eb3India
05-21 10:26 PM
oh well,
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
we got a bigger fish to fry, I am sure those who might be using labour subs are legals here at one point and they do have a job,
we are not going to gain much by these ammendments,
I am just curious how much authority does USCIS and DOS have to alter our situation.
I am still waiting for response from IV core members
accidentally in love album cover. Fantasia#39;s new album, Back to
nc14
04-09 03:43 PM
Himu, I have been following IV for months now and have been doing my small part lately. I wanted to post this because like you I also want other readers to be aware of what other people think of Senior Members. I don�t share your sentiments where you say Senior Members have heckled people (I am also a Junior Member). In fact they have been more then helping.
Now, let�s talk about the point you have raised. Tell me, which part of janakp's post you found heckling or offensive? To me he is giving the obvious answer, which anyone following the forums should have known already. We can do this, we can do that and of course everything that we can come up with but for everything we need VITAMIN M (DOLLARS).
My friend you must be aware that we are short of it (as you seem to be an avid follower of IV). As far as I understand we barely have the money for lobbying. So, I ask you what would be your response to any idea, which needs money to be fulfilled?
Just want to make sure over here .You think janakp telling nath.exists to start contributing (if he is not already doing so) to achieve our common goals is heckling Check for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heckling)?
.............................................
$60 + $20 (recurring contribution)
I have observed senior members constantly heckling anyone trying put their views asking "Have you given any contribution ?" "How have you contributed to any work?" This is a democratic cause and i think we not heckle people. It will erode the support base. We need to understand that out of all the members only few percent will contribute. Constant repsonses to people expresssing their view will either drive people away or will not allow more creative ideas to come out. Take this case. It is a very good idea to go to Indian channels. I would expect a response like "Lets approach them and try to convince about our cause" (I know when i am writing this, next post will be why dont you try clling. I am ready but such a responce will dampen anyones spirit. Consider our activity like a profit center. More people and ideas is the driving force.Money is important but people who understnad the cause wont wait to contribute anyway.
Hope this make sense and we have more positive posts !!!
Now, let�s talk about the point you have raised. Tell me, which part of janakp's post you found heckling or offensive? To me he is giving the obvious answer, which anyone following the forums should have known already. We can do this, we can do that and of course everything that we can come up with but for everything we need VITAMIN M (DOLLARS).
My friend you must be aware that we are short of it (as you seem to be an avid follower of IV). As far as I understand we barely have the money for lobbying. So, I ask you what would be your response to any idea, which needs money to be fulfilled?
Just want to make sure over here .You think janakp telling nath.exists to start contributing (if he is not already doing so) to achieve our common goals is heckling Check for yourself (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heckling)?
.............................................
$60 + $20 (recurring contribution)
I have observed senior members constantly heckling anyone trying put their views asking "Have you given any contribution ?" "How have you contributed to any work?" This is a democratic cause and i think we not heckle people. It will erode the support base. We need to understand that out of all the members only few percent will contribute. Constant repsonses to people expresssing their view will either drive people away or will not allow more creative ideas to come out. Take this case. It is a very good idea to go to Indian channels. I would expect a response like "Lets approach them and try to convince about our cause" (I know when i am writing this, next post will be why dont you try clling. I am ready but such a responce will dampen anyones spirit. Consider our activity like a profit center. More people and ideas is the driving force.Money is important but people who understnad the cause wont wait to contribute anyway.
Hope this make sense and we have more positive posts !!!
accidentally in love album cover. Album Artwork From Mandy
EB3_SEP04
08-27 08:08 PM
Use FOIA form to get a copy of your I-140 approval notice. It is a slow process. Can take upto a year to get the document.
USCIS - Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (FOIA) (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextchannel=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a 1RCRD&vgnextoid=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD )
I don't think OP can do that, because I140 does not belong to you, it belongs to the company.
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the concept is you are asking for copies of documents that you have filed and since you have to attach a copy of 140 along with 485, you have the right to ask for a copy. but since OP has not yet filed 485 or more precisely, has not attached a copy of 140 approval for anything, he/she cannot ask for the same.
