newlife2
09-19 10:17 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
wallpaper James Franklin Fogarty
javadeveloper
08-25 06:12 AM
Is it true that if we apply for candadian PR we can't apply for visitors visa to cananda.
I want to apply for PR to canada and also would like to go for stamping to cananda sometime after 4-5 months.
Thanks in advance...
Discussions are here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=738 . Good Luck
I want to apply for PR to canada and also would like to go for stamping to cananda sometime after 4-5 months.
Thanks in advance...
Discussions are here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=738 . Good Luck
roseball
11-19 12:45 PM
i am going for the h1 stamping first time . in form 156 how long do you intend to stay in usa ? for that i wrote 3 years . is it ok ? and my sister is also in usa .so for one question i wrote the same thing because we should be honest thats why.
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
This shouldnt be a problem as H1 is a dual intent visa.....Its not like F1 or Visitors Visa where you have to show intent to return home......You should be fine.....
here what my question is will the interview people think that i wont come back to home coutry because of 3years and sister ?
should i take any guarantee supporting letter from my parents if yes how is the format ? please answer with your experiences? i appriciate your help .
This shouldnt be a problem as H1 is a dual intent visa.....Its not like F1 or Visitors Visa where you have to show intent to return home......You should be fine.....
2011 Pictured here is my wife on
ashkam
12-03 04:46 PM
You are welcome. Another important thing to look at (from the document) is that for the first 26 weeks of unemployment, benefits are disbursed through a fund paid for by unemployment taxes on companies, thereby not making it a public burden. After 26 weeks, however, extended unemployment benefits are paid by the federal government, which makes it a public burden, which would be detrimental to a person's green card prospects.
more...
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.
optimystic
09-15 11:52 AM
It still says Aug 15th. I don't think they will release it yet.
I can see it. Refresh your browser
Thanks inskrish for the news.
Anyway, the Proc. dates are a heap of bull shit. The NSC Proc date for I-485 says July 08 2007. We all know the dates were 'U' and noone could have filed a I-485 between July 2 - July 17th (July 2 fiasco). So how can the oldest application that the NSC is blocked on can be dated July 08 2007 !!!
Even if they came across ineligible applications like that, wouldn't they just outright reject them and quickly move on to some other application that they can process??? Why would they consider themselves blocked on such application(s) and issue the processing date to reflect such transient status ???
I can see it. Refresh your browser
Thanks inskrish for the news.
Anyway, the Proc. dates are a heap of bull shit. The NSC Proc date for I-485 says July 08 2007. We all know the dates were 'U' and noone could have filed a I-485 between July 2 - July 17th (July 2 fiasco). So how can the oldest application that the NSC is blocked on can be dated July 08 2007 !!!
Even if they came across ineligible applications like that, wouldn't they just outright reject them and quickly move on to some other application that they can process??? Why would they consider themselves blocked on such application(s) and issue the processing date to reflect such transient status ???
more...
cnachu2
09-16 02:52 PM
I DONT SEE ANY PROBLEMS, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP YOUR AP, LETTER FROM YOUR EMPLOYER AND LAST 3 PAY STUBS AND COPY OF I485,EAD,AC21 COPY IF YOU HAVE ONE
Hi,
I am also planning to travel on AP to India. I changed my employer, but didn't file AC21. AP's are still from the time when i was working for my old employer who sponsored me. Will it be any issue, if i travel with these AP's. What type of letter do i need to take from present employer durimg my travel. Please advise...
Hi,
I am also planning to travel on AP to India. I changed my employer, but didn't file AC21. AP's are still from the time when i was working for my old employer who sponsored me. Will it be any issue, if i travel with these AP's. What type of letter do i need to take from present employer durimg my travel. Please advise...
2010 I didn#39;t cheat on my wife
new2perm
12-29 10:01 PM
EB3 - Priority date 06/06
Filed on Aug 17th @ Nebraska service center. Received EAD. AP status pending.
Finger printing done on 12/08.
Soft LUD on I-485 for self and spouse on 12/10,12/11,12/15,12/18,12/28.
LUD on approved I-140(approved 10/06) on 12/02. Received the 'Your application has been approved....' email from CRIS too on 12/02!!
This is getting me really tensed :-(
Filed on Aug 17th @ Nebraska service center. Received EAD. AP status pending.
Finger printing done on 12/08.
Soft LUD on I-485 for self and spouse on 12/10,12/11,12/15,12/18,12/28.
LUD on approved I-140(approved 10/06) on 12/02. Received the 'Your application has been approved....' email from CRIS too on 12/02!!
