vaishnavilakshmi
11-13 09:08 PM
Hi Guys,
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
Hi,
As far as forum knowledge,Usually 485 approval updates would be either we sent u a welcome notice or approval notice sent or card production ordered etc.But when document mailed etc,i think it might be a RFE on ur 485 or may be ur AP document(by mistake,updated on ur 485).If u r extreme lucky,it could be ur GC!!!!
Anyway wish u goodluck,
Please update ur post when u recieve the document mailed by USCIS,
thanks,
lakshmi
I verified my 485 Application status online and this is what I found can you guys tel what could this mean.
My I140 is not approved yet.
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
Hi,
As far as forum knowledge,Usually 485 approval updates would be either we sent u a welcome notice or approval notice sent or card production ordered etc.But when document mailed etc,i think it might be a RFE on ur 485 or may be ur AP document(by mistake,updated on ur 485).If u r extreme lucky,it could be ur GC!!!!
Anyway wish u goodluck,
Please update ur post when u recieve the document mailed by USCIS,
thanks,
lakshmi
wallpaper Michael Jackson Thriller
raju123
05-16 12:53 PM
^^^^^ Bumping up
old_hat
04-27 09:51 PM
http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/
* USCIS has increased the emphasis on processing employment-based petitions. Our goal is to complete adjudication on the older I-140 petitions and to process newer petitions within our targeted processing time of four months. We are making progress toward this goal and anticipate reaching this goal by the end of September 2009.
* USCIS is issuing employment authorization documents valid for two years, as needed.
* USCIS is working with the State Department to make sure we use every available visa number. In 2007, we had more visas available in the family-based categories than were needed, so as permitted by law, we transferred those available family-based visas for use in the employment-based application process.
I recognize that this is a difficult and complex situation and USCIS is working hard to make improvements and to increase transparency in our processes.
Mike Aytes
Acting Deputy Director, USCIS
* USCIS has increased the emphasis on processing employment-based petitions. Our goal is to complete adjudication on the older I-140 petitions and to process newer petitions within our targeted processing time of four months. We are making progress toward this goal and anticipate reaching this goal by the end of September 2009.
* USCIS is issuing employment authorization documents valid for two years, as needed.
* USCIS is working with the State Department to make sure we use every available visa number. In 2007, we had more visas available in the family-based categories than were needed, so as permitted by law, we transferred those available family-based visas for use in the employment-based application process.
I recognize that this is a difficult and complex situation and USCIS is working hard to make improvements and to increase transparency in our processes.
Mike Aytes
Acting Deputy Director, USCIS
2011 London - Michael Jackson
The7zen
06-14 08:01 PM
Thank you for your inputs. I really appreciated for your help. We went to Detective office and he allowed my sister only to question. He asked couple of questions regarding that family and theft. My sister explained him that she don't know about that situation. It took about 20 minutes time there. We have below questions still remains in our mind.
1) Do we really required a Lawyer to protect?
2) I believe they should have proper information to arrest or accuse right?
3) We know my sister is innocent but feeling insecure for being happend. so what are all the chances to again question my sister?.
After viewing your messages here, we realized it is wrong to go to Detective office but we went this morning
Please help me in this
1) Its better to have a lawyer in these type of situations, especially if they have to record your statements.
3) Did you talk to the accuser to find out what exactly is happening and why he is suspecting your sister? BTW if you do so, just be polite and listen to what he says dont get agitated over the phone.
Good luck....
1) Do we really required a Lawyer to protect?
2) I believe they should have proper information to arrest or accuse right?
3) We know my sister is innocent but feeling insecure for being happend. so what are all the chances to again question my sister?.
After viewing your messages here, we realized it is wrong to go to Detective office but we went this morning
Please help me in this
1) Its better to have a lawyer in these type of situations, especially if they have to record your statements.
3) Did you talk to the accuser to find out what exactly is happening and why he is suspecting your sister? BTW if you do so, just be polite and listen to what he says dont get agitated over the phone.
Good luck....
more...
yanj
12-14 09:38 AM
Now I am working for a company in OPT .
have 24 days GAP.