I have heard getting docs from USCIS under FOIA takes about a year or even longer(no experience though).
USCIS - Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (FOIA) (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextchannel=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a 1RCRD&vgnextoid=34139c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD )
I don't think OP can do that, because I140 does not belong to you, it belongs to the company.
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the concept is you are asking for copies of documents that you have filed and since you have to attach a copy of 140 along with 485, you have the right to ask for a copy. but since OP has not yet filed 485 or more precisely, has not attached a copy of 140 approval for anything, he/she cannot ask for the same.
I have heard getting docs from USCIS under FOIA takes about a year or even longer(no experience though).
accidentally in love album cover. Lady Antebellum love don#39;t
eb3_nepa
02-12 02:14 PM
Dont forget "CHEAP" ;)
Good but LAZY and CHEAP ;)
Good but LAZY and CHEAP ;)
more...
accidentally in love album cover. The Face Of Love by Nusrat
absaarkhan
01-29 10:18 AM
To Anantc
Yes She can work as long as the EAD is Valid.
Yes She can work as long as the EAD is Valid.
accidentally in love album cover. Usher More Album Cover.
amohale
02-26 12:26 AM
Please help me with my case.
I am changing my employment and trying to port my PD.The company I am joining is filing for a new Labor for me. My previous employer (A) with who I worked 5 years in US is not cooperating and is threatening to cancel my I-140. which is not a big deal because my I-140 has been approved for more than 180 days and I can retain the PD.
The problem is with their experience letter. I have a post dated letter from them which they gave recently mentioning 4 years and 11 months of experience out of 5.2 years I have worked with them. It is on company letterhead and lists my title, joining date, responsibilities but does not mention my skills: Java. This is a pure consulting firm with around 50 employees. I don't know any of the other employees except for one who I referred. she was with the company for almost 3 years during my 5 years stay.
the Perm that is getting filed for me required 5 years of experience. Since I cannot get a letter from someone in Company A showing all 5 years, is it ok to have this friend of mine show 3 years during her stay. I will not have a letter from a colleague for other 2 years.
So, it all boils down to, can my ex-colleague's affidavit for partial experience from a previous employer, along with a experience letter on company letterhead do the trick for me in case of a RFE. I will really appreciate your help in determining what is the best way to approach as I have other employment options available and my current employer is using every tactic to keep me back.
I am changing my employment and trying to port my PD.The company I am joining is filing for a new Labor for me. My previous employer (A) with who I worked 5 years in US is not cooperating and is threatening to cancel my I-140. which is not a big deal because my I-140 has been approved for more than 180 days and I can retain the PD.
The problem is with their experience letter. I have a post dated letter from them which they gave recently mentioning 4 years and 11 months of experience out of 5.2 years I have worked with them. It is on company letterhead and lists my title, joining date, responsibilities but does not mention my skills: Java. This is a pure consulting firm with around 50 employees. I don't know any of the other employees except for one who I referred. she was with the company for almost 3 years during my 5 years stay.
the Perm that is getting filed for me required 5 years of experience. Since I cannot get a letter from someone in Company A showing all 5 years, is it ok to have this friend of mine show 3 years during her stay. I will not have a letter from a colleague for other 2 years.
So, it all boils down to, can my ex-colleague's affidavit for partial experience from a previous employer, along with a experience letter on company letterhead do the trick for me in case of a RFE. I will really appreciate your help in determining what is the best way to approach as I have other employment options available and my current employer is using every tactic to keep me back.
more...
accidentally in love album cover. I#39;d love to use iwork instead
wantgc23
08-15 02:30 PM
First find the SOC code for the Labor based on which your 485 is pending, Then find the SOC code for new job. If they are same or similar you are fine.
Job Title alone does Not decide the SOC code for your job, It is mostly a function of the Job duties.
If your new employer would co-operate, Get a new Job offer letter that has atleast 50% same Job duties so that When USCIS adjudicates your 485, they arrive at same or similar SOC code as your original {in this case substituted labor}. SOC code.
NOTE: I am not an attorney, use the info at your own risk.
Job Title alone does Not decide the SOC code for your job, It is mostly a function of the Job duties.
