immi2006
10-21 11:48 PM
Husband + Wife - 1 Application
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
wallpaper Usher on my world , which
raju6855
02-07 12:59 PM
Try calling the DOS and explaining then what's going on and see who you can call to check the status next.
The lawyers email is text book response and may not help you much.
If the consulate didn't give you any slip during your interview then most likely it is PIMS related. Call up DOS!
The lawyers email is text book response and may not help you much.
If the consulate didn't give you any slip during your interview then most likely it is PIMS related. Call up DOS!
anilsal
08-15 12:11 PM
USCIS is making contradictory statements. First they release an update that they have processed all applications mailed before July 1 but when I call customer service and tell them that my application was mailed on June 11 and that I am still waiting for the checks to be cashed they say wait for 90 days.
Many July 2nd filers have had their checks cashed (as per ). Have you verified that your application reached on June 11 via fedex?
Many July 2nd filers have had their checks cashed (as per ). Have you verified that your application reached on June 11 via fedex?
2011 Justin Bieber My World Album Cover. justin bieber my world 2.0
Ramkumar
04-29 05:10 PM
# When you did your H1 transfer, how many years you got extension?
Ans: I got laid off Nov'30th 2009 from Company A. I joined company B on first week of Dec' 2009. I think they were filed my H1B transfer at that time. As per Company B policy they can apply only 2 years. so that I got two extension.
# What are the documents that you sent to COMPANY B?
Ans: I provided as usual all regualr documents.(3 months salary slip, H1B approval doc,etc)
# When employer A is good to take you back to his company before filing 485 why are you filing labour again!!!, I understand that for safer side you were filing labour again, I am trying to know does employer A should revoke 140 since we left him (Is this rule / Law to revoke 140's of non existing employee!!!)
Ans: Company A is very good support for all employee. still now they didn't revoke my I-140. I spoke to Company A attorney they said, will not revoke my I-140. If chance come back, definitley they rehire me back.
Ans: I got laid off Nov'30th 2009 from Company A. I joined company B on first week of Dec' 2009. I think they were filed my H1B transfer at that time. As per Company B policy they can apply only 2 years. so that I got two extension.
# What are the documents that you sent to COMPANY B?
Ans: I provided as usual all regualr documents.(3 months salary slip, H1B approval doc,etc)
# When employer A is good to take you back to his company before filing 485 why are you filing labour again!!!, I understand that for safer side you were filing labour again, I am trying to know does employer A should revoke 140 since we left him (Is this rule / Law to revoke 140's of non existing employee!!!)
Ans: Company A is very good support for all employee. still now they didn't revoke my I-140. I spoke to Company A attorney they said, will not revoke my I-140. If chance come back, definitley they rehire me back.
more...
meher
12-26 10:50 AM
Today based on the talks with my employer, he told that he will not be able to process my payments. I informed him that i am going to DOL. He has not committed but has said that legally he has to pay only the minimum wage requirement which is the 44000$ only. I am in the process to consult attorney at present.
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
Dear Internet,
I am not an anti immigrant, but i am a legal immigrant(hope you are also one like me) and trying to get your help. Please don't look at all people with suspicious eyes.
As it has gone this far let me give my Employer Details
Objects Worldwide Incorporation it is based in Virginia.
Address below.
Objects Worldwide Inc.
10316, Wood Road Suite �A�,
Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.owiusa.com
reddog
11-03 10:43 AM
I would be very cautious about her overstayin without getting the extension in hand.
I would still not do it unless it is a desperate situation, and there is absolutely no other way of handling it.
The overstay would definitely show up the next time she comes back in, ie, next time if the officer is good, he lets her in and everything is good.
If the officer is just doing his duty, he will not.
The officer will definitely grill her about her overstay, and if she is able to convince him about the hospital stay(i would keep records of the hospital stay), he can give her a short term visa.
And your mom-in-law mentioning the baby when she entered does not help at all.
Overstay is still handled in an adhoc fashion at the airport counters.
But I know of a friends mother who overstayed(did not apply extension) and was sent back from the airport next time she tried to come back(they even got a letter from the local congressman).
I would still not do it unless it is a desperate situation, and there is absolutely no other way of handling it.
The overstay would definitely show up the next time she comes back in, ie, next time if the officer is good, he lets her in and everything is good.
If the officer is just doing his duty, he will not.
The officer will definitely grill her about her overstay, and if she is able to convince him about the hospital stay(i would keep records of the hospital stay), he can give her a short term visa.
And your mom-in-law mentioning the baby when she entered does not help at all.
Overstay is still handled in an adhoc fashion at the airport counters.
But I know of a friends mother who overstayed(did not apply extension) and was sent back from the airport next time she tried to come back(they even got a letter from the local congressman).
more...
laborfd
05-18 12:14 PM
Great work :)
Thanks for all the effort made by IV
Thanks for all the effort made by IV
2010 Anyjustin ieber my world pick
swadeshi
06-20 04:15 AM
I would like to know if we can travel on AP without a I485 notice, do they ask for it at POE??
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
more...
freddyCR
January 5th, 2005, 07:36 AM
Tthanks to all. Lecter those shoots are awsome ! I have never used this technique on portraits, although I see the intention is the same.
I must try it some day.
I just realised about the tilt. And about coloring some other parts...well although aesthetically might be a good idea, it would divert the attention from the main message of the picture, I think.
One other thing, there's a pun in the lettering on the wall; for those of you who don't speak spanish it says :
"FORBIDDEN TO THROW JUNK"
And finally, here's another example of selective coloring of which I'm quite fond. You may have seen it in the gallery...I call it "Enjoy Life". I'd appreciate your input on this, even though it's the same thread.
