if there was a competent PM, why should he/she work to get our Green Card? Tell me how India gains by you or me becoming US Citizens. Please don't tell population reduction for India. Give some substantial benefit for India.
Mexico is a bordering country and has a different kind of trade and agreements. It is not the same for other countries like India and China.
I can understand where you coming from.. Mera Bharath Mahan
But I cant but differ from your views. Indian Prime Minister is not so great as you think. He is only a puppet in Dynasty tantras
Look i am not trying to say "mera bharat Mahan". All i am saying is tell me why should the Indian PM work to get us the Green Card. If you feel the Indian PM is incompetent, that is not related to immigration. Even if there was a competent PM, why should he/she work to get our Green Card? Tell me how India gains by you or me becoming US Citizens. Please don't tell population reduction for India. Give some substantial benefit for India.
Mexico is a bordering country and has a different kind of trade and agreements. It is not the same for other countries like India and China.
more...
kondur_007
03-20 12:33 PM
I received my 140 and 485 denial letters on Mar 19th. The reason cited for the 140 denial letter was "effect of failure to respond to a RFE". I received the RFE on my 140 dated Feb 8th on Feb 15th and my law firm sent out the response to the RFE that reached TSC on Mar 11th as per the Fedex receipt.
What are my options going forth:
(1) File a MTR? should I file this myself or work with my law firm on this? What is the effort involved in filing the MTR as I understand from the denial letter that I have until Apr 14th to file the MTR?
(2)Is there any other means to communicate with TSC that my RFE response was received at TSC within the 33 day time limit and hence there is no basis for this denial?
(3) Re-file a new 140 petition?
Any inputs and other suggestions are appreciated
Good, that makes things simple. File appeal or MTR (according to your attorney's advise) and it will almost certainly get approved. No need for new I 140. MTR/appeal is the only way of reopening this.
Do it in timely fashion.
good luck.
What are my options going forth:
(1) File a MTR? should I file this myself or work with my law firm on this? What is the effort involved in filing the MTR as I understand from the denial letter that I have until Apr 14th to file the MTR?
(2)Is there any other means to communicate with TSC that my RFE response was received at TSC within the 33 day time limit and hence there is no basis for this denial?
(3) Re-file a new 140 petition?
Any inputs and other suggestions are appreciated
Good, that makes things simple. File appeal or MTR (according to your attorney's advise) and it will almost certainly get approved. No need for new I 140. MTR/appeal is the only way of reopening this.
Do it in timely fashion.
good luck.
hair quotes for students; quotes for students. quotes for students. essay
NolaIndian32
04-28 02:20 PM
If your I-94 is only issued until your H1B is valid or until AP is valid, you don't have to worry about extending your I-94 once that H1b or AP expire. When you renew your H1b or AP, it acts as your I-94. Matter of fact, the bottom portion of your H1b approval notice is also the new I-94.
I have travelled numerous times between the US and India since 1994 and not once did I ever worry about the validity of the I-94 because I was always "in-status".
I have travelled numerous times between the US and India since 1994 and not once did I ever worry about the validity of the I-94 because I was always "in-status".
more...
gauravsh
04-28 08:57 AM
Travelled back from India today by continental flight from mumbai till newark non stop. My H1b is expiring on 19th june. Had a ISSUELESS entry. The guy asked your petition is valid only till 19th June. I replied I am going to file an extension. he said you will be needing to reenter the country after it. I said "yes, I know". He said he is going to give in I-94 valid till 29th june just in case if I have any issues. That is 10 more days after my petition is expring.
Guy was very nice and supporting. We shared some jokes . he notices that by passport has writing that If I take citizenship of any other country than I have to surrender the passport. he asked "india dont allow dual citizenship". I said "No". he replied "It sucks" and we laughed together.
My advice dont let current recession effect your trip. If you need any more information PM me. I will be happy to assist.
Also, just I wanted to share the information becuase many people seemed worried about this.
Good luck :) :) :) :)
Guy was very nice and supporting. We shared some jokes . he notices that by passport has writing that If I take citizenship of any other country than I have to surrender the passport. he asked "india dont allow dual citizenship". I said "No". he replied "It sucks" and we laughed together.
My advice dont let current recession effect your trip. If you need any more information PM me. I will be happy to assist.
