ashkam
07-24 09:44 AM
Hi..what is "succession of interest" document...is it the actual 'merger' contract ?
Other problem i have is getting hold of an attorny as all are busy with the aug.17th deadliners...let me know any good ones in central,NJ area. Thanks
Hello Ravi
You need to talk to someone in the law firm (if possible) who did all the paperwork for the merger because they would be the ones to know about this clause. If that's not possible, talk to your HR and ask them to get this clarified from the lawfirm. The succession of interest document is something which your company has to provide to the CIS. I don't know if they would need to attach the merger contract as evidence.
Other problem i have is getting hold of an attorny as all are busy with the aug.17th deadliners...let me know any good ones in central,NJ area. Thanks
Hello Ravi
You need to talk to someone in the law firm (if possible) who did all the paperwork for the merger because they would be the ones to know about this clause. If that's not possible, talk to your HR and ask them to get this clarified from the lawfirm. The succession of interest document is something which your company has to provide to the CIS. I don't know if they would need to attach the merger contract as evidence.
wallpaper Double Heart Hip Tattoo
TwinkleM
06-24 12:14 AM
My H1 filed & approved thorugh company A from October 2004.
H1 then transferred to company B & approved from Nov 2005.
My GC process (EB3 Category) started & labor filed through company C for future job in Feb 2006. Labor approved & I-140 filed in June 2006. RFE received in April 2007 & documents received by INS in May 2007. SINCE THEN I-140 is pending... I-485 & EAD filed in July fiasco. EAD approved and renewed once. Valid until september 2010.
My H1 extension through company B denied in Jan 2009 (H1 expired in september 2008). MTR filed in Feb 2009, still pending. This made my EAD active as I have continued working for company B.
Another H1 filed through company C (GC sponsoring company) in April 2009 and RFE notice dated 23rd June, 2009 yet to be received.
In the process of filing 2nd labor through Comapny C ( same company), but this time under EB2 category.
At this point, my questions are:
1) Since my new H1 is through my GC sponsoring company, will RFE for H1 impact old GC process & new GC process?
2) Is my old pending I-140 eligible for premium processing since it is stuck for almost 3 years now? If yes, is it worth doing it?
The reason I want to get my old I-140 to be approved so that I can retain my old priority date.
Experts please share some knwoledge and suggest the steps best for my situation....Am really stressed out...
Thank You in advance...
H1 then transferred to company B & approved from Nov 2005.
My GC process (EB3 Category) started & labor filed through company C for future job in Feb 2006. Labor approved & I-140 filed in June 2006. RFE received in April 2007 & documents received by INS in May 2007. SINCE THEN I-140 is pending... I-485 & EAD filed in July fiasco. EAD approved and renewed once. Valid until september 2010.
My H1 extension through company B denied in Jan 2009 (H1 expired in september 2008). MTR filed in Feb 2009, still pending. This made my EAD active as I have continued working for company B.
Another H1 filed through company C (GC sponsoring company) in April 2009 and RFE notice dated 23rd June, 2009 yet to be received.
In the process of filing 2nd labor through Comapny C ( same company), but this time under EB2 category.
At this point, my questions are:
1) Since my new H1 is through my GC sponsoring company, will RFE for H1 impact old GC process & new GC process?
2) Is my old pending I-140 eligible for premium processing since it is stuck for almost 3 years now? If yes, is it worth doing it?
The reason I want to get my old I-140 to be approved so that I can retain my old priority date.
Experts please share some knwoledge and suggest the steps best for my situation....Am really stressed out...
Thank You in advance...
solaris27
10-15 01:57 PM
i had LUD same day and one day after .
2011 heart tattoos for women with
rajeshalex
07-30 09:29 AM
May be we can ask the important questions from everyone and filter it out/ask the top ten among them as a community?
more...
raysaikat
03-17 03:53 PM
Need help- EB1 EA 140/485 petitions denied - how to maintain legal status
I am a research faculty in a top 25 university and my H1-B expires in Dec 2010. My concurrent self petitions of the EB1-EA of 140 and 485 were denied by TSC. I am waiting for the denial letter. My spouse is a permanent resident . What are my legal options to stay in the country?
Here is my petition break down
1-140 filed-May 2009
!-485 filed June 2009
EAD/AP Oct/Nov 2009
RFE on 140 -Feb 9 2010
Responded to RFE - Mar 11 2010
Denial posted on Mar 15.
Would filing the I-130 affect the refiling of I-140?
