vladdrac
06-11 06:01 PM
the question may be, why did 'someone' do it
wallpaper hot hayden panettiere pictures
ebizash
02-10 05:58 PM
I think your attorney is right... Was your 140 approved in September.. meaning.. is Sept 19 close to your approval date? if that is the case I wouldn't worry. But if your approval was much earlier than Sept then it could be something to clarify from USCIS.
GCeffect
12-16 01:35 AM
I'm EB3 (ROW)...PD: May 2006. My I485 is pending more than 18 months and I140 is approved a year ago. Recently, my boss fired me. I left the company and got a better job within a week. thanks god.
Now my ex-employer is calling my lawyer and bringing some alligation against me and asking my lawyer to withdraw my case. He also mentioned to my lawyer that he is going to call the immigration and take action against me by withdrawing my case.
1...Does anyone have any idea how the immigration going to react after listening to his alligation against me?
2...by submitting any paperwork to them can he hamper my proessing?
3...Do i have anything to scare about?
4...what should i do now?
This issues a very crutial to me now. he is one of those nasty desi employer's who underpaid me last 6 years not just acting funny when I'm asking for my rights. He setup the whole alligation against me and have some office staff working and supporting him.
I need help.....please let me know what should i do....please people help me....
Now my ex-employer is calling my lawyer and bringing some alligation against me and asking my lawyer to withdraw my case. He also mentioned to my lawyer that he is going to call the immigration and take action against me by withdrawing my case.
1...Does anyone have any idea how the immigration going to react after listening to his alligation against me?
2...by submitting any paperwork to them can he hamper my proessing?
3...Do i have anything to scare about?
4...what should i do now?
This issues a very crutial to me now. he is one of those nasty desi employer's who underpaid me last 6 years not just acting funny when I'm asking for my rights. He setup the whole alligation against me and have some office staff working and supporting him.
I need help.....please let me know what should i do....please people help me....
2011 Hayden Panettiere has some
apb
08-17 03:25 PM
My friend 485 has been filed on 12th - to nebraska service center, but he mistakenly sent his ead & ap on 15th to Texus Service Center in Dullas.(Did not receive the receipt notice for 485)
Please let me know his options!
1) Do they reject his applications in TSC?.
2) If he file another set in Nebraska Service Center is ok?
?
EAD/AP would be rejected if the receipting in TEXAS was attempted before 485 data is in the system.
If NEB has entered the data for 485 by the time Texas gets to his EAD/AP there could be a chance where his EAD/AP might be accepted.
But you can always apply again though with new fees.
Of course from seeing your postings above I know that your friend has spoken to lawyer and you also did a great thing by trying to help your friend however possible.
In this forum people who come here have their own problems with GC process. No body is here except for Aman and maybe priti..something. who I know has GC in this forum and are actively discussing issues.
If I were to repeatedly BUMP my friends concern in this forum, particularly when people are trying to info on rally, RN, FP notices I am sure you would irritated too. But at the same time if I had BUMPED with a personal request that affects directly myself I might get some good response, from people who empathize my situation.
Though I am relatively new here I know there were no postings where people had requested on problems which they were personally facing and they got no response.
I am sure you would be joining for the rally and now that your friend knows that this forum exists it would be great if you could also motivate him to come. Of course there would be challenges and that is life.. but what is life without challenges. Once you help him to make a decision to come to rally everything will fall in place.
There is also a posting from abhijitp partnering with other members to join the rally. Please go through it.
And finally if your friend joins here personally he can also contribute to other peoples concern, he can see first hand what IV is and maybe if willing he can contribute financially also which would help all of us.
Isn't that you want to happen to IV and your friend who would be a future IV-ite (us) and get impacted in a good way.
Please let me know his options!
1) Do they reject his applications in TSC?.
2) If he file another set in Nebraska Service Center is ok?
?
EAD/AP would be rejected if the receipting in TEXAS was attempted before 485 data is in the system.
If NEB has entered the data for 485 by the time Texas gets to his EAD/AP there could be a chance where his EAD/AP might be accepted.
But you can always apply again though with new fees.
Of course from seeing your postings above I know that your friend has spoken to lawyer and you also did a great thing by trying to help your friend however possible.
In this forum people who come here have their own problems with GC process. No body is here except for Aman and maybe priti..something. who I know has GC in this forum and are actively discussing issues.
If I were to repeatedly BUMP my friends concern in this forum, particularly when people are trying to info on rally, RN, FP notices I am sure you would irritated too. But at the same time if I had BUMPED with a personal request that affects directly myself I might get some good response, from people who empathize my situation.
Though I am relatively new here I know there were no postings where people had requested on problems which they were personally facing and they got no response.
I am sure you would be joining for the rally and now that your friend knows that this forum exists it would be great if you could also motivate him to come. Of course there would be challenges and that is life.. but what is life without challenges. Once you help him to make a decision to come to rally everything will fall in place.
There is also a posting from abhijitp partnering with other members to join the rally. Please go through it.