FREDDY
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/2555enjoy-clouds1_Medium_.jpg
I must try it some day.
I just realised about the tilt. And about coloring some other parts...well although aesthetically might be a good idea, it would divert the attention from the main message of the picture, I think.
One other thing, there's a pun in the lettering on the wall; for those of you who don't speak spanish it says :
"FORBIDDEN TO THROW JUNK"
And finally, here's another example of selective coloring of which I'm quite fond. You may have seen it in the gallery...I call it "Enjoy Life". I'd appreciate your input on this, even though it's the same thread.
FREDDY
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/2555enjoy-clouds1_Medium_.jpg
hair album justin bieber my world
mirage
03-06 01:44 PM
I'll urge people from especially from California and Texas send out the letters and call up their lawmakers...Despite the Anti-immigrant climate prevailing in the country, congresswoman Zoe Logfren was able to get her bill passed on wednesday....If we can proove to them that we are not asking new green card numbers and not ask for recapturing green card numbers, they'll certainly hear us, but we need to speak up...
more...
martinvisalaw
12-01 06:01 PM
The relevant dates, as I see it, are:
10/06: H-1B ext filed
12/06: H-1B expired, ext still pending
7/07: 485 filed.
??: H-1B ext denied?
Using INA 245k you may be able to argue that you are eligible to adjust because you may not have violated status for over 180 days, or at all, before filing the 485. Recent CIS memos on the issue of unlawful presence and related topics have made this a very complicated subject, so you really need to review the entire history with an immigration attorney in a formal consultation if you want a 2nd opinion.
10/06: H-1B ext filed
12/06: H-1B expired, ext still pending
7/07: 485 filed.
??: H-1B ext denied?
Using INA 245k you may be able to argue that you are eligible to adjust because you may not have violated status for over 180 days, or at all, before filing the 485. Recent CIS memos on the issue of unlawful presence and related topics have made this a very complicated subject, so you really need to review the entire history with an immigration attorney in a formal consultation if you want a 2nd opinion.
hot Justin Bieber and Jaden
tikka
07-06 11:44 AM
If I have approved LC and I140, can't i get 1yr (or if PD dates are retrogressed get 3yr) H1 extension??
if dates are retrogessed you get 3 year extensions..
if they are not then you apply for 485 :)
if dates are retrogessed you get 3 year extensions..
if they are not then you apply for 485 :)
more...
house justin bieber my world 2.0
ameerka_dream
04-15 10:26 AM
^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^
tattoo Justin+ieber+my+world+is+
pappu
09-14 02:36 PM
http://ebcmyspice.com/Radio/WebPages/LiveRadio.aspx
at 4 PM EST
call 732-297-9886 and ask questions
==============
We also have another interesting interview coming up. We will announce it later. This one will be not worth missing.
=======
BTW: you will now hear some IV ads on this radio station. Thanks to the member LOL123 who suggested this and we followed up. Thanks for all the media budget contributions. We are going to do more publicity efforts.
at 4 PM EST
call 732-297-9886 and ask questions
==============
We also have another interesting interview coming up. We will announce it later. This one will be not worth missing.
=======
BTW: you will now hear some IV ads on this radio station. Thanks to the member LOL123 who suggested this and we followed up. Thanks for all the media budget contributions. We are going to do more publicity efforts.
more...
pictures justin bieber my world tour
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.
dresses justin, ieber my world
conundrum
03-12 11:53 AM
Congrats!!
more...
makeup justin bieber cd my world.
karthikgk
02-19 07:01 PM
Thanks guys for making the effort to understand my situation.
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
i now need a couple of clarifications:
pune_guy, you are spot on in your interpretation that it would be a hard sell for an EB-2 application with the current employer.
So now, if I do change a job, I would have to use my EAD and hence I would have to join as an engineer(Because my understanding is, even though my current role is Business Development, my GC application is for an Engineer role and hence any new job based on EAD would have to be that of an Engineer).
Is that understanding correct?
Further, the new Eb-2 application from my would-be employer would be for an Engineer position.
Are my assumptions correct?
Thanks much
girlfriend justin bieber my world 2.0
glus
02-20 10:36 AM
Unfortunately her husband is an undocumented alien. He is not in legal status. So the case is not straight forward one.
The INA (Immigration and naturalization act) allows for one to adjust to GC holder even if
one is illegaly present in the U.S. as long as one:
1. Is married to a U.S. citizen;
2. Is otherwise admissible to the U.S. and;
3. Has entered to the U.S. via legal means.
If all of the above are true, the case is relatively simple in nature for as long as the marriage is a legitimate one.
The INA (Immigration and naturalization act) allows for one to adjust to GC holder even if
one is illegaly present in the U.S. as long as one:
1. Is married to a U.S. citizen;
2. Is otherwise admissible to the U.S. and;
3. Has entered to the U.S. via legal means.
If all of the above are true, the case is relatively simple in nature for as long as the marriage is a legitimate one.
hairstyles Justin Bieber -My World
saimrathi
08-10 03:30 PM
Source??
And please post in the media thread...
And please post in the media thread...
kunjirs
03-07 03:01 PM
I am in the same boat. Filed EAD on DEC 10 2010 with TSC and still waiting. Contacted USCIS Customer Support and create Expedite Request last Friday. I was told that I will hear back in 5 days. Will post back if I hear anything.
tikka
08-07 11:48 AM
[QUOTE=tnite;141114]Please join us for a tri state lunch meet. We would like to start working on volunteers/ mobilizing members for the DC rally. Even if you cannot take the day off and come to DC please come by for the lunch. We could really use help with banners/posters/ and ideas to make this a success.
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION!! LUNCH IS AT NOON!!!
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION!! LUNCH IS AT NOON!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment