rc0878
09-23 10:35 AM
I think as far it does not say unknown, we should be good....but still we should atleast discuss this wit our respective attorneys and post our findings in here.
BTW, mine is blank also.
To answer your question the Priority date column is NULL ( i mean blank) for most of us in 485 Receipt Notice.
But the "Section : " is showing UNKNOWN for some of us and showing something else for others...
I'm wondering if that could be an issue - shall we call USCIS to fix this ?
BTW, mine is blank also.
To answer your question the Priority date column is NULL ( i mean blank) for most of us in 485 Receipt Notice.
But the "Section : " is showing UNKNOWN for some of us and showing something else for others...
I'm wondering if that could be an issue - shall we call USCIS to fix this ?
wallpaper Slim Line Full Sleve Template
pablo8000
04-15 01:58 AM
Hello,
You have no idea how I am desperate and will appreciate your help.
I basically get a 0 1 visa to work for a first employer. Then I get another job offer and leaved the first employer who revoked my initial visa.
The new employer was supposed to apply for a new visa for me but he never did it. He get debts problems and laid off half of the company including me.
My only visa has really been revoked so I really overstayed 7 months.
Today I got another job offer with a new sponsorship so I saw several attorneys and some of them said nothing was possible to do and some said it was maybe possible to fix the overstay.
Today I have to take a decision, go thought this new job offer and take the risk to never get the visa and then the job - or forget about it, leave the US right now and think about the USA in 3 years.
Please help me - what do you think I should do? Is it really impossible to get an overstay waiver with a new petitioner?
Thanks a lot for your advises
You have no idea how I am desperate and will appreciate your help.
I basically get a 0 1 visa to work for a first employer. Then I get another job offer and leaved the first employer who revoked my initial visa.
The new employer was supposed to apply for a new visa for me but he never did it. He get debts problems and laid off half of the company including me.
My only visa has really been revoked so I really overstayed 7 months.
Today I got another job offer with a new sponsorship so I saw several attorneys and some of them said nothing was possible to do and some said it was maybe possible to fix the overstay.
Today I have to take a decision, go thought this new job offer and take the risk to never get the visa and then the job - or forget about it, leave the US right now and think about the USA in 3 years.
Please help me - what do you think I should do? Is it really impossible to get an overstay waiver with a new petitioner?
Thanks a lot for your advises
gc28262
07-16 06:44 PM
If you have an appointment letter and a relieving letter from your past employer, that should prove that you worked for that employer.
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 office formal letterhead
sobers
05-31 03:46 PM
Clearly IV-QGA has a long ways to go before it an be featured in the 'big league'. Despite its short existence, its commendable what IV-QGA has been able to accomplish.
=========
National Immigration Forum: Angela Kelley, Christina DeConcini, Lynn Tramonte
The Forum, the leading pro-immigrant advocacy group, has just expanded its lobbying arm by adding DeConcini, who was formerly with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. The Forum “brings together strange bedfellows,” Kelley, its deputy director, said. She said groups that normally have little in common, such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, join to work toward a “rational, constructive immigration policy.” Tramonte is the Forum’s senior policy communications associate.
Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Paul Egan, Brian Bilbray
Egan is the group’s director for government relations. FAIR is seeking a moratorium on most immigration to give the country time to develop a comprehensive reform strategy. Former Rep. Bilbray (R-Calif.) is on FAIR’s board of advisers and runs the group’s congressional task force. One lobbyist said Bilbray’s “incredible access” to the House of Representatives has helped FAIR in its work on immigration reform.
* Bilbray is competing in a special election on June 6 to replace Duke Cunningham. If this guys wins, it will surely galvanize the Anti-Immigration forces in Congress and on the Hill.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060327-9999-1n6bilbray.html
McCains cancels appearance at fundraiser:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,197579,00.html
NumbersUSA.com: Rosemary Jenks, James Edwards
Jenks is the in-house lobbyist for the group. She said that while NumbersUSA originally was involved in the impact of immigration on the labor market, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, “made it clear we also need to look at security.” Edwards, who is with Olive, Edwards & Brinkman, also said that immigration is currently seen “through the lens of security.” A legislative director for former Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), Edwards worked on immigration issues when lawmakers passed immigration reform in the 104th Congress. At the time, Bryant was a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. Edwards also co-wrote The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, published in 1998.