Also, just I wanted to share the information becuase many people seemed worried about this.
Good luck :) :) :) :)
hot quotes for students. reading quotes for students
.soulty
03-30 04:00 PM
when is this thing going in completed battles? Just wondering...Poll closed and moved to completed battles..
congrats everyone, nice work. ;)
congrats everyone, nice work. ;)
more...
house cute quotes for facebook
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.
tattoo quotes for students. inspiring quotes for students
bigboy007
10-30 05:54 PM
bumping up - any inputs please
more...
pictures quotes for students. teacher quotes for students
gc_rip
07-06 12:52 PM
Thanks Ann,
This is really helpful.
To understand it carefully, as long as the new company can provide me a future job offer, when the PD is current the GC can be approved.
In this case,
1. Should I transfer my H1B with the new company, or it's not required? My job offer will be from the Indian company, and not the US company.
2. In case of business travel, until the PD is current, if I don't have AP renewed which visa should I travel on? As I won't be paid directly from the US counterpart of the company, I am not sure if I can travel using H1 for short time.
Could traveling on B1 visa consider it as abandonment of GC process?
Thanks,
-Raj
This is really helpful.
To understand it carefully, as long as the new company can provide me a future job offer, when the PD is current the GC can be approved.
In this case,
1. Should I transfer my H1B with the new company, or it's not required? My job offer will be from the Indian company, and not the US company.
2. In case of business travel, until the PD is current, if I don't have AP renewed which visa should I travel on? As I won't be paid directly from the US counterpart of the company, I am not sure if I can travel using H1 for short time.
Could traveling on B1 visa consider it as abandonment of GC process?
Thanks,
-Raj
dresses What is the value of students
superdude
08-01 04:54 PM
I hope they look at the post mark date. We can not even trust FedEx now. These things do happen. Its very sad to hear this
Response for my RFE on 140 was supposed to be sent in by today. My Law office sent in the resposne using FEDEX overnight yesterday. I come to work in the moring and check the status of FEDEX and it says it is still in transit. I call the fedex office with tracking number and they say there was a big technical problem and hydraulic leak in the plane that was supposed to carry my response. Fedex says they will try to deliver by after mailroom closes today and they are ready to issue a letter stating that its their mistake. Do you guys think my response will be accepted tomorrow or I get a NOID for my 140? My lawyer says that if FEDEX trys to deliver it by today and they fail we should be ok or if they issue NOID we can always rebut back with letter from FEDEX and open a MTR .. any one of you guys have any such experience. I dont want to blame any one here excpet my luck in the whole process.
Any input guys .. I really dont know what to do .. I am almost half paralyzed , I am in 6th year of my H1 and ends in december ..and my PD is Sep 2004 .
Guys any input is appreciated ..
Response for my RFE on 140 was supposed to be sent in by today. My Law office sent in the resposne using FEDEX overnight yesterday. I come to work in the moring and check the status of FEDEX and it says it is still in transit. I call the fedex office with tracking number and they say there was a big technical problem and hydraulic leak in the plane that was supposed to carry my response. Fedex says they will try to deliver by after mailroom closes today and they are ready to issue a letter stating that its their mistake. Do you guys think my response will be accepted tomorrow or I get a NOID for my 140? My lawyer says that if FEDEX trys to deliver it by today and they fail we should be ok or if they issue NOID we can always rebut back with letter from FEDEX and open a MTR .. any one of you guys have any such experience. I dont want to blame any one here excpet my luck in the whole process.
Any input guys .. I really dont know what to do .. I am almost half paralyzed , I am in 6th year of my H1 and ends in december ..and my PD is Sep 2004 .
Guys any input is appreciated ..
more...
makeup teacher quotes for students; quotes for students. school quotes for students
wandmaker
03-15 11:02 AM
is appreciated at IV. This is in addition to any other contributions (either time or money) to IV. :)
I meant "Recurring monthly Contribution" :)
Let us setup a recurring contribution funding drive -
Needhelp / janilsal - can you guys set one up, I will keep bumping with my pledges as usual.