If your new employer would co-operate, Get a new Job offer letter that has atleast 50% same Job duties so that When USCIS adjudicates your 485, they arrive at same or similar SOC code as your original {in this case substituted labor}. SOC code.
NOTE: I am not an attorney, use the info at your own risk.
accidentally in love album cover. I also love La Dolce Vita,
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
accidentally in love album cover. Usher More Album Cover. more
immi_enthu
12-28 04:39 PM
Why did u give a negative marking for that?
just for the record. I did NOT give you any marking. why do you assume things and make assertions based on those assumptions ?
just for the record. I did NOT give you any marking. why do you assume things and make assertions based on those assumptions ?
accidentally in love album cover. album-cover. Whoops!
joshraj
10-13 04:32 PM
Atlast something is happening :)
more...
accidentally in love album cover. ALBUM COVER FAIL!
monikainusa
03-22 10:48 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...
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...
accidentally in love album cover. album cover Baby+alcoholic
Prashanthi
12-03 03:40 PM
If you are 21, then you have aged out with reference to both your H-4 and I-485 petition. Unless you are protected by the child status protection act, which is unlikely if your parents visa number is not available.
Now the question is, what is you status in the United States, are you on an F-1?. If you are then you could perhaps come back on a fresh I-20 to rejoin your course. However, if you have been out of status for 6 months or more as per IRAIRA you will not be allowed back into the country for 10 years. You have to consider all these factors very carefully before you leave.
Now the question is, what is you status in the United States, are you on an F-1?. If you are then you could perhaps come back on a fresh I-20 to rejoin your course. However, if you have been out of status for 6 months or more as per IRAIRA you will not be allowed back into the country for 10 years. You have to consider all these factors very carefully before you leave.
more...
accidentally in love album cover. leona lewis album cover.
.jpg "leona lewis album cover.")
a_yaja
10-05 11:07 PM
yep .. that was my thinking.
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
I think there is some confusion in the way you have asked your question. Your question is really about AC21 and not EAD. AC21, among many things, allows one to change employers 180 days after the filing of the I-485 as long as the new job is same or similar to the job description in your Labor Certification. If this is what you are asking - then this has nothing to do with EAD. You can invoke AC21 even on H1B.
EAD stands for Employment Authorization Document. It is a means by which a person can work legally in the U.S. Students who have completed requirement for a degree are eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for I-485 is eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for refugee status is eligible for EAD. Anyone who has an EAD is not restricted to a job category or classification which is unlike the H1B which is specific to a job, its classification, its location, employer, wage requirements, etc. If your I-485 is employment based and you have an EAD, you can quit your job and work in McDonalds as a cashier. The EAD will not prevent you from doing this. However, your I-485 application is no longer approvabe and it will be denied (this does not mean that you should quit your job and take up a waiter's job to see if the above statement is true - if you do - you are doing so at your own risk). And once your I-485 is denied, then your EAD is automatically invalid.
What you really need to look up is the American Competitiveness In the Twenty-first Century Act (in short - AC21). This is the one that governs if your I-485 is approvable (a.k.a "getting a Green Card") or not after you change your job. Again, this applies to only if you are the primary applicant for an Employment Based I-485. If your I-485 application is based on marriage to a US citizen or is based on Family Ties to a US citizen or is based on application for Refugee Status (or any other category like finishing 4 year degree or higher in a US university), then the job you take up will not affect your I-485 application. Even dependents like spouse and children of an employment based I-485 applicatant can take up any job with an EAD and it will not affect the I-485 process.
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
I think there is some confusion in the way you have asked your question. Your question is really about AC21 and not EAD. AC21, among many things, allows one to change employers 180 days after the filing of the I-485 as long as the new job is same or similar to the job description in your Labor Certification. If this is what you are asking - then this has nothing to do with EAD. You can invoke AC21 even on H1B.
