Libra
08-13 11:03 AM
Members who became seniors on this forum, if you have contributed to IV so far, then can you guys put that in your signature, and junior members can you please think of contributing to IV.
Contribute to IV and show your support.
Contribute to IV and show your support.
wallpaper Rossi and Ducati
amsgc
12-11 12:50 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
sledge_hammer
02-07 01:14 PM
hammer, here is another poll very similar at http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1671
Thanks whoever,
I asked people on the EB3 poll thread where I can find the poll for EB2. Never got an answer, hence this thread.
Admin can delete this thread ...
Thanks whoever,
I asked people on the EB3 poll thread where I can find the poll for EB2. Never got an answer, hence this thread.
Admin can delete this thread ...
2011 valentino rossi ducati bike.
mita
08-20 12:46 PM
I just called USCIS and according to the person I spoke with, it takes approximately 30 days from the date of approval of primary applicant for approval of dependents.
more...
fuzzy logic
06-30 09:54 PM
Bumping - Any suggestions here.
permfiling
12-10 01:03 AM
My cousin took a offer from a employer in CA few months ago who did her H1 transfer but the condition mentioned in the agreement is that
In the event the employee voluntarily resigns or her employment is terminated for performance or cause prior to 4 years, employee agrees to reimburse the "Employer" for the full amount of legal, administrative and filing fees associated with the sponsorship of the employee's work visas as permitted by law.
The employer won't do premium processing so my cousin paid $1000 on her own but she had to travel outside the country to canada to get a new I-94. The employer's law firm filed the paper work with canada embassy in US to get a canadian visa.
Now my cousin got her GC through her hubby which her employer does not know. She is debating if she needs to inform her manager and company as they might ask her to sign any agreement or give back H1 fees.
The employment laws in CA are different so how can she move (if moves within 4 yrs) to another company without paying anything or a little fee to the employer. I told her that H1-B fees are not too high maybe around $4000.00 so the employer will have to spend lot of money on the lawyer's to go to court to suit her if she left say after 2 years of employment as she feels that the agreement is one sided considering the time line.
In the event the employee voluntarily resigns or her employment is terminated for performance or cause prior to 4 years, employee agrees to reimburse the "Employer" for the full amount of legal, administrative and filing fees associated with the sponsorship of the employee's work visas as permitted by law.
The employer won't do premium processing so my cousin paid $1000 on her own but she had to travel outside the country to canada to get a new I-94. The employer's law firm filed the paper work with canada embassy in US to get a canadian visa.
Now my cousin got her GC through her hubby which her employer does not know. She is debating if she needs to inform her manager and company as they might ask her to sign any agreement or give back H1 fees.
The employment laws in CA are different so how can she move (if moves within 4 yrs) to another company without paying anything or a little fee to the employer. I told her that H1-B fees are not too high maybe around $4000.00 so the employer will have to spend lot of money on the lawyer's to go to court to suit her if she left say after 2 years of employment as she feels that the agreement is one sided considering the time line.
more...
amitk81
12-10 02:35 PM
Is it possible to share your sources for the same.
thanks
Amit
thanks
Amit
2010 Rossi Ducati Helmet T-Shirt
qplearn
11-20 08:05 PM
The email id for 60 minutes is:
60m@cbsnews.com
After sending email, put a post here so we know how many emails have gone.
60m@cbsnews.com
After sending email, put a post here so we know how many emails have gone.
more...
thepaew
09-24 02:20 PM
Applying to a top MBA program is quite intense, especially if you come from a competitive applicant pool. eg: laid off investment banker (plenty of those headed to B-school), Indian-engineer, Chinese-anything, etc. Are you sure you want to go through the effort and expense of the application process if you cannot attend? It takes about 3-4 weeks to put a serious application package together - maybe you can put this time to better use by applying to a program that you can actually attend. That can also be a plan-B in case something goes wrong with the GC application.
Think it through and good luck with your decision. Wish you the Best.
here is what I am planning to do. Go ahead and apply. If I get admission and GC does not come through by next fall, simply ask for a deferral. If it is not granted, apply again.
I do not want to reset my GC process.
Anybody getting ready for RI next month?
Think it through and good luck with your decision. Wish you the Best.
here is what I am planning to do. Go ahead and apply. If I get admission and GC does not come through by next fall, simply ask for a deferral. If it is not granted, apply again.
I do not want to reset my GC process.