How can I do to solve it ?
have 24 days GAP.
How can I do to solve it ?
texcan
08-01 05:54 PM
Count me in guys.
more...
rishikesh75
11-09 10:47 AM
Luckily I had all but the 1st one when I entered in US. Please see the format letter below [please note that I am copying the format from a word doc & may not display correctly
Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to your letter requesting evidence for FORM I-131. Please find below mentioned details.
a. Copies of all I-94 issued- I do not have copy of I-94 that was issued to me on <>Date (my first arrival in US on H1). The original I-94 was returned to airline official at the time of boarding the flight.
The following entries are in TAB format
Date of Entry mm/DD/yyyy
Date of Exit mm/DD/yyyy
I-94 # NA
Copy Avail? N
Remarks Original I-94 was handed over to airlines staff at the time of boarding [Departed by flight xxx ]. To support my claim, please see attached passport copy that shows arrival record in India on <xxx> [pages 3-4]
b. Approval notices for extensions or change of Status- My original H1 [XXXX] expired on [XXX]. An H1 renewal notice was filed on [XXXX] and was approved on [XXX] [WAC-XXX]. I am attaching copies of both the approval notices.
c. Any other Evidence of your lawful immigrations status: I am attaching a copy of approved I-140 [SRC-XXX] and a copy of I-485 filing receipt [WAC-XXXX]
d. Evidence of relationship: I am attaching the following documents
1. Copy of my birth certificate
2. Copy of my marriage certificate
Thanks & Regards,
<Your Name>
Encl:
1. Passport copy pages displaying the visa issued ,date of entries to US on H1 and displaying the date of arrival in India [6 pages]
2. Copies of H1 approval & extension approval notice [2 pages]
3. Copies of I-94’s issued [5 pages]
4. Copy of I-140 approval [1 pages]
5. Copy of I-485 filing receipt [1 pages]
6. Copy of birth certificate [1 page]
7. Copy of marriage certificate [1 page]
Hope this helps
QUOTE=MYGCBY2010;193771]How did you respond to your RFE?.. Did you have copies of all of your I -94 ?.. Please let me know...[/QUOTE]
Dear Sir/Madam,
In response to your letter requesting evidence for FORM I-131. Please find below mentioned details.
a. Copies of all I-94 issued- I do not have copy of I-94 that was issued to me on <>Date (my first arrival in US on H1). The original I-94 was returned to airline official at the time of boarding the flight.
The following entries are in TAB format
Date of Entry mm/DD/yyyy
Date of Exit mm/DD/yyyy
I-94 # NA
Copy Avail? N
Remarks Original I-94 was handed over to airlines staff at the time of boarding [Departed by flight xxx ]. To support my claim, please see attached passport copy that shows arrival record in India on <xxx> [pages 3-4]
b. Approval notices for extensions or change of Status- My original H1 [XXXX] expired on [XXX]. An H1 renewal notice was filed on [XXXX] and was approved on [XXX] [WAC-XXX]. I am attaching copies of both the approval notices.
c. Any other Evidence of your lawful immigrations status: I am attaching a copy of approved I-140 [SRC-XXX] and a copy of I-485 filing receipt [WAC-XXXX]
d. Evidence of relationship: I am attaching the following documents
1. Copy of my birth certificate
2. Copy of my marriage certificate
Thanks & Regards,
<Your Name>
Encl:
1. Passport copy pages displaying the visa issued ,date of entries to US on H1 and displaying the date of arrival in India [6 pages]
2. Copies of H1 approval & extension approval notice [2 pages]
3. Copies of I-94’s issued [5 pages]
4. Copy of I-140 approval [1 pages]
5. Copy of I-485 filing receipt [1 pages]
6. Copy of birth certificate [1 page]
7. Copy of marriage certificate [1 page]
Hope this helps
QUOTE=MYGCBY2010;193771]How did you respond to your RFE?.. Did you have copies of all of your I -94 ?.. Please let me know...[/QUOTE]
2010 Michael Jackson Tattoo Fail
anantc
12-18 03:55 PM
Yes,
I would also like to the H3 and L1/B1-B2 processing from F1(OPT) for the intermediate period of OPT(May end) to H1 (Oct 1st).
