Madhuri
05-04 11:34 AM
I know one of my friend who applied 3 different LCs thr' different employers and he finally applied thr' PERM and got approval. But his all 3 cases are still in pending queue. There might be many others who did this and together it may be quite substantial number. Of course no way to extract this kind of data.
Folks,
I was analysing the data based on posts in various immigration websites for India based filings. The data could be very well wrong too. (data for India folks as below).
It appears on rough estimates :
2005
EB1 - 4000
EB2 - 26000
EB3 - 39000
2004
EB1 - 5500
EB2 - 32000
Eb3 - 36000
Folks,
I was analysing the data based on posts in various immigration websites for India based filings. The data could be very well wrong too. (data for India folks as below).
It appears on rough estimates :
2005
EB1 - 4000
EB2 - 26000
EB3 - 39000
2004
EB1 - 5500
EB2 - 32000
Eb3 - 36000
wallpaper free wallpaper download,
ikass
06-01 08:32 PM
Can IV help with reaching out to Media or leading magazine to provide some light into the plight of legal immigration? We don`t see articles written or spoken about our plight. IV can direct some resources to this effort and I`m sure we can provide 100s of unique stories of aspiring legal immigrants waiting for some action. Especially, if it can help congress pass 1 or 2 small amendments with other bills this Summer. Fellow IV members who are in the same situation, please share your ideas for legislation.
chanukya
05-17 10:55 PM
Sorry about my statement, I stand corrected, if you are US Masters and above plus member of profession, you still are not exempt from LC Process, however, special handling of LC in your case will take place, like the measure by DOL will be looking for US Citizens equally qualified ratehr than able, willing and qualified.
USCIS Section 212(a)
(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants.-
(A) Labor certification.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.
(ii) Certain aliens subject to special rule.-For purposes of clause (i)(I), an alien described in this clause is an alien who-
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts
(III) is a member of the professions and has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.''.
Bottom line US Masters and above still need LC, Only thing is they are not counted against Quota....which is the biggest releif ever...
USCIS Section 212(a)
(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants.-
(A) Labor certification.-
(i) In general.-Any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that-
(I) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and
(II) the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.
(ii) Certain aliens subject to special rule.-For purposes of clause (i)(I), an alien described in this clause is an alien who-
(I) is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II) has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts
(III) is a member of the professions and has a master's degree or higher from an accredited United States university or has been awarded medical specialty certification based on post-doctoral training and experience in the United States.''.
Bottom line US Masters and above still need LC, Only thing is they are not counted against Quota....which is the biggest releif ever...
2011 free wallpaper download,
greyhair
02-01 07:57 PM
This will give you a give idea about where things are going -
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
You could use these stats as guiding matrics when making investment decision.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
You could use these stats as guiding matrics when making investment decision.
more...
frostrated
09-09 03:33 PM
Me and my wife are on pending I-485 AOS. Mine is employment based (EB3) and my wife's is derivative.
I-140 is approved.
I work here on EAD. My wife had to travel to India urgently. She applied for Advance Parole, but had to leave before she received the Advance Parole.
Now she wants to return back, but as she has not yet received Advance Parole, will she need to apply for Visa?
Or is it better to wait for Advance pArole decision?
If Visa, under what category?
Thanks
As you are already working on EAD, you are no longer in H1 status. Therefore, the only option for your wife to return is to wait for the approval of the AP.
If AP is denied, your have to request a Motion To Reopen the denial and hope that it is approved.
If it is still denied, then you will have to wait for your green card to be approved.
I-140 is approved.
I work here on EAD. My wife had to travel to India urgently. She applied for Advance Parole, but had to leave before she received the Advance Parole.
Now she wants to return back, but as she has not yet received Advance Parole, will she need to apply for Visa?
Or is it better to wait for Advance pArole decision?
If Visa, under what category?
Thanks
As you are already working on EAD, you are no longer in H1 status. Therefore, the only option for your wife to return is to wait for the approval of the AP.
If AP is denied, your have to request a Motion To Reopen the denial and hope that it is approved.
If it is still denied, then you will have to wait for your green card to be approved.
mhtanim
03-16 03:06 PM
My I-485 Receipt Notice does not have any PD on it either.
more...