This is getting me really tensed :-(
more...
loudobbs
10-17 02:52 PM
You can look at related fields for your job code on the O NETsite.
So I am guessing if your new job code falls in any of the related occupations, your oK??
Any thoughts......
So I am guessing if your new job code falls in any of the related occupations, your oK??
Any thoughts......
hair Who Plays Franklin On My Wife
MYGCBY2010
07-27 03:03 PM
The job order will contain the job description. This will be in the Labor Application. Usually when a 140 is being applied, the employer will provide you the job order and tell you to ensure your experience letters are in line with the Job order.
You will need the 140 number. See if you can get it somehow. Since it belongs to the employer, I doubt you can get the number by calling USCIS.
The 485 is yours and you should get a receipt. With this receipt, you can invoke AC21 without any problems. You will not need copies of Labor or 140.
But to Invoke AC21 and for subsequent adjudication of 485 without issues, nature of the Job should be same or similiar. What are the options by which I could find my Job nature.. Since I don't have a labour copy or i-140 info.. Any inputs ?
You will need the 140 number. See if you can get it somehow. Since it belongs to the employer, I doubt you can get the number by calling USCIS.
The 485 is yours and you should get a receipt. With this receipt, you can invoke AC21 without any problems. You will not need copies of Labor or 140.
But to Invoke AC21 and for subsequent adjudication of 485 without issues, nature of the Job should be same or similiar. What are the options by which I could find my Job nature.. Since I don't have a labour copy or i-140 info.. Any inputs ?
more...
akhilmahajan
04-23 09:30 AM
I have not got my i140 approval yet........
but the Receipt i got for my i140 says:-
Notice Type: Approval Notice
Section: Mern of Profession w/Adv Deg,or
of Excentn'l Abllitv
Sec .203.(b) (2)
So, does that mean it is being processed for EB2.
thanks.
but the Receipt i got for my i140 says:-
Notice Type: Approval Notice
Section: Mern of Profession w/Adv Deg,or
of Excentn'l Abllitv
Sec .203.(b) (2)
So, does that mean it is being processed for EB2.
thanks.
hot “Aretha Franklin returns home
desi3933
05-11 08:30 PM
desi3933,
Only if "if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section"
In this case they are eligible for FB2A. So it nullifies that.
......
>> In this case they are eligible for FB2A. So it nullifies that.
No they are not. because FB2A applies ONLY if primary applicant is green card holder and I-130 is approved for them. Both the conditions must be met BEFORE I-485 is filed.
If you don't agree with me then ask any attorney and post the response here. Hopefully that will make you see the reasoning.
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
Only if "if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section"
In this case they are eligible for FB2A. So it nullifies that.
......
>> In this case they are eligible for FB2A. So it nullifies that.
No they are not. because FB2A applies ONLY if primary applicant is green card holder and I-130 is approved for them. Both the conditions must be met BEFORE I-485 is filed.
If you don't agree with me then ask any attorney and post the response here. Hopefully that will make you see the reasoning.
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
house my wife and kids claire
cessua
04-05 03:53 PM
I am in a similar situation, i am on my 5th year H1B ROW and my laywer sent in the I485 before the retrogression started but i still have to wait for the PD to be current.
I am finishing an MBA in two months and i have had a few interviews but not sure what the wisest thing is.
Advise?
I am finishing an MBA in two months and i have had a few interviews but not sure what the wisest thing is.
Advise?
tattoo The My Wife And Kids star
fcres
08-10 05:24 PM
There is an Indian guy who applied on June 1st and got approved.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=143709&postcount=2169
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=144063&postcount=2195
But the OP's approval doesn't make sense
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=143709&postcount=2169
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=144063&postcount=2195
But the OP's approval doesn't make sense
more...
pictures Franklin Mott has to be my new
Jerrome
05-21 12:42 PM
well i have not used AC21, jsut changed the employer, so you mean to say i have to send the letter from the employer who originally sponsered me? right?
No you have to send AC21 with new EVL.
No you have to send AC21 with new EVL.
dresses johnny depp wife and kids.
Alabama04
12-12 11:43 AM
I am in Birmingham. Count me in.