Can anyone on this forum let me know what is the process & requirements for these to stay in US during those 4 months..
:confused: Thanks.:confused:
I would also like to the H3 and L1/B1-B2 processing from F1(OPT) for the intermediate period of OPT(May end) to H1 (Oct 1st).
Can anyone on this forum let me know what is the process & requirements for these to stay in US during those 4 months..
:confused: Thanks.:confused:
more...
GCBy3000
11-09 02:44 PM
I moved from location A to location B within the same state with same employer. My legal consulting with company attorney is as below.
1. Yes, you can move to different location. But you have to move back to the original location once you get GC. How long you have to work at the original location is a grey area. My attorney said anywhere between 6months to one year will do.
2. If your employer is not willing to relocate you to the original location, you HAVE TO start your LC process again in the new location. Even before my labor approved from location A, I moved to location B. Since my company is good, they agreed to file 140 for location A just for me to keep the PD. Now my location B 140 is filed.
3. With the new perm process, there is no provision to state that a employee will work in multiple location. This is what I have heard from my attorney.
4. When I asked him what will happen if I dont move back to location A and continue working in location B, he said I will get into trouble when I to for interview for my citizenship. Until then, it should be fine. Only case it will be a probelm when a query is put to the employer and he does not backs you up. Of couse, no one should lie and I dont want my employer to lie for me.
Thanks folks for all the replies. I got to know finally that the employer can setup the LC to provide for any relocation. It looks like my employer usually does that so that the employees does not loose out in a relocation scenario.
Thanks for all the inputs
1. Yes, you can move to different location. But you have to move back to the original location once you get GC. How long you have to work at the original location is a grey area. My attorney said anywhere between 6months to one year will do.
2. If your employer is not willing to relocate you to the original location, you HAVE TO start your LC process again in the new location. Even before my labor approved from location A, I moved to location B. Since my company is good, they agreed to file 140 for location A just for me to keep the PD. Now my location B 140 is filed.
3. With the new perm process, there is no provision to state that a employee will work in multiple location. This is what I have heard from my attorney.
4. When I asked him what will happen if I dont move back to location A and continue working in location B, he said I will get into trouble when I to for interview for my citizenship. Until then, it should be fine. Only case it will be a probelm when a query is put to the employer and he does not backs you up. Of couse, no one should lie and I dont want my employer to lie for me.
Thanks folks for all the replies. I got to know finally that the employer can setup the LC to provide for any relocation. It looks like my employer usually does that so that the employees does not loose out in a relocation scenario.
Thanks for all the inputs
hair Michael Jackson Tattoo
a1b2c3
02-05 10:12 PM
I'm also in the same boat. Cases after me are getting approved.:)
more...
Pagal
03-18 07:40 AM
Hello,
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
My 2-cents:
1. Your EAD is for unrestricted employment till the AOS is resolved (so, it is not tied to your labor petition)
2. Your AP is a travel document to allow you to travel while AOS is pending (again, not tied to employment)
As such, for all legal purposes, you should be able to pursue education full time. However, any IO at entry post has authority to ask you questions beyond what is legally required, which many a times, includes 'are you still employed with the petitioner'.
This is the tricky part... if the IO has good knowledge of the laws, he would let you in 'cause your petition is for the future job, but a wrong IO can twist and turn the laws to suit his/her point of view and land you in unnecessary trouble.
However, in 99% of the cases, the trouble may mean a few more anxious hours at the port of entry and nothing more. Hope you are able to pursue your education, all the best! :)
hot Michael Jackson – Dancin
usirit
11-21 12:24 AM
By the way, what "...You are from ROW..." means :o
more...
house Michael Jackson#39;s quot;Thriller
Rakson
03-03 06:58 PM
You have added important point for consideration. Thanks!
I am including response from Rajeev Khanna. I took paid consultation today and paid him $220 for above queries. He is excellent. I would recommend him for all immigration queries...
A. Can USCIS revoke extended period ( after Jan 29, 2011) if current company(A) revokes their approved I-140 before new company(B) gets approval of new PERM and I-140?