I meant "Recurring monthly Contribution" :)
Let us setup a recurring contribution funding drive -
Needhelp / janilsal - can you guys set one up, I will keep bumping with my pledges as usual.
girlfriend Educational Services for
FredG
May 1st, 2005, 01:58 PM
I'd say you captured the action just fine. All that bird tracking was probably good practice for this.
hairstyles quotes about education and
bluekayal
04-01 01:57 AM
Mitra Kalita is part of SAJA- South Asian Journalists Association.
ilikekilo
06-07 05:45 PM
I am surprised with this thread. There is no Deadline for employemnt based GC (this was mentioned by Sen. Robert (Bob) Men�ndez,NJ when requesting to move the FB deadline which is clearly mentioned in the bill as May 01, 2005) . Please read the summary and text carefully.
Summary:
First five years
Total number of merit-based green cards includes sum of:
a.) First five fiscal years have same number of green cards as made available to EB category in 2005. This number is 246,878.
b.) Any visa number not used by family based category.
How the total number will be divided between Current system and new merit-based system and Y visa holders --
- 10,000 (or more) reserved for exceptional aliens under �Y� visa category.
- 90,000 (exactly 90,000 � not more not less) for backlogged (pending or approved I-140 applications). Currently, this number is 140,000.
- Remaining possibly goes to new merits system. Until the merits system is ready for accepting petitions, the Y visa holders probably get a shot at this since the clause says �No more than 10,000� � leaving room to let it go up from 10,000 to whatever is left.
and the TEXT of the Bill
�(A) for the first five fiscal years shall be equal to the
33 number of immigrant visas made available to aliens
34 seeking immigrant visas under section 203(b) of this
35 Act for fiscal year 2005, plus any immigrant visas
36 not required for the class specified in (c), of which:
37 (i) at least 10,000 will be for exceptional aliens
38 in nonimmigrant status under section
39 101(a)(15)(Y); and
40 (ii) 90,000 will be for aliens who were the
41 beneficiaries of an application that was pending
42 or approved at the time of the effective date of
43 this section, per Section 502(d) of the [Insert
44 title of Act] ( Act not the bill)
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.�The amendments made by this section shall take
11 effect on the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of
12 enactment.
So a bill becomes law only after signed by the president, and the effective date could be Oct 01, 2007 if not Oct 01, 2008.
So all the I-140 filed on of before Effective date are considered as pending!!
I don't know why even lawyers are getting confused here!:confused:
ok veni..stop geeting surprised and pl contribute for your sake
Summary:
First five years
Total number of merit-based green cards includes sum of:
a.) First five fiscal years have same number of green cards as made available to EB category in 2005. This number is 246,878.
b.) Any visa number not used by family based category.
How the total number will be divided between Current system and new merit-based system and Y visa holders --
- 10,000 (or more) reserved for exceptional aliens under �Y� visa category.
- 90,000 (exactly 90,000 � not more not less) for backlogged (pending or approved I-140 applications). Currently, this number is 140,000.
- Remaining possibly goes to new merits system. Until the merits system is ready for accepting petitions, the Y visa holders probably get a shot at this since the clause says �No more than 10,000� � leaving room to let it go up from 10,000 to whatever is left.
and the TEXT of the Bill
�(A) for the first five fiscal years shall be equal to the
33 number of immigrant visas made available to aliens
34 seeking immigrant visas under section 203(b) of this
35 Act for fiscal year 2005, plus any immigrant visas
36 not required for the class specified in (c), of which:
37 (i) at least 10,000 will be for exceptional aliens
38 in nonimmigrant status under section
39 101(a)(15)(Y); and
40 (ii) 90,000 will be for aliens who were the
41 beneficiaries of an application that was pending
42 or approved at the time of the effective date of
43 this section, per Section 502(d) of the [Insert
44 title of Act] ( Act not the bill)
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.�The amendments made by this section shall take
11 effect on the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year of
12 enactment.
So a bill becomes law only after signed by the president, and the effective date could be Oct 01, 2007 if not Oct 01, 2008.
So all the I-140 filed on of before Effective date are considered as pending!!
I don't know why even lawyers are getting confused here!:confused:
ok veni..stop geeting surprised and pl contribute for your sake
needhelp!
01-21 01:49 PM
I know one or two friends who had gap in between H1 transfer. So far USCIS has not been to strict about it.
If you find a minute, could you please update your profile to help other members and IV?
If you find a minute, could you please update your profile to help other members and IV?
No comments:
Post a Comment