And finally if your friend joins here personally he can also contribute to other peoples concern, he can see first hand what IV is and maybe if willing he can contribute financially also which would help all of us.
Isn't that you want to happen to IV and your friend who would be a future IV-ite (us) and get impacted in a good way.
more...
axp817
04-09 02:54 PM
Is this legal?
Yes.
Is it a common practice?
Apparently.
If for some reason, I485 is denied and you challenge the decision using MTR, will you still be legal status if the MTR process takes several months?
Yes, and you can also work on the EAD, unless the 485 denial notice specifically states that the EAD is also revoked/denied/rendered invalid, in which case, you can't use the EAD to work, but you are still okay to be in the country.
Is there a limit on how many times you can challenge USCIS decision? If they reject your application 10 times and you know the reason they rejected each time is incorrect, do you get to challenge them if you have enough evidence that your application was rejected incorrectly?
Chances of a 485 application being denied multiple times due to the same reason are bleak, although if it does happen (wrongful denial of course), or if it is denied multiple times, but due to a different reason each time, my understanding is that you can keep challenging/appealing the decision.
Good luck.
Yes.
Is it a common practice?
Apparently.
If for some reason, I485 is denied and you challenge the decision using MTR, will you still be legal status if the MTR process takes several months?
Yes, and you can also work on the EAD, unless the 485 denial notice specifically states that the EAD is also revoked/denied/rendered invalid, in which case, you can't use the EAD to work, but you are still okay to be in the country.
Is there a limit on how many times you can challenge USCIS decision? If they reject your application 10 times and you know the reason they rejected each time is incorrect, do you get to challenge them if you have enough evidence that your application was rejected incorrectly?
Chances of a 485 application being denied multiple times due to the same reason are bleak, although if it does happen (wrongful denial of course), or if it is denied multiple times, but due to a different reason each time, my understanding is that you can keep challenging/appealing the decision.
Good luck.
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
more...
yestogc
08-20 01:33 PM
Apology from USCIS :):o:D.................... this is not going to happen
2010 panettiere hayden com.
miguy
06-16 12:18 PM
Once you file for 485/AP/EAD, I guess the rule is that you cannot switch jobs for 6 months.....
1. can we choose the start date of our EAD or does USCIS decide that date?
2. can you have separate start dates for you and your wife's EAD?
3. does the new job have to be exactly the same title or can it be a new title? e.g. if your current role is a software engineer, can the new one be a Project manager?
thanks
1. can we choose the start date of our EAD or does USCIS decide that date?
2. can you have separate start dates for you and your wife's EAD?
3. does the new job have to be exactly the same title or can it be a new title? e.g. if your current role is a software engineer, can the new one be a Project manager?
thanks
more...
sheela
08-22 11:26 AM
I applied on June 12 (paper file) at TSC , Notice date June 18th , RD June 13th and received EAD cards on Aug 18th (CPO mail on Aug 15th).
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
Hope this info helps.
e-filed EAD renewal on 5/27 TSC
FP:6/21
still waiting....
EB2 i
PD:10/05, I140 approved 2/06
hair i think hayden panettiere
GotGC??
03-27 12:03 PM
And this "attorney" was actually paid for filing this PERM application?
The educational requirements specified in the PERM may give you some room to wriggle out of this.
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
The educational requirements specified in the PERM may give you some room to wriggle out of this.
I received my Labor Certificate with PERM process. Right now, I can't continue the process for I-140 and I-485. My lawyer just found out that my degree is Master of Business Administration, while the Labor Certificate is based on Master of Science. My current position is Software Engineer.
My questions are:
1. Is there a problem of having an MBA and working as a software engineer? As my understanding, MBA and MSc are the same level.
2. Can I continue the case since I already got my Labor Certificate?
I appreciate your feedback. Thank you.
more...
singhsa3
11-15 09:56 AM
As I've said earlier. IV is you, you are IV. If you are in the similar situation as we are and by expressing your desire to do something about it, you automatically become a member of IV.
But we do use this yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny/
to communicate with our members. So please sign up...
Hello IV members : I am mad about discrimination agst Indian and China born applicants for GC processing times. I have read many posts in here and it states to join tri-state chapters .. What does it mean? How can we be part of this.. Pls. elaborate.
Thanks
But we do use this yahoo group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny/
to communicate with our members. So please sign up...
Hello IV members : I am mad about discrimination agst Indian and China born applicants for GC processing times. I have read many posts in here and it states to join tri-state chapters .. What does it mean? How can we be part of this.. Pls. elaborate.
Thanks
hot hayden panettiere golden
Bezzer
09-06 10:51 AM
wow nice spalsh page...:)
So wot can u do with pixel stretching? stretch pixels?
So wot can u do with pixel stretching? stretch pixels?
more...
house (Hayden Panettiere - quot;)
capriol
07-06 02:32 PM
you should be fine. do you have a valid transit visa? i think you need to have one if you are travelling through the European Union.