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR): Monte Lake, Craig Regelbrugge, Sharon Hughes
This ad hoc coalition includes more than 100 organizations with a “substantial labor need,” said co-chairman Regelbrugge, who is also the senior director of government relations for the American Nursery & Landscape Association. The group wants to ensure that agriculture employers have access to a seasonal work force to make certain the country has a “safe and secure food supply.” While individual members of the coalition pitch in, ACIR is also relying on some outside help. Lake is a partner with McGuiness Norris & Williams. The former deputy attorney general of California said that before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the group was close to achieving its goal of helping to reform immigration in a way that allowed access to seasonal workers while instituting a system of “earned immigration.” Hughes is the executive vice president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and a key component in coordinating ACIR’s grassroots campaign.
United to Secure America: William Crosby, Wright Andrews
In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $600,000 in lobbying fees, including $180,000 each to Butera & Andrews, Podesta Mattoon and Timothy R Rupli & Associates. The group advocates boosting national security through allowing what it calls a “manageable number” of immigrants and non-immigrant visitors. One source praised the access of Crosby, a former GOP chief counsel on the House Rules Committee and 27-year Hill veteran who now works for the Livingston Group, as especially valuable.
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): Judith Golub, Marshall Fitz
Golub is the senior director of advocacy and public affairs for the 9,000-member group and Fitz is the associate director. AILA aims to educate Congress and the public about the benefits of an immigration policy that allows refugees and workers to enter the country.
=========
National Immigration Forum: Angela Kelley, Christina DeConcini, Lynn Tramonte
The Forum, the leading pro-immigrant advocacy group, has just expanded its lobbying arm by adding DeConcini, who was formerly with the Catholic Legal Immigration Network. The Forum “brings together strange bedfellows,” Kelley, its deputy director, said. She said groups that normally have little in common, such as the Chamber of Commerce, organized labor and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, join to work toward a “rational, constructive immigration policy.” Tramonte is the Forum’s senior policy communications associate.
Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Paul Egan, Brian Bilbray
Egan is the group’s director for government relations. FAIR is seeking a moratorium on most immigration to give the country time to develop a comprehensive reform strategy. Former Rep. Bilbray (R-Calif.) is on FAIR’s board of advisers and runs the group’s congressional task force. One lobbyist said Bilbray’s “incredible access” to the House of Representatives has helped FAIR in its work on immigration reform.
* Bilbray is competing in a special election on June 6 to replace Duke Cunningham. If this guys wins, it will surely galvanize the Anti-Immigration forces in Congress and on the Hill.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/50thdistrict/20060327-9999-1n6bilbray.html
McCains cancels appearance at fundraiser:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,197579,00.html
NumbersUSA.com: Rosemary Jenks, James Edwards
Jenks is the in-house lobbyist for the group. She said that while NumbersUSA originally was involved in the impact of immigration on the labor market, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, “made it clear we also need to look at security.” Edwards, who is with Olive, Edwards & Brinkman, also said that immigration is currently seen “through the lens of security.” A legislative director for former Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), Edwards worked on immigration issues when lawmakers passed immigration reform in the 104th Congress. At the time, Bryant was a member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee. Edwards also co-wrote The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, published in 1998.
Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR): Monte Lake, Craig Regelbrugge, Sharon Hughes
This ad hoc coalition includes more than 100 organizations with a “substantial labor need,” said co-chairman Regelbrugge, who is also the senior director of government relations for the American Nursery & Landscape Association. The group wants to ensure that agriculture employers have access to a seasonal work force to make certain the country has a “safe and secure food supply.” While individual members of the coalition pitch in, ACIR is also relying on some outside help. Lake is a partner with McGuiness Norris & Williams. The former deputy attorney general of California said that before the 2001 terrorist attacks, the group was close to achieving its goal of helping to reform immigration in a way that allowed access to seasonal workers while instituting a system of “earned immigration.” Hughes is the executive vice president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers and a key component in coordinating ACIR’s grassroots campaign.