Appreciate inputs provided
See my reply above. To add to it, if your position is really a "faculty" position, then University will take care of your GC petition. However, if it is really a glorified title for a postdoc position, then they likely will not. In that case, you need to look for a new job.
I am a research faculty in a top 25 university and my H1-B expires in Dec 2010. My concurrent self petitions of the EB1-EA of 140 and 485 were denied by TSC. I am waiting for the denial letter. My spouse is a permanent resident . What are my legal options to stay in the country?
Here is my petition break down
1-140 filed-May 2009
!-485 filed June 2009
EAD/AP Oct/Nov 2009
RFE on 140 -Feb 9 2010
Responded to RFE - Mar 11 2010
Denial posted on Mar 15.
Would filing the I-130 affect the refiling of I-140?
Appreciate inputs provided
See my reply above. To add to it, if your position is really a "faculty" position, then University will take care of your GC petition. However, if it is really a glorified title for a postdoc position, then they likely will not. In that case, you need to look for a new job.
kamdard
04-08 11:02 AM
PD: MAY-2002 (EB3 India)
I-140/I-485 filed: 28-JUN-2007 (NSC)
I-140/I-485 RD: 24-JULY-2007
I-140 Approval: 05-SEPT-2007
EAD/AP: OCT-2007
I-140/I-485 filed: 28-JUN-2007 (NSC)
I-140/I-485 RD: 24-JULY-2007
I-140 Approval: 05-SEPT-2007
EAD/AP: OCT-2007
more...
hemya
08-18 10:17 AM
Do check with your company/lawyer to see if it has been approved. My online status still says 'pending' even though I heard from my manager and lawyer on July 18th regarding the approval of my I-140.
Approval date was July 14th
Approval date was July 14th
2010 heart tattoos for women on hip
gc007
01-05 10:23 PM
I have been on H4 since 2000. I once got an H1-B in the year 01, but did not get to work. Meanwhile my H4 got extended till now.
With the recent changes of de-coupling H1 & H4.......
My question is can I use the previous H1-B issued in 01 and apply for COS without any cap restrictions ? And can this be used by a new Employer ?
Appreciate any responses on this. Thanks
With the recent changes of de-coupling H1 & H4.......
My question is can I use the previous H1-B issued in 01 and apply for COS without any cap restrictions ? And can this be used by a new Employer ?
Appreciate any responses on this. Thanks
more...
stucklabor
07-26 02:59 PM
See original A.P. story below.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press
April 15, 2005, Friday, BC cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
LENGTH: 550 words
HEADLINE: Senate agrees to votes on immigration measures
BYLINE: By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Senate Republicans and Democrats worked out a deal Friday on how to handle immigration issues attached to a measure paying for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The immigration measures spilled into the Senate's debate over an $80.6 billion military spending bill after the House included measures in its version to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and make it harder for foreigners to stay in the United States on claims of asylum.
Under the deal, the Senate will vote Tuesday on three immigration measures. Each would require 60 votes to survive, including one sponsored by Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski that would give temporary visas to migrant crab pickers and oyster shuckers in time for Maryland's seafood season.
Another by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would provide workers for the agricultural industry. It has support from growers and farm worker advocates, but it faces opposition for providing legal status to some workers.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said he opposes using the military spending bill to address immigration, but he is proposing an alternative to Craig's measure. Co-sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, it doesn't include the legal residency provision.
"While reforms are needed to provide a legal way to meet our agricultural labor needs, we must also remove incentives for illegal immigration and put stricter provisions in place for seasonal workers coming across our borders," Chambliss said.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the White House and other Republicans had pleaded with senators to keep immigration off the spending bill and address them later in comprehensive immigration legislation.
Democrats refused, saying it was because Frist wouldn't commit to opposing the immigration provisions in the House version when negotiators try to blend the two.
"The only reason we have these Democrat and Republican amendments dealing with immigration is because it was placed in the bill by the Republicans," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said the immigration bills being offered are a "tiny speck" of the immigration problems the country faces.
Mikulski defended her measure to provide Maryland seafood processors and other businesses with more seasonal workers hired through the H2B visa program, saying "the cat was already out of the bag on immigration." Businesses are limited to 66,000 H2B workers a year, and that ceiling was reached Jan. 3.
"Republican leadership has been stalling on this bill by not allowing votes on amendments like mine. I have brought people to the table to vote on this because Maryland's small businesses need help now," Mikulski said.
The House's Iraq spending bill includes the immigration measures its Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted in the intelligence reorganization bill President Bush signed in December. He withdrew the provisions back then after House and Senate leaders promised he could attach them to the first major legislation likely to make it to Bush's desk.