Rajeev >> USCIS can but they have not done this till today ( as per history in Rajeev's database).
B. Can new company (B) start new PERM application during my extension period (after Jan 29, 2011)?
Rajeev >> YES, they can. It is recommended to start before start of 7th year but not MUST.
C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?
Rajeev >> Yes, its possible if revoke is not due to fraud filing..
1. What kind of trend is there now a days on PERM labor approval? Lot of queries and rejections ?
Rajeev >> No, this is not true. USCIS is still approving as before.
2. Can my new PERM or I-140 be denied for any reason? It was approved for me twice in past.
Rajeev >> Yes, this could happen as every filing is new and handled from starting.
3. Can I keep running existing GC without continuing with old company? When should I join them back for safe GC processing? After GC? After EAD? During 485 filing?
Rajeev >> Ideally after GC you must join but it is recommended to join back during 485 filing.
4. My wife worked on L2+EAD for 3 years. Is L2+ EAD period counted towards 6 years work visa like (H1 + L1).
Rajeev >> No, L2+EAD period is not counted like H1 & L1.
I am including response from Rajeev Khanna. I took paid consultation today and paid him $220 for above queries. He is excellent. I would recommend him for all immigration queries...
A. Can USCIS revoke extended period ( after Jan 29, 2011) if current company(A) revokes their approved I-140 before new company(B) gets approval of new PERM and I-140?
Rajeev >> USCIS can but they have not done this till today ( as per history in Rajeev's database).
B. Can new company (B) start new PERM application during my extension period (after Jan 29, 2011)?
Rajeev >> YES, they can. It is recommended to start before start of 7th year but not MUST.
C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?
Rajeev >> Yes, its possible if revoke is not due to fraud filing..
1. What kind of trend is there now a days on PERM labor approval? Lot of queries and rejections ?
Rajeev >> No, this is not true. USCIS is still approving as before.
2. Can my new PERM or I-140 be denied for any reason? It was approved for me twice in past.
Rajeev >> Yes, this could happen as every filing is new and handled from starting.
3. Can I keep running existing GC without continuing with old company? When should I join them back for safe GC processing? After GC? After EAD? During 485 filing?
Rajeev >> Ideally after GC you must join but it is recommended to join back during 485 filing.
4. My wife worked on L2+EAD for 3 years. Is L2+ EAD period counted towards 6 years work visa like (H1 + L1).
Rajeev >> No, L2+EAD period is not counted like H1 & L1.
tattoo Michael Jackson Tattoos
jsb
10-30 04:01 PM
I have future GC filed from Company X, the priority date is February 2006.
I am currently working for Company Y on H1B. This H1B will expire in April 2009. Company Y is also ready to file my GC and I would like to work with Company Y till by future GC is approved, my question is if I have already filed for 485, EAD and AP through Company X, scenario will it be advisable to file another labour and I-140 through Company Y now?
What could be the implications?
It is advisable if work at Y is significantly different than what is in LC filed at X. There is no other negative impact of that, other than filing fees. If Y is willing to file for your LC go for it. That way you are not restricted by rules of AC21. There is no limit on how many I-140 or LC's you can have.
I am currently working for Company Y on H1B. This H1B will expire in April 2009. Company Y is also ready to file my GC and I would like to work with Company Y till by future GC is approved, my question is if I have already filed for 485, EAD and AP through Company X, scenario will it be advisable to file another labour and I-140 through Company Y now?
What could be the implications?
It is advisable if work at Y is significantly different than what is in LC filed at X. There is no other negative impact of that, other than filing fees. If Y is willing to file for your LC go for it. That way you are not restricted by rules of AC21. There is no limit on how many I-140 or LC's you can have.
more...
pictures Michael Jackson Tattooflash
trueguy
12-11 01:43 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.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
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.
Very good points. I can't agree with you any more.
The question is how do we raise it as an issue so USCIS follow FIFO.
dresses her Michael Jackson tattoo
vbkris77
12-27 02:29 PM
So many bills are introduced but most don't even see day of light.. I personally don't see this ever passing the congress.. For most treaty countries this feature is already available and its called E1/E2 visa.. There is no limit on number of people and number years for visa.