EAD stands for Employment Authorization Document. It is a means by which a person can work legally in the U.S. Students who have completed requirement for a degree are eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for I-485 is eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for refugee status is eligible for EAD. Anyone who has an EAD is not restricted to a job category or classification which is unlike the H1B which is specific to a job, its classification, its location, employer, wage requirements, etc. If your I-485 is employment based and you have an EAD, you can quit your job and work in McDonalds as a cashier. The EAD will not prevent you from doing this. However, your I-485 application is no longer approvabe and it will be denied (this does not mean that you should quit your job and take up a waiter's job to see if the above statement is true - if you do - you are doing so at your own risk). And once your I-485 is denied, then your EAD is automatically invalid.
What you really need to look up is the American Competitiveness In the Twenty-first Century Act (in short - AC21). This is the one that governs if your I-485 is approvable (a.k.a "getting a Green Card") or not after you change your job. Again, this applies to only if you are the primary applicant for an Employment Based I-485. If your I-485 application is based on marriage to a US citizen or is based on Family Ties to a US citizen or is based on application for Refugee Status (or any other category like finishing 4 year degree or higher in a US university), then the job you take up will not affect your I-485 application. Even dependents like spouse and children of an employment based I-485 applicatant can take up any job with an EAD and it will not affect the I-485 process.
accidentally in love album cover. I love this album.
sbnvs@yahoo.com
04-08 12:51 PM
Looks like demand data for May is out. Please check the following
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
more...
accidentally in love album cover. I love it.
forgerator
09-05 05:18 PM
EB3 India se pehle EB3 ROW ka number aye ga ... maybe even before EB2 I :D
accidentally in love album cover. Love+you+more+jls+album+
dish
09-26 06:00 PM
Instead of asking for "filing for I-485 even when Priority date is not current" ,
why not we ask for "filing for EAD and Advance Parole based on an approved I-140.".
The net effect is the same. By the present law EAD and Advance parole is issued based on a pending I-485. Instead , EAD and Parole could be issued based on on an Approved Immigrant petition - ie I-140.
Even if we are allowed to file for I-485 when priority dates are not current, the application for adjustment of status will not be considered without being a visa date available.
why not we ask for "filing for EAD and Advance Parole based on an approved I-140.".
The net effect is the same. By the present law EAD and Advance parole is issued based on a pending I-485. Instead , EAD and Parole could be issued based on on an Approved Immigrant petition - ie I-140.
Even if we are allowed to file for I-485 when priority dates are not current, the application for adjustment of status will not be considered without being a visa date available.
more...
accidentally in love album cover. lady gaga 2011 album cover.
shahuja
02-06 09:02 PM
hello ..EVERYBODY..need help..
this is the email came from my lawyer today..for the inquiry they did with the consulate regarding my visa.
Hi Shweta,
We understand how frustrating this is for you. We received a response to our inquiry with the consulate. It seems the application is being kept pending for additional administrative processing. The stated reason for the review falls within the law under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, we typically see that the government issues a notice to the applicant wherein additional information is often requested. Kindly advise if you have received any notification from the consulate on this issue.
Best regards,
IS ADMIN PROC DIFFERENT FROM ADD ADMIN PROC ???
also the same day i called DOS and they told me case was approved already in jan..so that means that now more processing needs to be done ??
ADVICE ??
this is the email came from my lawyer today..for the inquiry they did with the consulate regarding my visa.
Hi Shweta,
We understand how frustrating this is for you. We received a response to our inquiry with the consulate. It seems the application is being kept pending for additional administrative processing. The stated reason for the review falls within the law under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under these circumstances, we typically see that the government issues a notice to the applicant wherein additional information is often requested. Kindly advise if you have received any notification from the consulate on this issue.
Best regards,
IS ADMIN PROC DIFFERENT FROM ADD ADMIN PROC ???
also the same day i called DOS and they told me case was approved already in jan..so that means that now more processing needs to be done ??
ADVICE ??
accidentally in love album cover. Accidentally drink a bottle of
greenguru
04-01 12:26 AM
Sure.. I was having the same question.
Here is how it happens,
1. When you file for your I-140 Under EB2 you also provide the A#
2. So when your I-140 gets approved your 485 case will automatically know about this.
What you have do
1. Go to InfoPass and verify that your new I-140 is present on your application.
2. Call USCIS Help desk and check. Also tell them you filed in employment based and that your Priority date is current(Ofcourse if it is current only tell them). Request them to open an SR
3. your case will be approved in 25 days.