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
2010 Desktop Wallpaper Download
cool_guy_onnet1
03-10 12:16 PM
How does USCIS know about salary ? I understand that if they send rfe, we need to send the w-2 but does IRS also send the w2 information to USCIS? The other question is whats the criteria of judging the salary? Is it w-2 or pay stub ? My pay stub has been showing the correct salary but w-2 does not reflect that much since I was out of the work for quite sometime.
I MAY switch my job and this is an emergency.
Please pardon the relevancy.
Thanks
I MAY switch my job and this is an emergency.
Please pardon the relevancy.
Thanks
more...
msp1976
05-27 01:40 PM
Problem with the poll is that only people with not current PD come here, people with current PD do not come here any longer...
hair free wallpaper download,
amitjoey
08-15 12:58 PM
I filed in last week of June but have still not issued receipts. There are many like me. At the same time, some July 2 filers have receipts.
The explantion for this is that USCIS does not stricly follow first in, first out. They continue to process applications and issue receipt notices haphazardly, that is why some early filers have not recieved RNs while some later filers have. This has created a lot of confusion and anxiety.
The only thing that can help us is a legislative fix. Please help IV help ourselves!
Absolutely right, how otherwise do you explain that they issued card production for people with PD's in 2004, (Dates not current in June) on July 2nd and in an hour and then said the visas are unavailable.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
The explantion for this is that USCIS does not stricly follow first in, first out. They continue to process applications and issue receipt notices haphazardly, that is why some early filers have not recieved RNs while some later filers have. This has created a lot of confusion and anxiety.
The only thing that can help us is a legislative fix. Please help IV help ourselves!
Absolutely right, how otherwise do you explain that they issued card production for people with PD's in 2004, (Dates not current in June) on July 2nd and in an hour and then said the visas are unavailable.
NO FIFO whatsoever.
They just saved themselves by retracting the VB of JULY, or else they would have faced lawsuits, and investigation which would have shown all irregularities and fraud.
more...
VDaminator
06-11 12:58 PM
I beleive this is my last volley anyway here it is hope ya like.
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v150/VDaminator/serve-7.jpg
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v150/VDaminator/serve-7.jpg
hot free wallpaper download,
ravindrajadeja
04-29 04:09 PM
Thanks snathan and aravindhome for your responses.
I'm going to consult an attorney on this for sure...
After i consulted my friends and after going through some other posts i figured that F1 is the best option i have now.
My fiancee is interested in pursuing her higher education, but just wanted to find out if it would be OK that i sponsor her education and state that her fiance is in US with green card at the time of visa application?.. would this cause any problems for getting her F1 visa?
OR should she not mention anything about me in any stage be it in University Admisssion process or the F1 visa application process?
I know all of the other options (H1, L1, B1 and GC sponsor for spouse) would require much time.
aravindhome-- i'm not sure how fast can she get a canadian PR and then come to this Country?...On what basis is she going to enter this country?
Thanks a lot
Ravi
I'm going to consult an attorney on this for sure...
After i consulted my friends and after going through some other posts i figured that F1 is the best option i have now.
My fiancee is interested in pursuing her higher education, but just wanted to find out if it would be OK that i sponsor her education and state that her fiance is in US with green card at the time of visa application?.. would this cause any problems for getting her F1 visa?
OR should she not mention anything about me in any stage be it in University Admisssion process or the F1 visa application process?
I know all of the other options (H1, L1, B1 and GC sponsor for spouse) would require much time.
aravindhome-- i'm not sure how fast can she get a canadian PR and then come to this Country?...On what basis is she going to enter this country?
Thanks a lot
Ravi
more...
house free wallpaper download,
optimystic
04-06 11:41 PM
there is no difference between using AC-21 or not. When you get your GC, the general line of thinking is that you stay with the current sponsoring employer for 6 months or more. AC-21 is merely a way of changing your 'current sponsoring employer'.
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
tattoo free wallpaper download,
desi485
09-27 10:12 AM
^^bump^^
more...
pictures free wallpaper download,
chanduv23
03-29 09:47 PM
Chanduv,
I am sorry, but as far as I have known IV, IV has never exclusively or inclusively worked on student OPT/H1, but it is a coincidence that increase in student OPT might be a fallout of some of IV's actions. I dont see any point of asking students to join IV solely on this basis (OPT or H1 increase). Though, having graduated as a student in US, I totally agree to the point of asking students to join stating that GC is the final step in achieving their American Dream, where IV can make considerable impact.