They are almost universally opposed by Senate Democrats but also by state motor vehicle commissioners, some GOP senators and religious groups who say people fleeing persecution would be harmed.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
The Associated Press
April 15, 2005, Friday, BC cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
LENGTH: 550 words
HEADLINE: Senate agrees to votes on immigration measures
BYLINE: By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Senate Republicans and Democrats worked out a deal Friday on how to handle immigration issues attached to a measure paying for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The immigration measures spilled into the Senate's debate over an $80.6 billion military spending bill after the House included measures in its version to deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and make it harder for foreigners to stay in the United States on claims of asylum.
Under the deal, the Senate will vote Tuesday on three immigration measures. Each would require 60 votes to survive, including one sponsored by Democrat Sen. Barbara Mikulski that would give temporary visas to migrant crab pickers and oyster shuckers in time for Maryland's seafood season.
Another by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, would provide workers for the agricultural industry. It has support from growers and farm worker advocates, but it faces opposition for providing legal status to some workers.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said he opposes using the military spending bill to address immigration, but he is proposing an alternative to Craig's measure. Co-sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz, it doesn't include the legal residency provision.
"While reforms are needed to provide a legal way to meet our agricultural labor needs, we must also remove incentives for illegal immigration and put stricter provisions in place for seasonal workers coming across our borders," Chambliss said.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the White House and other Republicans had pleaded with senators to keep immigration off the spending bill and address them later in comprehensive immigration legislation.
Democrats refused, saying it was because Frist wouldn't commit to opposing the immigration provisions in the House version when negotiators try to blend the two.
"The only reason we have these Democrat and Republican amendments dealing with immigration is because it was placed in the bill by the Republicans," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said the immigration bills being offered are a "tiny speck" of the immigration problems the country faces.
Mikulski defended her measure to provide Maryland seafood processors and other businesses with more seasonal workers hired through the H2B visa program, saying "the cat was already out of the bag on immigration." Businesses are limited to 66,000 H2B workers a year, and that ceiling was reached Jan. 3.
"Republican leadership has been stalling on this bill by not allowing votes on amendments like mine. I have brought people to the table to vote on this because Maryland's small businesses need help now," Mikulski said.
The House's Iraq spending bill includes the immigration measures its Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted in the intelligence reorganization bill President Bush signed in December. He withdrew the provisions back then after House and Senate leaders promised he could attach them to the first major legislation likely to make it to Bush's desk.
They are almost universally opposed by Senate Democrats but also by state motor vehicle commissioners, some GOP senators and religious groups who say people fleeing persecution would be harmed.
hair 2010 heart tattoos on hip.
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.
more...
santb1975
10-02 01:40 PM
I thought we will have lot more responses with all the dedicated volunteers we have in So.Cal
hot Small+heart+tattoos+on+hip
iam4u4ever
06-05 05:26 PM
thank you
more...
house heart tattoos for girls on hip
RSM1444
04-04 02:05 PM
Some body with priority date of Dec 2008 voted yes. It looks like some confusion.
tattoo small heart tattoos on hip. small heart tattoos on hip. hip tattoos; hip
satishbsk
07-08 05:58 PM
How do u know that?
When I and my wife gave DNA, the volunteer who collected told that they collected 20 k so far and it is tough to get a match, and it might be only Indian DNA may match to Vinay.
When I and my wife gave DNA, the volunteer who collected told that they collected 20 k so far and it is tough to get a match, and it might be only Indian DNA may match to Vinay.
more...
pictures small heart tattoos on hip.
beemboy
11-16 06:12 PM
That is exactly what the senate has been doing. And the House too.
Nice one riva2005. :D :D
Nice one riva2005. :D :D
dresses small heart tattoos on hip.
imh1b
01-13 10:20 AM
I think Lawyers have a system where they can send emails to the service centers in a particular format, the receiving software at USCIS automatically parses the email and assigns the case to officers.
Or, if it has been a long time since it is current try contacting the Ombudsman.
Wow
They can parse emails.
Don't you think it is too hi-tech and a good futuristic idea?
Or, if it has been a long time since it is current try contacting the Ombudsman.
Wow
They can parse emails.
Don't you think it is too hi-tech and a good futuristic idea?
more...
makeup small heart tattoos on hip. heart tattoos for women on hip.
doubleyou
05-20 11:31 AM
Pappu, Thanks for the link it is informative and looks like IV had raised the namecheck issue. Let us see if there are other members on IV still experiencing FBI check delay.
Maybe then a retouch of the issue will be helpful.