PD: Jan 04 EB3/RIR/PBEC/AL
Labor: March 07
I-140: April 19, 07 (Regular)
I-485: June 27,07
Finger Printing: Aug 3,07
AP: Sept 07
RFE: Oct 10,07
GC: Still waiting:(
PD: Jan 04 EB3/RIR/PBEC/AL
Labor: March 07
I-140: April 19, 07 (Regular)
I-485: June 27,07
Finger Printing: Aug 3,07
AP: Sept 07
RFE: Oct 10,07
GC: Still waiting:(
more...
makeup The real history of daylight
DarkChild
03-07 02:29 AM
I was the first to show my site, then paddy, then dark and then fern so i really dont see any influence may it be progressive or negative...
not that it matters but you weren't the first one, first was paddy, then me, then you and then fern
but i voted mlke, liked the colorwork, only thing i didn't like that much was the incoherency (the split up of the menu: titles above header, content below)
not that it matters but you weren't the first one, first was paddy, then me, then you and then fern
but i voted mlke, liked the colorwork, only thing i didn't like that much was the incoherency (the split up of the menu: titles above header, content below)
girlfriend the real Franklin#39;s chest,
buffbloke
02-27 11:07 AM
Hi!
One of my friends H1 was denied recently for not having Masters.
Whats interesting is that she has already cleared NY state licensing exam and holds valid new york physical therapist license. NY does not require physical therapists to have masters.
Since NY already verified her qualifications before awarding her license and one would assume USCIS would take that into consideration ...apperently not!
I guess only option at this point to appeal and go back to school and get Masters!
One of my friends H1 was denied recently for not having Masters.
Whats interesting is that she has already cleared NY state licensing exam and holds valid new york physical therapist license. NY does not require physical therapists to have masters.
Since NY already verified her qualifications before awarding her license and one would assume USCIS would take that into consideration ...apperently not!
I guess only option at this point to appeal and go back to school and get Masters!
hairstyles My Wife Karen in India (2006)
paskal
11-10 06:32 PM
to everyone willing to contribute to the efforts
please hold on, i will get back to you once the structure of the new work groups is finalized. remember to complete your profile!
please hold on, i will get back to you once the structure of the new work groups is finalized. remember to complete your profile!
mzafar125
10-29 02:12 PM
All u require is
- take the EAD cards
- take some ID like drivers license or passport
- fill this form
Thats it....
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
Folks,
I was just reviewing the form, we should select " Legal Alien Allowed to Work" on the SSN application form if we have been issued the EAD card right ? All we need to take along with us is the valid EAD , drivers license, and foreign passport. Do you know how long it takes them to process the SSN.
Do we have to wait for the SSN to apply for a job or can we start working once we have the receipt stating that we have applied for the SSN.
Thanks!
- take the EAD cards
- take some ID like drivers license or passport
- fill this form
Thats it....
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
Folks,
I was just reviewing the form, we should select " Legal Alien Allowed to Work" on the SSN application form if we have been issued the EAD card right ? All we need to take along with us is the valid EAD , drivers license, and foreign passport. Do you know how long it takes them to process the SSN.
Do we have to wait for the SSN to apply for a job or can we start working once we have the receipt stating that we have applied for the SSN.
Thanks!
lfadgyas
05-20 10:24 PM
I believe that April 3, 2002 is your denial notice is the starting point then. Till that point you were legally employed based on the belief that your application will be approved. Again this is just the common sense readout based on what you copied in�
So,if you are less than 180 days here without employment authorization you might have a chance � would be nice to know:
-Why your case was denied at that time (L1B extension???) This usually never happens�
And/or
-What the basis of the straight denial right now? You might want to contact USCIS over the phone (to gain few days) or do you have the letter already?
Anyway ether cases I would contact the USCIS Ombudsman about the straight denial � they should not do it � they usually issue that Notice of Intent first. Search around the threads here - I�ve seen some cases where the applicant received an immediate denial and somehow they were able to push it back to the �let�s talk about it� mode� - which does not mean that you are safe, but it will buy you some time for you.
So your research might be right about the 240 day thing which could put this into a different level.
I cannot recommend any lawyer � I use my company�s one and that office does not take individual cases I believe
So,if you are less than 180 days here without employment authorization you might have a chance � would be nice to know:
-Why your case was denied at that time (L1B extension???) This usually never happens�
And/or
-What the basis of the straight denial right now? You might want to contact USCIS over the phone (to gain few days) or do you have the letter already?
Anyway ether cases I would contact the USCIS Ombudsman about the straight denial � they should not do it � they usually issue that Notice of Intent first. Search around the threads here - I�ve seen some cases where the applicant received an immediate denial and somehow they were able to push it back to the �let�s talk about it� mode� - which does not mean that you are safe, but it will buy you some time for you.
So your research might be right about the 240 day thing which could put this into a different level.
I cannot recommend any lawyer � I use my company�s one and that office does not take individual cases I believe
沒有留言:
張貼留言