Anybody getting ready for RI next month?
hair Ducati unveil the 2011 GP11
gconmymind
06-02 01:09 PM
If you use your EAD, your wife will need to maintain her own status like L1, H1, F1, etc. There is no dependent status on EAD (like H4 for H1).
more...
yagw
01-26 12:57 AM
Laurie A. Bonilla
Address: Suite 180
800 El Camino Real West
Mountain View, CA 94040-2567
Phone: (650)903-2232
Fax: (650)903-2239
Address: Suite 180
800 El Camino Real West
Mountain View, CA 94040-2567
Phone: (650)903-2232
Fax: (650)903-2239
hot Valentino Rossi, Ducati Team,
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
more...
house valentino rossi ducati
EndRetro
06-20 01:03 PM
My wife's current H4 is valid till Nov. She got her H1 also approved from Oct'2007. She checked the status this morning only on USCIS.
I'm applying for I-485 and adding her as spouse. Should I file for her advance parole and put her status as H4 in it?
What happens to to her H1 approval, if advanced parole gets approved also. Will she loose her H1 status?
any ideas??
You should put the status on the day you are filing, so if you are filing before she gets on H-1, her status would be H-4.
Question: Why do need to have an AP filed? Is it just to avoid the hassle of stamping?
Just getting an AP approved has nothing to do with the H-1 status. But if you use the AP to enter into US, there is a grey area if the H-1 is still valid or not. If you have an option try to keep her on H-1 and not use the AP, this will make sure that he has a valid work status even if the 485 gets rejected.
I'm applying for I-485 and adding her as spouse. Should I file for her advance parole and put her status as H4 in it?
What happens to to her H1 approval, if advanced parole gets approved also. Will she loose her H1 status?
any ideas??
You should put the status on the day you are filing, so if you are filing before she gets on H-1, her status would be H-4.
Question: Why do need to have an AP filed? Is it just to avoid the hassle of stamping?
Just getting an AP approved has nothing to do with the H-1 status. But if you use the AP to enter into US, there is a grey area if the H-1 is still valid or not. If you have an option try to keep her on H-1 and not use the AP, this will make sure that he has a valid work status even if the 485 gets rejected.
tattoo Valentino Rossi amp; Ducati are
pd052009
08-20 02:38 PM
Considering the amount for H1 transfers(Hope the economy improves a lot for easy h1 transfer), the collectable amount will be more than 600M.
more...
pictures pictures valentino rossi
JDM
08-04 11:33 PM
I got the magic mail today ---Card production ordered!!! Just for me.
The status of my wife's I485 remains the same ---> Received and pending?
Any one in similar situation?
The status of my wife's I485 remains the same ---> Received and pending?
Any one in similar situation?
dresses valentino rossi ducati.
Rockford
07-17 02:19 PM
can you provide the link to that blog? I cannot find it.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/immigration-v-1.html#comment-76176292
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/immigration-v-1.html#comment-76176292
more...
makeup Ducati. Photo: Valentino Rossi
maine_gc
02-01 07:32 AM
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
girlfriend house valentino rossi ducati
pappu
04-13 11:16 AM
We have to first have confidence on our own strengths. We are a 10.5K strong group and well poised to become the largest grassroots advocacy organization of high skilled immigrants.
Key lawmaker offices now know us. We have appeared in top media. We have the best Lobbyists in the country working for us.
No other organization can claim such success in 1 year since inception. All we need is support of $20/month from members in order to continue this effort and grow it.
Key lawmaker offices now know us. We have appeared in top media. We have the best Lobbyists in the country working for us.
No other organization can claim such success in 1 year since inception. All we need is support of $20/month from members in order to continue this effort and grow it.
hairstyles Valentino Rossi by Ducati.
eb3retro
09-22 07:41 PM
For some reason, I feel that this is just the beginning. Hope I am wrong..
rajuram
11-08 11:54 PM
According to the following document from USCIS they issued receipts for approx 150K applications for AOS in sept. So my estimate of the total back log is
June filers 75k
July - 25k
August 200k
Sept 150k
Oct 50K
Total = 500k
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Septem ber07.pdf
June filers 75k
July - 25k
August 200k
Sept 150k
Oct 50K
Total = 500k
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/APPLICATIONS%20FOR%20IMMIGRATION%20BENEFITS_Septem ber07.pdf
seeking_GC
07-12 02:25 AM
Any idea on when the lawsuit actually gets to court?
No comments:
Post a Comment