Hope some of you might have seen the Wall Street Journal story this weekend on visas/Green Cards for owners of start-up businesses. (Foreign Entrepreneurs Eye StartUp Visa Act - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704694004576020001550357580-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html) )
According to the story there is broad consensus for a program to offer green card to foreign nationals who can bring in as low as $100,000 to start a new business in U.S. While this may not be an option for most of the folks in this forum, the premise of the proposed law has something in common with all of us.
The law is proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Richard Lugar (R) on the principle that immigrants are more willing to be entrepreneurial and hence offering permanent residency to foreigners who will open a small business will increase the employment opportunities in U.S. Endorsing the entrepreneurial mind of new immigrants WSJ sights that; �Immigrants are nearly 30% more likely to start a business than non-immigrants � and �about a third of Silicon Valley technology firms were started by Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs� . If the proposed bill is attempting to attract skilled and entrepreneurial minded immigrants into U.S. as a means to increase employment why not U.S. look into the pool of highly skilled and eager folks waiting for a green card for many years? Wouldn�t these folks be highly likely to open a new small business than someone from outside of the U.S. with no U.S. business background? If we are to take cues from the one third of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs wouldn�t a good number of these people waiting for green card open up the starts up businesses that senators Kerry and Lugar are hoping to .
Would it be worth writing on behalf of Immigration Voice to senators Kerry and Lugar to consider the pool of potential entrepreneurs minded people already in U.S. and have been waiting for an opportunity to realize their entrepreneurial dreams? I don�t have the actual numbers. Aren�t there about 30 or 40,000 people who have been in U.S. with an approved immigration petition but waiting for a green card for many years? Could IV put forward a win-win propositions for everyone?
Hope some of you might have seen the Wall Street Journal story this weekend on visas/Green Cards for owners of start-up businesses. (Foreign Entrepreneurs Eye StartUp Visa Act - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704694004576020001550357580-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html) )
According to the story there is broad consensus for a program to offer green card to foreign nationals who can bring in as low as $100,000 to start a new business in U.S. While this may not be an option for most of the folks in this forum, the premise of the proposed law has something in common with all of us.
The law is proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Richard Lugar (R) on the principle that immigrants are more willing to be entrepreneurial and hence offering permanent residency to foreigners who will open a small business will increase the employment opportunities in U.S. Endorsing the entrepreneurial mind of new immigrants WSJ sights that; �Immigrants are nearly 30% more likely to start a business than non-immigrants � and �about a third of Silicon Valley technology firms were started by Indian or Chinese entrepreneurs� . If the proposed bill is attempting to attract skilled and entrepreneurial minded immigrants into U.S. as a means to increase employment why not U.S. look into the pool of highly skilled and eager folks waiting for a green card for many years? Wouldn�t these folks be highly likely to open a new small business than someone from outside of the U.S. with no U.S. business background? If we are to take cues from the one third of the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs wouldn�t a good number of these people waiting for green card open up the starts up businesses that senators Kerry and Lugar are hoping to .
Would it be worth writing on behalf of Immigration Voice to senators Kerry and Lugar to consider the pool of potential entrepreneurs minded people already in U.S. and have been waiting for an opportunity to realize their entrepreneurial dreams? I don�t have the actual numbers. Aren�t there about 30 or 40,000 people who have been in U.S. with an approved immigration petition but waiting for a green card for many years? Could IV put forward a win-win propositions for everyone?
more...
makeup fail michael jackson
dan19
10-18 12:22 PM
One of my friends got a similar one. In that case the DOL pointed to one another candidate(say Mr.A's) who applied for the same job, and was more qualified than my friend in terms of years of experience. The DOL asked why Mr.A wasn't hired.
My friend's company sent a new letter to Mr.A asking whether he was still available. Mr.A did not reply back.
Since Mr.A did not reply back, the company understood that Mr.A is no longer interested in the job.
The company then sent back the rebuttal stating the new efforts made.
The DOL then approved:) the case.
