indyanguy
02-23 06:37 PM
I already finished 14month 8days and still pending in NSC
14 months 8 days!!! I am already getting frustrated after waiting for 7 months (NSC) :mad::mad::mad:
14 months 8 days!!! I am already getting frustrated after waiting for 7 months (NSC) :mad::mad::mad:
wallpaper ellazon
logiclife
04-15 06:54 PM
I have been in this situation but my work location changed more than 100miles within the same state. My attorney asked me to start another labor.
1. If you think that you will move back one the 485 is adjucated, then you dont have to worry. OTherwise, you have file a new labor. Atleast you are safe since your 140 is approved. You can port your PD.
2. If it is within few miles then it should not affect. Still you have to check with your attorney. Few miles sometimes puts you in different couty or state or even in different country. So the term "Few Miles" is relative one and it is better to check with attorney.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
1. If you think that you will move back one the 485 is adjucated, then you dont have to worry. OTherwise, you have file a new labor. Atleast you are safe since your 140 is approved. You can port your PD.
2. If it is within few miles then it should not affect. Still you have to check with your attorney. Few miles sometimes puts you in different couty or state or even in different country. So the term "Few Miles" is relative one and it is better to check with attorney.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
vinnysuru
04-01 10:10 AM
Hello Everyone -
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
Hi Piyu, Wow you are lucky. I am from India EB2 (Jan 2006 PD). Non Concurrent with approved 140 Filed 485 on 25th July 07. FP in Sep 07. Haven't heard a word since then. I called NSC last week and they said my name check is pending. Derivative cleared. They have moved processing dates back to June 8th, so they don't expect my case to assigned to an officer for review at least for 2-3 months.
Would you mind sharing specifics of your case?
1. What was your exact PD (Day?)
2. Which service center did you file with?
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW?
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country?
Good luck! Yes, now you would just have to wait for PD to become current and you will get approval. Check . Lots of approvals in last 2 weeks for people in similar situations! More in come this month as PD's move forward today.
I am Happy for you! Gives all of us hope.
I am trying to understand importance of PD after one files 485. I filed my 485 in Jul 2007 and got FP in Sep 07. Then I got a notice for in person interview with USCIS officer. At the end of interview the USCIS officer indicated that the case is approved but will have to wait for Visa # to get the GC. The interview had happened in the month of Feb when visa for EB2 was Unavailable. My PD is Nov 06 and I am just trying to understand how this process will work.
Will my GC be processed when the dates on visa bulletin will be show have nov 06 or it will just get processed as there is no reason to hold the adjudication? Background check or any other
Hi Piyu, Wow you are lucky. I am from India EB2 (Jan 2006 PD). Non Concurrent with approved 140 Filed 485 on 25th July 07. FP in Sep 07. Haven't heard a word since then. I called NSC last week and they said my name check is pending. Derivative cleared. They have moved processing dates back to June 8th, so they don't expect my case to assigned to an officer for review at least for 2-3 months.
Would you mind sharing specifics of your case?
1. What was your exact PD (Day?)
2. Which service center did you file with?
3. What day did you file in July? Are you in any special category with EB2 like NIW?
4. What is your country of chargeability? Are you cross chargeable to any other country?
Good luck! Yes, now you would just have to wait for PD to become current and you will get approval. Check . Lots of approvals in last 2 weeks for people in similar situations! More in come this month as PD's move forward today.
I am Happy for you! Gives all of us hope.
2011 Dicker cintia |cintia dicker
Mumbai_girl
12-03 11:58 AM
What your lawyer says in incorrect. I have had my visa stamped successfully only for 3 months validity in the past. Even this time I have only 2 months left (until Feb 2008) but am still going for stamping. So do not worry. As long as you have one more day left, you can get it stamped. Good luck.
bach007 , I do very much appreciate your reply. I did call up mumbai and delhi visa center and they also said the same thing. Needless to say my lawyer needs to do lot of reading and research before answering any queries.
bach007 , I do very much appreciate your reply. I did call up mumbai and delhi visa center and they also said the same thing. Needless to say my lawyer needs to do lot of reading and research before answering any queries.
more...
GC20??
08-24 04:47 PM
any updates on status of background processing for your 485 ?
No updates yet. Though I know its useless I am taking an infopass tomorrow and will have IO open a service request.
No updates yet. Though I know its useless I am taking an infopass tomorrow and will have IO open a service request.
Soul
05-27 09:31 AM
Grrrr :P
more...
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
2010 trentini and Cintia Dicker
amitga
02-15 11:29 AM
The best way to generate Revenue is to attract Advertisements on IV website. There is lot of traffic in IV from Indians and Chinese and some people from ROW.
IV can create a job board which where employers who are willing to Hire H1B can post the jobs and pay a fraction of Fee compared to other job boards. That will increase the membership also. Also we can charge a fee from people who want to search and find Jobs.