Maybe then a retouch of the issue will be helpful.
girlfriend small heart tattoos on hip. heart tattoos for women on hip. Even if,
eb3retro
08-08 07:33 PM
^^^^^
hairstyles girlfriend heart tattoos on
grupak
08-10 11:17 PM
Hi, my I-485 approval might be close according to current processing time. I have moved within the same city. I wonder whether change of address at this time will cause any delay:
1. how likely due to change of address, my I-485 processing will be affected and got delayed?
2. how likely I will get a REF due to change of address?
3. Is it better to make an effort to keep the old address?
Thanks.
One option is to change the address at USCIS and also put a hold on your mail for 30 days (max allowed) at the Post Office. Picking up held mail should be easy since you are in same city.
1. how likely due to change of address, my I-485 processing will be affected and got delayed?
2. how likely I will get a REF due to change of address?
3. Is it better to make an effort to keep the old address?
Thanks.
One option is to change the address at USCIS and also put a hold on your mail for 30 days (max allowed) at the Post Office. Picking up held mail should be easy since you are in same city.
tikka
05-29 09:08 PM
Donot forget to send the webfax :)
thanks
2750 web faxes have been sent! we are trying to get to 3,000.:)
thanks
2750 web faxes have been sent! we are trying to get to 3,000.:)
glus
02-24 12:20 PM
I filed my labor three years ago with a requirement of BS + a minimum of a one year experience (I had 4 years of US experience and 6 ys experience abroad at that time -feb 2005-).
Now that I filed I-485 more than 180 days ago and I have a job offer that pays double of what is mentioned in the Labor (which the lawyer said is not a problem) , I still have an issue and is the following: in the description mentions as requirement "BS + minimum of 5 ys experience".
My lawyer said that although I have been in U.S. working with same position and same job title for 7 ys, that to be same or similar they should require similar experience than what was required at the moment my labor was filed: ie, BS + not more than 2 years experience,... Is this true? Did anyone experience this? The employer is a big corporation and cannot change that the job description to match the minimum years of experience. The duties are 90% similar and the job title is exactly the same.
The lawyer said that after labor was filed three years ago, that we could not count from that moment on an increased experience, with that I mean the minimum years of experience of the job in 2005 was 1 (although my resume on my labor showed 10 ys of experience) and he said that we cannot say that in 2005 was a minimun one year so you could gain experience on the job and convert it into a job with a minimumn of 4 years being same or similar). HE said that the experience clock was stopped on the labor filing date ie I cannot increase the minimun experience to make a job same or similar.
Did anyone hear anything similar?
Thanks and have a great weekend!
OK, this could be a problem at the time of I485 approval. You can change a job to same or similar. If you salary is double, an IO can think that this can't possibly be "same or similar" job. Also, if the experience required for the new position is so much different, that could also raise doubts. I would suggest getting a 2nd lawyer's opinion. I remember reading memo stating that if there is a "marginal change" in salary or requirements, a job cannot be classified as similar or same, which is required to invoke Ac21.
Now that I filed I-485 more than 180 days ago and I have a job offer that pays double of what is mentioned in the Labor (which the lawyer said is not a problem) , I still have an issue and is the following: in the description mentions as requirement "BS + minimum of 5 ys experience".
My lawyer said that although I have been in U.S. working with same position and same job title for 7 ys, that to be same or similar they should require similar experience than what was required at the moment my labor was filed: ie, BS + not more than 2 years experience,... Is this true? Did anyone experience this? The employer is a big corporation and cannot change that the job description to match the minimum years of experience. The duties are 90% similar and the job title is exactly the same.
The lawyer said that after labor was filed three years ago, that we could not count from that moment on an increased experience, with that I mean the minimum years of experience of the job in 2005 was 1 (although my resume on my labor showed 10 ys of experience) and he said that we cannot say that in 2005 was a minimun one year so you could gain experience on the job and convert it into a job with a minimumn of 4 years being same or similar). HE said that the experience clock was stopped on the labor filing date ie I cannot increase the minimun experience to make a job same or similar.
Did anyone hear anything similar?
Thanks and have a great weekend!
OK, this could be a problem at the time of I485 approval. You can change a job to same or similar. If you salary is double, an IO can think that this can't possibly be "same or similar" job. Also, if the experience required for the new position is so much different, that could also raise doubts. I would suggest getting a 2nd lawyer's opinion. I remember reading memo stating that if there is a "marginal change" in salary or requirements, a job cannot be classified as similar or same, which is required to invoke Ac21.
No comments:
Post a Comment