I think the administrators should particulary keep a close watch on such posts related to OPT/H1 issues. These posts might be incorrectly interpreted and lead to deviatons from IV's cores agenda issues as well as division of resources. Unless, IV administrators are seriously thinking of changing their ideology and are willing to walk this path.
Nevertheless, I will keep on supporting IV with all my possible efforts. Cheers and Go IV!
HP
The idea is to encourage imigrants to get into this process of "self help". A lot of people do not realise the importance of such efforts and thats whythey try to avoid and always find issues and faults.
Students/OPT are fresh, young and talented and their energies can be channelized in the most effective manner. it is just the process of trying to inculcate the thought of "right approach" for their careers and future.
IV has been a platfrom for immigrants, IV has been used as a platform for various issues like drivers license and other variety of issues.
I am sorry, but as far as I have known IV, IV has never exclusively or inclusively worked on student OPT/H1, but it is a coincidence that increase in student OPT might be a fallout of some of IV's actions. I dont see any point of asking students to join IV solely on this basis (OPT or H1 increase). Though, having graduated as a student in US, I totally agree to the point of asking students to join stating that GC is the final step in achieving their American Dream, where IV can make considerable impact.
I think the administrators should particulary keep a close watch on such posts related to OPT/H1 issues. These posts might be incorrectly interpreted and lead to deviatons from IV's cores agenda issues as well as division of resources. Unless, IV administrators are seriously thinking of changing their ideology and are willing to walk this path.
Nevertheless, I will keep on supporting IV with all my possible efforts. Cheers and Go IV!
HP
The idea is to encourage imigrants to get into this process of "self help". A lot of people do not realise the importance of such efforts and thats whythey try to avoid and always find issues and faults.
Students/OPT are fresh, young and talented and their energies can be channelized in the most effective manner. it is just the process of trying to inculcate the thought of "right approach" for their careers and future.
IV has been a platfrom for immigrants, IV has been used as a platform for various issues like drivers license and other variety of issues.
dresses Desktop Wallpaper
tammigaw
02-15 12:16 AM
i have signed non compete , but when i signed it , he explained me that i should not go to the client through some other vendor , but i can join end client as end client has contract with Prime vendor that they can hire me full time .
But now he is claiming that i cant join full time with the client as well.
During my stay with that employer , he newer paid me on time and once he held my paycheck , just to harass me.
Do you think that these grounds fall under employee undue stress to be sufficient to turn down Non Compete in court ?
But now he is claiming that i cant join full time with the client as well.
During my stay with that employer , he newer paid me on time and once he held my paycheck , just to harass me.
Do you think that these grounds fall under employee undue stress to be sufficient to turn down Non Compete in court ?
more...
makeup Download for PC. Wallpaper
sac-r-ten
03-22 11:03 AM
Thanks Sac-e-ten,
My husband will talk to lawyer soon ....but he's very depressed and me too...what are the options do we have ...do we need to file appeal through lawyer ...my company is not showing any interests. Sir ..please advise..ur help will be highly appreciated...
Yes, i think you have to appeal through a lawyer.
1. BTW what questions were asked to you during interview?
2. Also the denial says " the petetioner does not appear to be either able or willing to provide qualifying employemnt for the principle applicant in the united states in accordance with a appropriate laws and regulations". Do they mention what law? Does it mention employee-employer relationship?
If employer is not showing interest, then you have to talk to the employer about hiring your own lawyer and filing appeal and/or new h4 petition for you.
Also, there is free-attorney sessions every 1st 3 thursdays of the month here on IV. check with ivcoordinator@gmail.com for that.
Also, don't call anybody Sir out here. we are all in diff sections of the same boat called Immigration sailing against tide called USCIS.
Hope things get resolved for you.Good luck.
My husband will talk to lawyer soon ....but he's very depressed and me too...what are the options do we have ...do we need to file appeal through lawyer ...my company is not showing any interests. Sir ..please advise..ur help will be highly appreciated...
Yes, i think you have to appeal through a lawyer.