IV can create a job board which where employers who are willing to Hire H1B can post the jobs and pay a fraction of Fee compared to other job boards. That will increase the membership also. Also we can charge a fee from people who want to search and find Jobs.
more...
ranand00
08-17 07:58 AM
been in pittsburgh for 8 yrs.license renewal no problem at pittsburgh downtown office.
need letter from employer and h1,thats it.
go to a different office or talk to the suprevisor.
hope it helps
anand
need letter from employer and h1,thats it.
go to a different office or talk to the suprevisor.
hope it helps
anand
hair cintia dicker 2011
Lill
03-03 05:31 AM
so photoshop isnt alowed? Just wondering. if not ill just do it in Flash i guess
more...
nixstor
06-28 02:13 PM
I am not sure if I am reading this right or not, go this page
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/3-7.html
and read the first para. It says G-325A has to be processed only if the applicant has entered the US in non immigrant status less than one year prior to current calendar date of review.
So any one who has entered US before (07/02/07) will have their G-325A trashed? I was under the impression that USCIS does use the biographic information to check with local law enforcement for the the past 5 years as stated in the G-325A. Any ideas?
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/3-7.html
and read the first para. It says G-325A has to be processed only if the applicant has entered the US in non immigrant status less than one year prior to current calendar date of review.
So any one who has entered US before (07/02/07) will have their G-325A trashed? I was under the impression that USCIS does use the biographic information to check with local law enforcement for the the past 5 years as stated in the G-325A. Any ideas?
hot adam pascal cabaret Clients; cintia
illinois_alum
05-27 09:30 PM
I had e-filed for me and my wife on 05/14.
App went to NSC. Sent docs on 05/19 - delivered on 05/21
Soft LUD on 05/17, 05/18 and on 05/24
Got receipts on 05/21
Yesterday (05/25) got ASC notice for FP for my wife.. did not know that FP is needed for EAD.
I thought last time we got FP notice.. it said app type as I-485.. that time.. in July fiasco.. we had applied for 485/EAD/AP all together
Have not got my FP notice yet
I have a Que - my daughter is 7 and initially the attorney had applied for EAD for her too... but then after the first time (2007) I did not apply for her EAD.. I thought no point in wasting $340 every time..
Now since FP notices are coming for my wife and hopefully for me - how about FP notice for my daughter? Do I need to apply for EAD for her.. to get FP notice?
If I don't get FP notice for her - will her Case be ok?
I e-filed for my wife on 5/24 - application was submitted to NSC.
Sof LUDs on 5/25, 5/26 and 5/27
Sent documents on 5/25 - Received by NSC on 5/27
Received Receipt Notice on 5/27
Waiting for FP notice (last FP was ~2 years back at the time of last EAD renewal)
App went to NSC. Sent docs on 05/19 - delivered on 05/21
Soft LUD on 05/17, 05/18 and on 05/24
Got receipts on 05/21
Yesterday (05/25) got ASC notice for FP for my wife.. did not know that FP is needed for EAD.
I thought last time we got FP notice.. it said app type as I-485.. that time.. in July fiasco.. we had applied for 485/EAD/AP all together
Have not got my FP notice yet
I have a Que - my daughter is 7 and initially the attorney had applied for EAD for her too... but then after the first time (2007) I did not apply for her EAD.. I thought no point in wasting $340 every time..
Now since FP notices are coming for my wife and hopefully for me - how about FP notice for my daughter? Do I need to apply for EAD for her.. to get FP notice?
If I don't get FP notice for her - will her Case be ok?
I e-filed for my wife on 5/24 - application was submitted to NSC.
Sof LUDs on 5/25, 5/26 and 5/27
Sent documents on 5/25 - Received by NSC on 5/27
Received Receipt Notice on 5/27
Waiting for FP notice (last FP was ~2 years back at the time of last EAD renewal)
more...
house (ellazon)
brb2
10-14 10:14 AM
One of the reasons for huge number of patents in the US is that many companies, file frivilous patents to slow down competition not just to protect their intellectual property. No doubt the patents in the pharma industry are genuine, but a typical product like a freezer may have several hundred patents.
You are right .. the US has a big headstart; but that doesnt mean it will remain that way forever. For instance, close to 40% of all US patents are being bagged by either non-US entities or foreign outposts of US organizations. For a comparison, it was just 10% in 1995 .. dont remember where I read this, but I will post the link if I can find it again.
You are right .. the US has a big headstart; but that doesnt mean it will remain that way forever. For instance, close to 40% of all US patents are being bagged by either non-US entities or foreign outposts of US organizations. For a comparison, it was just 10% in 1995 .. dont remember where I read this, but I will post the link if I can find it again.
tattoo Veronica Varekova - Bellazon
wandmaker
11-18 06:48 PM
enggr: You have completed the course in 2000 (per course completion certificate), but your degree was awarded in 2002 after you completed a supplemental exam. Since the position requires a candidate who qualifies for EB2, USCIS will deny your 140 petition. IMHO, you will have to start your green card journey from scratch.
more...
pictures Cintia Dicker
wait4ever
11-09 05:44 PM
What is wrong with people here ?
