justareader
09-14 02:49 PM
Count me in !
wallpaper nicki minaj before she
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.
casinoroyale
02-06 09:11 PM
>IS ADMIN PROC DIFFERENT FROM ADD ADMIN PROC ???
No. Its all the same 221(g) or Administrative Processing.
No. Its all the same 221(g) or Administrative Processing.
2011 Nicki minaj fadar
Ramba
01-08 12:09 PM
Thanks all for the advise/comments. Mixed opinion. I was hearing that, because of Indian Rs gaining stongly aganist US$, outsourcing to India is not cheap anymore. I also informed that hiring fulltime/permanent employee in US is cheaper than outsourcing. I do not know howmuch true it is.
IS all QA jobs are shorterm in nature? As I have already a GC, is it easy to get fulltime (longterm)/permanent job in QA?
IS all QA jobs are shorterm in nature? As I have already a GC, is it easy to get fulltime (longterm)/permanent job in QA?
more...
anilsal
01-07 10:42 AM
So it is really an administrator goof-up?
DDLMODES
07-18 10:01 PM
Concurrent Filing was introduced in 2003 .PERM came into picture after march 2003. So you are right, u can file concurrrently whether u r PERM or old Labor.
The only issue in this case is that he is substituting labor so he cant use premium processing other than that he could have applied 140.485 concurrently.
Thanks for clarifying milind70.
Abhijip - We all want to help here but please don't provide confusing info.
As for the original poster, he can still apply for AOS if he gets the receipt. I got mine from TSC on July 13 and they got the I140 on July 6. It wasn't labor subst though.
Hang in there another week. Can you verify if they cashed the check ?? They print the receipt# on the back.
The only issue in this case is that he is substituting labor so he cant use premium processing other than that he could have applied 140.485 concurrently.
Thanks for clarifying milind70.
Abhijip - We all want to help here but please don't provide confusing info.
As for the original poster, he can still apply for AOS if he gets the receipt. I got mine from TSC on July 13 and they got the I140 on July 6. It wasn't labor subst though.
Hang in there another week. Can you verify if they cashed the check ?? They print the receipt# on the back.
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 nicki minaj in bikini pics
HV000
02-24 12:37 PM
It is important to note that IO vetting the AC21 - I-485 Application for approval HAS TO consider that EXPERIENCE and PERFORMANCE can comand greater salaries in the free job market!!!! This is VERY important since there is a hugh time gap between LC and I-485 Approval especially for non ROW countries!!
USCIS should NOT be intervening when companies can provide higher salaries for same or similar jobs to QUALIFIED candidates.
USCIS should NOT be intervening when companies can provide higher salaries for same or similar jobs to QUALIFIED candidates.
more...
sdrblr
07-21 04:23 PM
We came back on H1/ H4 even though I had valid AP last December. We are travelling again next week and will be back in 2 weeks. Not sure whether it matters what the POE is, mine is Chicago O'Hare.
When i went to Mumbai last december i got my H1B stamped. while coming to US i showed the POE my H1B stamped visa he asked me for Advanced parol document and i was Parolled.When i asked him i have a H1B stamped in my passport why do i need to be parolled. He answered AP has a higher preference than H1B.
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
When i went to Mumbai last december i got my H1B stamped. while coming to US i showed the POE my H1B stamped visa he asked me for Advanced parol document and i was Parolled.When i asked him i have a H1B stamped in my passport why do i need to be parolled. He answered AP has a higher preference than H1B.
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
hair nicki minaj before surgery
pappu
04-08 12:03 PM
Please add your details in IV tracker
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
and we can see the total cases in EB3
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
and we can see the total cases in EB3
more...
indyanguy
01-16 10:39 AM
I received a RFE on experience letters (EB3). I have searched everywhere but haven't found the format for a winning experience letter.
Can someone with an approved 140 please paste a format of the experience letter on this thread?
Thanks!
Can someone with an approved 140 please paste a format of the experience letter on this thread?
Thanks!
hot Nicki Minaj Before Surgery:
Dhundhun
06-09 02:39 PM
I just spoke to an Immigration Officer about the status of my pending I-485 application using InfoPass, and all she said was "it is waiting for a visa number". She seemed to be very ignorant of general USCIS regs and laws, but she called somebody and this is the answer she came up with.
My category is EB2-India with PD of Feb 2004 which is current for June. So, my question to all the gurus here is: WTF does this mean "waiting for a visa number"? i told her that my PD is current, so there is no need for waiting, but then she told me that my application was received on July 2nd 2007 and I need to wait. I tried explaining that 485 receipt date has no relation to PD, but it was a lost cause.
Any comments from the wise on this board?
My Understanding:
#1. The Receipt Date has relationship with Processing Date. If Processing Date is not current with respect to Receipt Date, file will not be picked for processing.
#2. When file is picked based on Processing Date and Priority Date is current, USICS asks for a Visa Number from DOS (Department of State). Visa Number is individual specific. USCIS sets Priority Date, but Visa Number is given by DOS and DOS can say USICS to wait, if Visa Numbers are not available.
I am sorry to say that I am still not a wise on this board, but thought, I could comment on it.
My category is EB2-India with PD of Feb 2004 which is current for June. So, my question to all the gurus here is: WTF does this mean "waiting for a visa number"? i told her that my PD is current, so there is no need for waiting, but then she told me that my application was received on July 2nd 2007 and I need to wait. I tried explaining that 485 receipt date has no relation to PD, but it was a lost cause.
Any comments from the wise on this board?
My Understanding:
#1. The Receipt Date has relationship with Processing Date. If Processing Date is not current with respect to Receipt Date, file will not be picked for processing.
