grupak
08-11 10:12 AM
Notify the change of address - If USCIS finds out that you have moved and did not notify with in 10 days of your move then they have the power to revoke and deny your petition.
wandmaker is correct.
Updating USCIS using form AR-11 within 11 days is required by law. Can be done online, allows the option to update pending cases with a different mailing address such as PO Box that is different from the home address. AR-11 requires the actual physical home address.
In any event, should call USCIS to confirm change of address on pending applications.
wandmaker is correct.
Updating USCIS using form AR-11 within 11 days is required by law. Can be done online, allows the option to update pending cases with a different mailing address such as PO Box that is different from the home address. AR-11 requires the actual physical home address.
In any event, should call USCIS to confirm change of address on pending applications.
wallpaper game of thrones casting
Green.Tech
04-17 12:19 PM
My wife (going to use AP), My little son (US citizen) & my mother-in-law (Visitor Visa) are coming back to Dallas from India on Monday. My mother-in-law left USA in November 2008 and coming back again now. Would it be safe to send all three of them to the same counter at the POE? or would it be safe to send them to 2 separate counters.
My worry is that if they go together, the officer may think that my mother-in-law is here again for baby sitting or something like that since her leaving USA is less than 6 months. I know that there is no such requirement that a person has to be outside US for a certain period of time before entering again, but I am still wondering would it cause any problems. On the flip side if they go to different counters they may let her in without any issues, since my mother-in-law doesn't know English (I am planning to give a letter for the purpose of her trip), Please suggest?
kriskris,
IMHO, I don't think it matters. In the end, it is the IO's decision. There are no guarantees either way, and similarly there should not be an issue either way. Personally, I would want all three to be standing at one counter than at different counters.
My worry is that if they go together, the officer may think that my mother-in-law is here again for baby sitting or something like that since her leaving USA is less than 6 months. I know that there is no such requirement that a person has to be outside US for a certain period of time before entering again, but I am still wondering would it cause any problems. On the flip side if they go to different counters they may let her in without any issues, since my mother-in-law doesn't know English (I am planning to give a letter for the purpose of her trip), Please suggest?
kriskris,
IMHO, I don't think it matters. In the end, it is the IO's decision. There are no guarantees either way, and similarly there should not be an issue either way. Personally, I would want all three to be standing at one counter than at different counters.
tabletpc
05-28 02:31 PM
Thanks guys...some kind of relief ...!!!!
2011 Game of Thrones Casting,
prdgl
07-07 10:37 PM
Showing 1 year of work experience when you don't really have that experience. You can be asked for pay stubs, employer verification letters, etc. for I-140 and maybe even for I-485. For all you know, you might have a smooth ride all the way to your GC. But as I wrote earlier, there's no guarantee when your past can come back to haunt you.
Thanks,
Jayant
I agree completely. I am sorry for asking that question. Just curious. Because, I want to make sure what I am doing is the right one.
Thanks,
Jayant
I agree completely. I am sorry for asking that question. Just curious. Because, I want to make sure what I am doing is the right one.
more...
gcformeornot
04-04 07:39 AM
need to in good condition from your PD. So whatever adjustments they are doing needs to be done since PD. I hope your lawyer knows this.
chanduv23
12-08 02:47 PM
To have some real threads getting started after a long time on IV website. Thanks for the initiative Chunduv
U r most welcome. Thanks for taking the initiative.
We need more people taking initiatives on this.
Folks, please come forward now. IV is your group. IV is "we all combined together"
Together we can make a difference. Sitting on the fence and doing nothing does not do any good for us.
Come on folks, all guests will now become members
All inactive members will now become active members
All non contributing members will now start contributing.
Go IV go
U r most welcome. Thanks for taking the initiative.
We need more people taking initiatives on this.
Folks, please come forward now. IV is your group. IV is "we all combined together"
Together we can make a difference. Sitting on the fence and doing nothing does not do any good for us.
Come on folks, all guests will now become members
All inactive members will now become active members
All non contributing members will now start contributing.
Go IV go
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.
2010 game of thrones casting. game
sanju
04-17 01:08 PM
As per today I have an H1b visa, I have my I140 approved, and my 6th year ends on April 25, 2008. My actual employer have give a contract that says that upon I become a permanent resident i will have to work for him for 5 years, then if I quit after the 5th year or before I will not able to work on the same industry on all the united states, also mention what my salary would be but there is no mention of increase.
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
I truly understand your position my friend and feel sorry to see you go though this.
Here is my suggestion -
Start going to doctor complaining for chest pains, stress, lack of sleep etc. Sign the contract and get your green card. After getting the green card, sue the employer for harassment, exploitation, metal trauma and stress by showing the medical record and visitations with the doctor. And don't worry about this contract, it is illegal and non-enforceable. So don't worry about it and sign it with closed eyes without a second thought. If I were you, I would do the exact same thing.