Dear friends,
I received all the three responses to my queries on AP travel. All three of you have confirmed the same. Thanks a lot, I feel a lot better now. Although, as one of you mentioned about a transit visa through the EU, I will be waiting within the Amsterdam airport for 3 hours to take the connecting U.S flight, and so I don't think I need a transit visa. Thanks a lot.
Dear friends,
I received all the three responses to my queries on AP travel. All three of you have confirmed the same. Thanks a lot, I feel a lot better now. Although, as one of you mentioned about a transit visa through the EU, I will be waiting within the Amsterdam airport for 3 hours to take the connecting U.S flight, and so I don't think I need a transit visa. Thanks a lot.
tattoo Some quotes:
gcformeornot
06-06 06:55 PM
Job should be same or similar responsibilities and salary
salary is not requirement. It can not be less off course. It can be equal or more than LC.
Currently only 2 requirements
140 Approved and 485 pending more than 180 days.
Job should be same or similar title. Yes title only job duties do not matter.
This is per my lawyer.
salary is not requirement. It can not be less off course. It can be equal or more than LC.
Currently only 2 requirements
140 Approved and 485 pending more than 180 days.
Job should be same or similar title. Yes title only job duties do not matter.
This is per my lawyer.
more...
pictures Hayden Panettiere: “I#39;m a bad
mysticblue
08-17 01:57 AM
I assume you are on B's payroll and B is paying you with pay stub since you joined them though you are bench. If this is true -
Provide company C with your A approval notice (and any other prior approval notices, if required) and B's H1 transfer receipt notice along with the B's paystub. Apply for premium processing ASAP - Most importantly do not resign until you join Company C.
Thanks for the valuable inputs.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
1. Did you mean that I should resign from B only after getting a transfer receipt from C, or I should resign from B only after getting visa approval from C ?
2. If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
Provide company C with your A approval notice (and any other prior approval notices, if required) and B's H1 transfer receipt notice along with the B's paystub. Apply for premium processing ASAP - Most importantly do not resign until you join Company C.
Thanks for the valuable inputs.
Applying for premium processing with Company C seems to be best option. However sometimes premium processing takes more than 15 days to get a result. Since Company B has indicated that they will terminate my employment by the end of this month (less than 15 days from now), I may not have the option of resigning from Company B, before getting Company C's approval.
1. Did you mean that I should resign from B only after getting a transfer receipt from C, or I should resign from B only after getting visa approval from C ?
2. If B terminates my employment, and my transfer to C is still Pending, what will happen in such a case ?
dresses hayden panettiere hair bob
shaikhshehzadali
12-28 02:04 PM
They were NOT. They just put DEC 14 as the post date but they were NOT available online until yesterday. Now where were you buddy ?
Look for the first news item posted today at : http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Why did u give a negative marking for that?
Look for the first news item posted today at : http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Why did u give a negative marking for that?
more...
makeup Hayden Panettiere
Norristown
12-24 11:50 AM
Before July fiasco by USCIS, I was used to check murthy.com.immigrationportal websites for info on immigration issues.
During the July fiasco IV is the only website which was updating with more confidence.
Later it became a addiction to check IV morning and evening.
GO IV GO IV....
During the July fiasco IV is the only website which was updating with more confidence.
Later it became a addiction to check IV morning and evening.
GO IV GO IV....
girlfriend Posted in Hayden Panettiere
ksairi
08-17 08:41 AM
Kindly inform your friend that uscis is just accepting application for skilled workers at the moment.
HOW your answer relates to my question?
HOW your answer relates to my question?
hairstyles Quote • Ignore user
saarejahanseaccha
07-29 04:19 PM
ags123, not to alarm you, but is it possible to apply now for your wife? Since you already got your 485 approved and crossed the proverbial line into the gc land.
Yes, spouse can be added within 180 days of the the primary applicant's 485 was approval, if marriage happened before primary applicants 485 approval.
Yes, spouse can be added within 180 days of the the primary applicant's 485 was approval, if marriage happened before primary applicants 485 approval.
legal_la
06-25 03:39 PM
Guys,
here's my thoughts on this; If her h1 gets stamped she doesn't need AP. however if H1 gets rejected for some reason, in that case she can stay back in India until I recieve the AP documents. I send it to her then she can travel back on AP. ??
Any Suggestions or gyan on this !!!
-shree
I dont think you will be able to do this, I am not sure but I think one should be present in US at the time of AP approval only then they can use that Advance parole to leave and re enter.
May be converting back to H4 and attend for visa as dependent is an option. Ask your lawyer.
here's my thoughts on this; If her h1 gets stamped she doesn't need AP. however if H1 gets rejected for some reason, in that case she can stay back in India until I recieve the AP documents. I send it to her then she can travel back on AP. ??
Any Suggestions or gyan on this !!!
-shree
I dont think you will be able to do this, I am not sure but I think one should be present in US at the time of AP approval only then they can use that Advance parole to leave and re enter.
May be converting back to H4 and attend for visa as dependent is an option. Ask your lawyer.
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
No comments:
Post a Comment