For me it took 20 days after i opened the SR. The official time is 45 days to 60 days.
Cheers, GG
Here is how it happens,
1. When you file for your I-140 Under EB2 you also provide the A#
2. So when your I-140 gets approved your 485 case will automatically know about this.
What you have do
1. Go to InfoPass and verify that your new I-140 is present on your application.
2. Call USCIS Help desk and check. Also tell them you filed in employment based and that your Priority date is current(Ofcourse if it is current only tell them). Request them to open an SR
3. your case will be approved in 25 days.
For me it took 20 days after i opened the SR. The official time is 45 days to 60 days.
Cheers, GG
accidentally in love album cover. justin bieber love me album.
desi3933
06-25 10:38 AM
Here is the reply from my attorney
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
immi2006
08-17 09:29 AM
Most folks here would have used a lens to double check their APplns before mailing it.
If your friend wants to know ask him to join IV , why are you proxying for him > He shud be more worried than you. Pls talk to a professional lawyer on this situation, I am sure none of the folks here can advise on this,
Please
If your friend wants to know ask him to join IV , why are you proxying for him > He shud be more worried than you. Pls talk to a professional lawyer on this situation, I am sure none of the folks here can advise on this,
Please
Better_Days
10-19 09:43 PM
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
The quoted post above describes my situation. I140 and I485 were pending. I140 got denied and ended up with AAO. Second I140 got approved and I485 is linked with this 2nd approved I140 even though the priority date was not current.
Called USCIS twice to get the receipt number of the 140 underlying my 485 and got the receipt number for the second, approved 140 everytime.
The company has received an RFE from the AAO and they simply are in no mood to respond to it. They are going to withdraw the first 140. The lawyer retained by my company is absolutely clueless about how and why the second,approved 140 got linked with the pending 485 without the priority date being current. He is trying to play it safe by covering his own behind by saying statements like "USCIS made a mistake and if they every discovered this mistake in future, I will be regarded as being out of status from the day I used any EAD based on this pending 485", He is suggesting that we file a new 485 when the dates being current ( I am EB3/ROW).
Now I know that there are a lot of people who have had their 485s linked to their second, approved 140 automatically. Did this happen to any of you without the PD being current? Please do respond if you are in this boat.
Also, is there a policy or memo that explicitly refers to it? Can anyone please provide me a reference?
If the first 140 is withdrawn? Will it have ANY impact on the second 140 or the pending 485? The reason I ask this question is that after the AAO issed an RFE, the status on both my 140's changed to "Post Decisioon Activity". This is what worries me the most.
Any comment on any of the above questions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for you time.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
The quoted post above describes my situation. I140 and I485 were pending. I140 got denied and ended up with AAO. Second I140 got approved and I485 is linked with this 2nd approved I140 even though the priority date was not current.
Called USCIS twice to get the receipt number of the 140 underlying my 485 and got the receipt number for the second, approved 140 everytime.
The company has received an RFE from the AAO and they simply are in no mood to respond to it. They are going to withdraw the first 140. The lawyer retained by my company is absolutely clueless about how and why the second,approved 140 got linked with the pending 485 without the priority date being current. He is trying to play it safe by covering his own behind by saying statements like "USCIS made a mistake and if they every discovered this mistake in future, I will be regarded as being out of status from the day I used any EAD based on this pending 485", He is suggesting that we file a new 485 when the dates being current ( I am EB3/ROW).
Now I know that there are a lot of people who have had their 485s linked to their second, approved 140 automatically. Did this happen to any of you without the PD being current? Please do respond if you are in this boat.
Also, is there a policy or memo that explicitly refers to it? Can anyone please provide me a reference?
If the first 140 is withdrawn? Will it have ANY impact on the second 140 or the pending 485? The reason I ask this question is that after the AAO issed an RFE, the status on both my 140's changed to "Post Decisioon Activity". This is what worries me the most.
Any comment on any of the above questions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for you time.
No comments:
Post a Comment