#2. When file is picked based on Processing Date and Priority Date is current, USICS asks for a Visa Number from DOS (Department of State). Visa Number is individual specific. USCIS sets Priority Date, but Visa Number is given by DOS and DOS can say USICS to wait, if Visa Numbers are not available.
I am sorry to say that I am still not a wise on this board, but thought, I could comment on it.
more...
house like Nicki Minaj sorry ma
lvaka
07-17 06:51 PM
Thanks a lot IV Core. I am sure this is a very small contribution for the cause. Just to start with here is my $100 one time contribution.
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 7:16 PM EDT
Google Order #663744711461021
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 7:16 PM EDT
Google Order #663744711461021
tattoo images nicki minaj before
senk1s
05-07 12:42 AM
there is a new medical form / procedure that went into effect May 1 ...but that is only for tests done after that date.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=25cd95fda9a99110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Better to wait for it and see what they are asking for
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=25cd95fda9a99110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Better to wait for it and see what they are asking for
more...
pictures house nicki minaj before surgery nicki minaj images efore surgery.
anilkumar0902
08-26 11:42 PM
Thanks for the reply. So we don't need to disclose to employer that we are on EAD.
AND
Also can employer discrimnate EAD, for ex: they won't hire people on EAD, can they do that legally?
EAD is in itself establishes a person's legal work eligibility. Nowadays, many employers and their HR departments are very aware of EAD usage. It shouldn't be an issue.
Just chill...Good Luck.
Cheers
AND
Also can employer discrimnate EAD, for ex: they won't hire people on EAD, can they do that legally?
EAD is in itself establishes a person's legal work eligibility. Nowadays, many employers and their HR departments are very aware of EAD usage. It shouldn't be an issue.
Just chill...Good Luck.
Cheers
dresses Nicki Minaj#39;s recent skyrocket
stuckinretro
10-28 11:22 AM
One more Diwali passes by with no day light in sight!
Folks - everyday I go to sleep I wish that tomorrow the sun will rise in the west. When I wake up I see that nothing has changed.
Change is hard - but change definitely brings new hope and prosperity.
With bad economy, Green Card issues, visa retrogression, layoffs, bad stocks, housing crisis and with growing inflation - all we do is hope and strive towards betterment.
Diwali is a celebration of the victory of good over evil and I wish this Diwali will bring victory to the well deserved.
Lets all be together in turbulent times and work towards the change that we always want to see.
IV has helped us all and continue to help us. IV is nothing but all of us together. Lets all pledge our support to IV on this thread.
Folks - everyday I go to sleep I wish that tomorrow the sun will rise in the west. When I wake up I see that nothing has changed.
Change is hard - but change definitely brings new hope and prosperity.
With bad economy, Green Card issues, visa retrogression, layoffs, bad stocks, housing crisis and with growing inflation - all we do is hope and strive towards betterment.
Diwali is a celebration of the victory of good over evil and I wish this Diwali will bring victory to the well deserved.
Lets all be together in turbulent times and work towards the change that we always want to see.
IV has helped us all and continue to help us. IV is nothing but all of us together. Lets all pledge our support to IV on this thread.
more...
makeup pakistan, Photos
kirupa
11-21 05:42 AM
The poll will go live tomorrow (Saturday) :)
girlfriend nicki minaj before surgery
virald
01-31 09:30 PM
Has anyone analyzed who would be an ideal president from our point of view? Does IV think any candidate is more pro-legal immigrant than the other?
hairstyles nicki minaj body efore
meridiani.planum
12-19 12:45 AM
There's a quite a misconception that if h1 is canceled, it cannot be extended. It's nothing like that. Your friend can file for visa transfer (pay extra for premium processing) and get it in two weeks.
The only time you have to file a new H1 is when you leave US and remain outside for a year. Otherwise an transfer is all you need. This misconception is very widespread. Rajiv Khanna was at pains to try to exterminate this in one of his tele-conferences.
Anyhow, at this point, your friend should be talking to an attorney instead of having you make a post at this forum.
seconding this post. the H1 is still valid. It can be extended. The only two potential troubles are:
1. its been quite some time since your friend was last in status (Sept) so USCIS will liekly issue an RFE (do the transfer in premium processing) and will approve the H1 but not the updated status (you will get an I797 without an I94 at the bottom). If that happens your friend will need to leave the US and return (any border, need not go to home country) to activate teh H1.
2. if your friend stays out of status for >6 months it can impact his eligibility for greencard down the line.
The only time you have to file a new H1 is when you leave US and remain outside for a year. Otherwise an transfer is all you need. This misconception is very widespread. Rajiv Khanna was at pains to try to exterminate this in one of his tele-conferences.
Anyhow, at this point, your friend should be talking to an attorney instead of having you make a post at this forum.
seconding this post. the H1 is still valid. It can be extended. The only two potential troubles are:
1. its been quite some time since your friend was last in status (Sept) so USCIS will liekly issue an RFE (do the transfer in premium processing) and will approve the H1 but not the updated status (you will get an I797 without an I94 at the bottom). If that happens your friend will need to leave the US and return (any border, need not go to home country) to activate teh H1.
2. if your friend stays out of status for >6 months it can impact his eligibility for greencard down the line.
Krilnon
01-21 11:31 PM
Feel free to steal any of the tedious collection work that I've done, like the JS/AS array associating the filename, author, and title.
Here is a ZIP archive with the SWFs that I harvested: http://reclipse.net/kirupa/fxpression09/fxpression_entries.zip
Here is a ZIP archive with the SWFs that I harvested: http://reclipse.net/kirupa/fxpression09/fxpression_entries.zip
GCBy3000
08-03 10:50 PM
They would not have received even one application on 7/1 as this is sunday.
What about I-131. That is 7/1/2007. Its confusing
What about I-131. That is 7/1/2007. Its confusing
No comments:
Post a Comment