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department’s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750’s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750’s. The other set of 750’s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750’s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750’s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer’s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
My friend's company sent a new letter to Mr.A asking whether he was still available. Mr.A did not reply back.
Since Mr.A did not reply back, the company understood that Mr.A is no longer interested in the job.
The company then sent back the rebuttal stating the new efforts made.
The DOL then approved:) the case.
I received a letter from BEC and it says
This Notice of Findings is the Department’s statement of its intent to deny the application.
The following reasons were attached in the document:
1. - The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S worker.
The case file indicates that telephone calls were placed made to U.S. applicants but the calls failed to reach the following applicants: A,B,C (name of the applicants)
Although telephone calls were unsuccessfully places to the three U.S. applicants, no certified mailing or other attempts were made to contact the applicants. An employer must prove that its overall recruitment efforts were in good faith.
The employer may rebut this finding by:
Providing documentation that certified mail was sent to the four applicants which demonstrates the employer made the minimally acceptable effort to recruit U.S. applicants.
2. The department of labor requires that when submitting an Application for Alien Employment Certification the case file must contain two sets of original ETA 750’s Parts A and B. your case file contains only one set of original ETA750’s. The other set of 750’s in the case file are photocopies. ETA 750’s with photocopied signatures are not acceptable for processing. In order to continue processing the Application for Alien Employment Certification you must send an additional set of original ETA 750’s.
A copy of the Form ETA 750, parts A and B, have been returned in the event that any changes are necessary. The amended copies must be returned with your resubmission. Any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part A, must be initialed and dated by the employer: and any amendments made to the ETA 750, Part B, must be initialed by the alien, as appropriate.
It is the employer’s responsibility to submit the rebuttal in a timely manner directly to the certifying officer.
I got already my 7th year extension and it valid till Nov 2007. I spoke with my attorney and he seems to be positive, but he could only able to find two of the three candidates email correspondence.
Please let me know if you have faced similar situation or any suggestions. What is the possibility of my case gets approved?
girlfriend Michael Jackson fan shows off
abhijitp
01-25 07:21 PM
^^
hairstyles michael jackson tattoo www.
dealsnet
04-15 05:18 PM
You are correct. He have no option. Find a job, go back and tell them to do process the H1B, and do consular interview and stamping and come clean. You may have difficulty in approving the petition, or the process may take several months.
What you did a big mistake to ditch a company and go to a sucker. You are not supposed to start with the new company till you get the RECEIPT NOTICE after file for H1B. THAT IS A MISTAKE AND YOU ARE DID ILLEGAL ACTIVITY/JOB FROM THAT POINT OF TIME.
You have no choice but leave US immediately, go for CP, declare your overstay in the DS156 form, come clean to the VO and hope they forgive it.
Good Luck!
What you did a big mistake to ditch a company and go to a sucker. You are not supposed to start with the new company till you get the RECEIPT NOTICE after file for H1B. THAT IS A MISTAKE AND YOU ARE DID ILLEGAL ACTIVITY/JOB FROM THAT POINT OF TIME.
You have no choice but leave US immediately, go for CP, declare your overstay in the DS156 form, come clean to the VO and hope they forgive it.
Good Luck!
Appu
04-02 10:31 PM
So if (for example) an H1B worked in the US for a few weeks before their visa became available, are they technically eligible for this? Or perhaps they were out of status for a week or two between jobs? I'm sure many H1's might have been in this situation. It's unclear who this applies to.
Yep, my thinking, exactly. Also, people going between F1 and H1 or between H1 and H4 could all claim a few weeks or months of "undocumented" status.
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
That's right, it doesn't. I have enquired my lawyer about this. She'll get back to me on Tuesday. I will post more information then.
Yep, my thinking, exactly. Also, people going between F1 and H1 or between H1 and H4 could all claim a few weeks or months of "undocumented" status.
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
That's right, it doesn't. I have enquired my lawyer about this. She'll get back to me on Tuesday. I will post more information then.
ski_dude12
10-15 02:17 PM
It is possible that since you are on H1 they might have assumed that your employer filed for your GC.
No comments:
Post a Comment