I think some employers are good and they take care of employees. And like everywhere else in the world, some employers are exploitative and the law doesn't provide provisions to protect/empower the H1b/non-immigrant employees. On top of that, IEEE and Ron Hira want all of us out and are working to put in harsher conditions. They are not suggesting change in law to empower us to prevent any chance of exploitation. So we need to organize ourselves and become part of one organization that could represent us all.
I do not know what to do , this is almost illegal (I think !), do I have time to change employer and do again my visa, and I140, so I don't lost status ??
I truly understand your position my friend and feel sorry to see you go though this.
Here is my suggestion -
Start going to doctor complaining for chest pains, stress, lack of sleep etc. Sign the contract and get your green card. After getting the green card, sue the employer for harassment, exploitation, metal trauma and stress by showing the medical record and visitations with the doctor. And don't worry about this contract, it is illegal and non-enforceable. So don't worry about it and sign it with closed eyes without a second thought. If I were you, I would do the exact same thing.
I think some employers are good and they take care of employees. And like everywhere else in the world, some employers are exploitative and the law doesn't provide provisions to protect/empower the H1b/non-immigrant employees. On top of that, IEEE and Ron Hira want all of us out and are working to put in harsher conditions. They are not suggesting change in law to empower us to prevent any chance of exploitation. So we need to organize ourselves and become part of one organization that could represent us all.
more...
kawosa
08-19 12:53 PM
Yep, just passed level III , today. Now will start applying for the charter.
you must be a happy man today! congrats again.....
I got my charter in 05.. but still remember the day i got my results... one of the best days of my life..
I really havent used it much though other than sponsoring my students for level 1. so what area of fin you in?
you must be a happy man today! congrats again.....
I got my charter in 05.. but still remember the day i got my results... one of the best days of my life..
I really havent used it much though other than sponsoring my students for level 1. so what area of fin you in?
hair Game of Thrones.
bobbydalal
08-24 11:49 AM
Hi there read ur post so u got an interview even when ur priority date is no where current . M i understanding u rite.
more...
ravi2patel
07-23 11:29 PM
Thanks guys..i did approach another attorney and he said i should be OK as i have a clean record, that i should not get stuck with the 'semantics' of company mergers which happens all the time.
Having said that my current attorney is not asking for more money..so i am confused. But with the Aug.17 deadline fast approaching i will at least complete the paper work and wait for further advice from you kind folks. Thanks
Having said that my current attorney is not asking for more money..so i am confused. But with the Aug.17 deadline fast approaching i will at least complete the paper work and wait for further advice from you kind folks. Thanks
hot “Game of Thrones,” the
desidude
12-22 10:12 AM
I applied I-140 with a substitution labor in May'07. Then I applied I-485 on July2nd,2007. Got EAD on Aug20th. Two months back my I-140 was approved. Now I am on EAD. I am working with a very good financial corporation which they are asking me to join as full-time from Jan1st2008. I told my manager that I can join as a full-time from Feb20th 2008. Can any one throw some light on these doubts?
1. What happens if I move before 180 days of EAD to this new company and send AC21 to USCIS after finishing 180 days on EAD?
2. If I moved after 180 days what kind of queries we get from USCIS on AC21?
3. Do we need to make sure my employer also agrees what we are doing? What kind of documents we need from the existing employer?
4. Does my new company has to give same exact responsibilities as my labor certificate?
I would appreciate if any one replies to these posts. Thanks in advance.
Technically speaking, your 180 days start from the day you filed your I-485. ie. 180 days start from July 2nd in your case. You can still clarify with your attorney to make sure.
1. What happens if I move before 180 days of EAD to this new company and send AC21 to USCIS after finishing 180 days on EAD?
2. If I moved after 180 days what kind of queries we get from USCIS on AC21?
3. Do we need to make sure my employer also agrees what we are doing? What kind of documents we need from the existing employer?
4. Does my new company has to give same exact responsibilities as my labor certificate?
I would appreciate if any one replies to these posts. Thanks in advance.
Technically speaking, your 180 days start from the day you filed your I-485. ie. 180 days start from July 2nd in your case. You can still clarify with your attorney to make sure.
more...
house game of thrones cast of
ski_dude12
07-16 09:33 AM
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
Please change the misleading title. Already lot of people are frustrated with this flip-flop and posting something with a misleading title will make things worse.
Thanks,
-Ski
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
Please change the misleading title. Already lot of people are frustrated with this flip-flop and posting something with a misleading title will make things worse.
Thanks,
-Ski
tattoo casting news would dry up.
Lollerskater
09-24 01:34 PM
Sheesh.
I'm a PD: Jun 06 EB3-ROW. I just received 2 yrs EAD. Let's hope this doesn't mean the cutoff dates won't move.