1. BTW what questions were asked to you during interview?
2. Also the denial says " the petetioner does not appear to be either able or willing to provide qualifying employemnt for the principle applicant in the united states in accordance with a appropriate laws and regulations". Do they mention what law? Does it mention employee-employer relationship?
If employer is not showing interest, then you have to talk to the employer about hiring your own lawyer and filing appeal and/or new h4 petition for you.
Also, there is free-attorney sessions every 1st 3 thursdays of the month here on IV. check with ivcoordinator@gmail.com for that.
Also, don't call anybody Sir out here. we are all in diff sections of the same boat called Immigration sailing against tide called USCIS.
Hope things get resolved for you.Good luck.
girlfriend on your desktop wallpaper
isantem
08-05 01:02 PM
EB-3 no longer depend upon your place of Birth.
:confused::eek: this is a new law by president paulinasmith?:D
:confused::eek: this is a new law by president paulinasmith?:D
hairstyles Download Preity zinta desktop
jnraajan
04-07 02:45 PM
Folks,
My mother-in-law applied for a B2 Visa and she was granted a 10 year/Multiple entry visa. At the POE, IO gave a 6months stay on her I-94 form. So far so good!
We wanted to extend her B2 for another two months so that we can go around a bit during Summer months. We applied for an extension ( I-539 Application to extend Non-immigration status) and we received an acknowledgement from VSC.
The question is, VSC is processing I-539 for August 07 and I dont think we would be getting her approval before her I-94 expires at the end of this month.
Some folks might have gone thru this situation before. Based on your experiences, can you pls. let me know what are the possible options here?
Rgds,
gcisadawg
Keep the receipt in hand. She can leave when she is ready to leave. If VSC responds or has an RFE after her departure, you can respond to that RFE and also provide proof that she has left the country already.
But, the fact is, USCIS does not take it kindly when people on B2 Visa extends beyond the 6 months. She may have trouble coming back a second time. Please be advised of this.
My mother-in-law applied for a B2 Visa and she was granted a 10 year/Multiple entry visa. At the POE, IO gave a 6months stay on her I-94 form. So far so good!
We wanted to extend her B2 for another two months so that we can go around a bit during Summer months. We applied for an extension ( I-539 Application to extend Non-immigration status) and we received an acknowledgement from VSC.
The question is, VSC is processing I-539 for August 07 and I dont think we would be getting her approval before her I-94 expires at the end of this month.
Some folks might have gone thru this situation before. Based on your experiences, can you pls. let me know what are the possible options here?
Rgds,
gcisadawg
Keep the receipt in hand. She can leave when she is ready to leave. If VSC responds or has an RFE after her departure, you can respond to that RFE and also provide proof that she has left the country already.
But, the fact is, USCIS does not take it kindly when people on B2 Visa extends beyond the 6 months. She may have trouble coming back a second time. Please be advised of this.
cr52401
03-21 08:57 AM
I am in same situation and try to file next month. Can you tell me how long it took for you to get the second approval?
I also sent you a PM as well.
Thank you.
You can only file a second LC for the same employee at the same company, if the new position is "substantially different" from the old position. [ I am happy to report, that I just received my PERM approval for doing exactly this :) ]
If your LC was filed via PERM and approved, you do not need to refile just because you lost the receipt. If you're filing an H1-B renewal, a screen shot / printout of the PERM app, showing the case #, is sufficient. If you're filing an I-140, there's a check box on the I-140 to indicate that USCIS should request a PERM approval receipt directly from DoL.
- gs
I also sent you a PM as well.
Thank you.
You can only file a second LC for the same employee at the same company, if the new position is "substantially different" from the old position. [ I am happy to report, that I just received my PERM approval for doing exactly this :) ]
If your LC was filed via PERM and approved, you do not need to refile just because you lost the receipt. If you're filing an H1-B renewal, a screen shot / printout of the PERM app, showing the case #, is sufficient. If you're filing an I-140, there's a check box on the I-140 to indicate that USCIS should request a PERM approval receipt directly from DoL.
- gs
InTheMoment
08-04 01:34 PM
Please refer to this detailed experience on SS update after GC:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20610
Also there is no need to surrender your old SS card or even show it. (maybe good to just keep it with you if asked.)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20610
Also there is no need to surrender your old SS card or even show it. (maybe good to just keep it with you if asked.)
No comments:
Post a Comment