The UK Doctors WON the case on Appeal - the UK courts ruled that the actions by the UK Governments were unlawful.
People - please no doomsday expressions on these forums if you are so unhappy look elsewhere - I read a post where one poster (Invincibleasian) mentioned that "I hope that they dont flood the US from UK" - well you came here and no one said anything so why this "pull up the ladder" mentality.
Folks - Remember United we stand ! we are immigrant Employment based workers and in this flat world we are all impacted by legislation equally irrespective of which country enforces them.
Enough said :mad:
The UK Doctors WON the case on Appeal - the UK courts ruled that the actions by the UK Governments were unlawful.
People - please no doomsday expressions on these forums if you are so unhappy look elsewhere - I read a post where one poster (Invincibleasian) mentioned that "I hope that they dont flood the US from UK" - well you came here and no one said anything so why this "pull up the ladder" mentality.
Folks - Remember United we stand ! we are immigrant Employment based workers and in this flat world we are all impacted by legislation equally irrespective of which country enforces them.
Enough said :mad:
dresses van dijk*cintia dicker
FinalGC
05-01 10:02 AM
You may be able to reopen the old case, provided the old emploer has not sent a letter to USCIS stating the intent to not persue......if not talk to old employer and lawyer....they may ask you to pay some money for it.....eventually, you may need to work for them for at least 6 months, after getting GC, which will get you legally correct in front of USCIS.
The best thing you can do now is file a new GC with new employer and recapture the 2001 PD. This is possible since your 140 was approved the first time. Make sure the first LC application is similar to the new one. This is only possible, if you keep your calm, negotiate with the old lawyer and get all the LC and 140 approval papers or whatever is needed so that you can PORT the PD and use them for the new case.
I know I am asking you to jump ahead of my case which has a PD of 2005, but hey we are here to help....hope you are able to get this sorted. Just keep calm, remember there is no problem in this world that cannot be solved....your anger will only make you do things that you might regret later.
All the best.
The best thing you can do now is file a new GC with new employer and recapture the 2001 PD. This is possible since your 140 was approved the first time. Make sure the first LC application is similar to the new one. This is only possible, if you keep your calm, negotiate with the old lawyer and get all the LC and 140 approval papers or whatever is needed so that you can PORT the PD and use them for the new case.
I know I am asking you to jump ahead of my case which has a PD of 2005, but hey we are here to help....hope you are able to get this sorted. Just keep calm, remember there is no problem in this world that cannot be solved....your anger will only make you do things that you might regret later.
All the best.
more...
makeup /5276/cintiadicker.jpg)
zCool
07-27 03:17 PM
Do you work for some desi consultant who is trying to hold you?
Even then Attoreny making willful mistake to help your employer hold you is rare..
I have never heard you not needing signature.
In fact not having signature is reason enough for denial.
Even then Attoreny making willful mistake to help your employer hold you is rare..
I have never heard you not needing signature.
In fact not having signature is reason enough for denial.
girlfriend Arielle - Cintia Dicker
summitpointe
01-31 02:02 PM
There is a high possibility that you will get an RFE and you will need to reply for the RFE.
Service centers does not consider three year degree course from India as degree equivalent from here. They want minimum four year degree. This may upset you. You may need to talk with your Attorney and look for an alternative to stay in US.
Service centers does not consider three year degree course from India as degree equivalent from here. They want minimum four year degree. This may upset you. You may need to talk with your Attorney and look for an alternative to stay in US.
hairstyles Models: Cintia Dicker amp; Lydia
alien2006
08-08 07:33 AM
guys many of us are considering going back to india.. any idea on whether those who have 40 credits will be eligible for social security from india...
also any adivice o what is the best way to transfer 401 to india.. withdraw immeditately or wait till 591/2 years..
Try this website - http://groups.msn.com/R2INRIFinanceAndInvestments for good info if you want to go back to India.
also any adivice o what is the best way to transfer 401 to india.. withdraw immeditately or wait till 591/2 years..
Try this website - http://groups.msn.com/R2INRIFinanceAndInvestments for good info if you want to go back to India.
claudia255
03-24 05:47 PM
Thank you Mark!
You did an excellent job. Your explanations were very clear and probably made sense for someone who is not familiar with EB immigration issues.
Thanks!
You did an excellent job. Your explanations were very clear and probably made sense for someone who is not familiar with EB immigration issues.
Thanks!
Ann Ruben
05-15 04:38 PM
no worries. my response should have been more precise.
No comments:
Post a Comment