I'm a PD: Jun 06 EB3-ROW. I just received 2 yrs EAD. Let's hope this doesn't mean the cutoff dates won't move.
more...
pictures game of thrones map from book.
pappusheth
08-11 02:38 PM
good one ghost.
it's disappointing that the sept vb movement was much smaller than expected (i fall in your g3m2 category) but the blessing in disguise is that it will make people believe the long term vision that IV has to pursue the fixes that will solve these problems for good and will help everyone irrespective of their category. hopefully more people will come forward and donate and join IV's hands on the grass root efforts.
it's disappointing that the sept vb movement was much smaller than expected (i fall in your g3m2 category) but the blessing in disguise is that it will make people believe the long term vision that IV has to pursue the fixes that will solve these problems for good and will help everyone irrespective of their category. hopefully more people will come forward and donate and join IV's hands on the grass root efforts.
dresses game of thrones casting. game
a_yaja
10-08 04:20 PM
I got my green card from Company A. During my labor process i renewed my H1B from Company B which expired last month.
Right now who is my employer Company A or B or none of the above?.
Your question is not clear. Your employer is whoever you are employed with right now. If you are not employed with either company A or company B, then neither is your employer.
Right now who is my employer Company A or B or none of the above?.
Your question is not clear. Your employer is whoever you are employed with right now. If you are not employed with either company A or company B, then neither is your employer.
more...
makeup New Game of Thrones casting
vdesai_8
03-29 12:25 PM
Thanks for sharing!
girlfriend game of thrones cast
Prashanthi
07-30 06:25 PM
My kids and I got our I485 (EB2 I PD 2005) approval in July 2008 and my wife's case was sent for Interview which we attended in December when they asked to redo the medicals. Medicals were submitted to them after which the case has gone "dead".
Questions :
1. What is the Immigration status of my wife during this time? Her H4 (which would have been nulled due to my AOS anyway) in December.
She has Advance Parole and EAD but everyday we are worried about challenges ranging from not being able to buy life insurance for her at competitive rates (she has been declined due to THIS immigration status), Drivers license renewal coming up. We havent been able to travel freely as a family outside the country due to the fact that AP is for emergency travel only.
2. What will happen to her case if something happens and I pass away while she is waiting?
3. Do I have to wait for my earlier PD (2005) to become current again before she gets approval. The way it is going with retrogression my kids and I may get citizenship before she gets her greencard.
4. Will writing to a congressman / senator help? It is really having a significant impact on our lives as a virtually "broken family".
Your help would be much appreciated.
First of all, lets hope nothing happens to you. At this time i suggest waiting, something might come up later this year or early next year with reference to making use of unused visa numbers, if this happens, your wifes date will become current and her I-485 will get approved. Unfortunately the petition dies with the petitioner. However in the case of family based I-130 petitions, The Attorney General may in his discretion reinstate the approval of your family-based visa. The Attorney General may exercise favorable discretion where "for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate." 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C).
Questions :
1. What is the Immigration status of my wife during this time? Her H4 (which would have been nulled due to my AOS anyway) in December.
She has Advance Parole and EAD but everyday we are worried about challenges ranging from not being able to buy life insurance for her at competitive rates (she has been declined due to THIS immigration status), Drivers license renewal coming up. We havent been able to travel freely as a family outside the country due to the fact that AP is for emergency travel only.
2. What will happen to her case if something happens and I pass away while she is waiting?
3. Do I have to wait for my earlier PD (2005) to become current again before she gets approval. The way it is going with retrogression my kids and I may get citizenship before she gets her greencard.
4. Will writing to a congressman / senator help? It is really having a significant impact on our lives as a virtually "broken family".
Your help would be much appreciated.
First of all, lets hope nothing happens to you. At this time i suggest waiting, something might come up later this year or early next year with reference to making use of unused visa numbers, if this happens, your wifes date will become current and her I-485 will get approved. Unfortunately the petition dies with the petitioner. However in the case of family based I-130 petitions, The Attorney General may in his discretion reinstate the approval of your family-based visa. The Attorney General may exercise favorable discretion where "for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate." 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C).
hairstyles of “A Game of Thrones” the
patfanboston
03-04 11:19 AM
What the f*** is she trying to say????
pd_recapturing
05-23 01:45 PM
Please go through this (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5192)and reanalyze if you really want to go to H1 from EAD ....
franklin
06-15 07:30 PM
Franklin,
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
Good question - I"ll dig around and see if I can find an answer, but you might want to check with lawyer too
I had OPT in 2003 , so should i be using that A# and should i mention YES for question, have you ever applied for employment authorization with USCIS
in G325A,
should i need to mention my part time jobs i worked while on F1 visa (i did not mention anything during 140)
Good question - I"ll dig around and see if I can find an answer, but you might want to check with lawyer too
No comments:
Post a Comment