United to Secure America: William Crosby, Wright Andrews
In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $600,000 in lobbying fees, including $180,000 each to Butera & Andrews, Podesta Mattoon and Timothy R Rupli & Associates. The group advocates boosting national security through allowing what it calls a “manageable number” of immigrants and non-immigrant visitors. One source praised the access of Crosby, a former GOP chief counsel on the House Rules Committee and 27-year Hill veteran who now works for the Livingston Group, as especially valuable.
American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): Judith Golub, Marshall Fitz
Golub is the senior director of advocacy and public affairs for the 9,000-member group and Fitz is the associate director. AILA aims to educate Congress and the public about the benefits of an immigration policy that allows refugees and workers to enter the country.
more...
Green.Tech
08-06 12:53 PM
In my particular case, when i signed the contract, the employer agreed to pay for my GC process. But as usual, My employer also did not follow the contract and when my labor was approved, he asked me to pay for the Labor and take care of GC application fees hence forth. I was kind of surprised and did argue with my employer. But Employer gave me an option to leave his company and move to a diff company if needed. But since the labor was approved and the current project was going fine, i thought of sticking with the company and agreed on paying the GC fees.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
I am sorry to learn that your employer backed down on its contract. Thanks for your input.
I dont know if we can really go and harass our employer to re-imburse the GC expenses as they know what they are doing and what are the consequences if they go back on their words..I think they know pretty well about all the loopholes in this immigration process.
I am sorry to learn that your employer backed down on its contract. Thanks for your input.
chi_shark
07-24 03:49 PM
so, we are not out of the woods yet? its just that they (USCIS) can now say that they have gone through x number of apps... i wish they clarified this really well...
but thanks for answering the really important question!
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
but thanks for answering the really important question!
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
more...
immi_seeker
09-13 01:22 PM
What is this fight all about ??? eb3-->eb2 ... or spillover??? changing any/both of them will not solve underlying problem.. Grow up people
why not go for real problem??? if you want to ask congress/administration, ask for some real solutions which will help everyone. To name a few...
1. Capture lost Visa numbers
2. Get rid of country quota.. how does this country based quota makes sense in EB Category??
Totally agree with this. Eventhough i dont agree with i_got_skillz language, what he has been trying to say is the same thing. This spill over stuff will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog. This EB3I talk abt spill over stuff will not only help them but will also bring EB2I in to the same boat(infact Eb2I is also in bad shape with or without spill over).
why not go for real problem??? if you want to ask congress/administration, ask for some real solutions which will help everyone. To name a few...
1. Capture lost Visa numbers
2. Get rid of country quota.. how does this country based quota makes sense in EB Category??
Totally agree with this. Eventhough i dont agree with i_got_skillz language, what he has been trying to say is the same thing. This spill over stuff will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog. This EB3I talk abt spill over stuff will not only help them but will also bring EB2I in to the same boat(infact Eb2I is also in bad shape with or without spill over).
2010 Card amp; Letterhead Template
kaisersose
07-27 07:47 PM
Is your question about Approved 140 or Pending 140.
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
Why would your employer do that unless you did something inappropriate?
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
Why would your employer do that unless you did something inappropriate?
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
more...
chanduv23
09-04 11:16 AM
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
hair Templates for normal text,
perm2gc
12-22 06:08 PM
Efren Hernandez III, Director of the Business and Trade Services Branch at INS in Washington, D.C. announced in late December 2001 that the INS does not recognize or provide any "grace period" for maintaining status after employment termination. Mr. Hernandez explained this strict interpretation by reasoning that there is no difference between H1B holders and other non-immigrants, like students, to justify a stay in the U.S. beyond the explicit purpose of their admission. Mr. Hernandez admits that this may cause hardship to some terminated or laid off H1B workers, but believes that the INS position is legally justified.
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
more...
h1techSlave
04-27 10:32 PM
This one is from Mathew Oh:
After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
After watching all these dramas in the Senate/House, I feel the law makers are testing the waters with various types of immigration bills. Like the IV core team has always suggested, our only real chance is the CIR, whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
h1techSlave
After all, we should just focus on the upcoming CIR process rather than these piecemeal legislative bills.
After watching all these dramas in the Senate/House, I feel the law makers are testing the waters with various types of immigration bills. Like the IV core team has always suggested, our only real chance is the CIR, whether we like it or not.
Cheers,
h1techSlave
hot BUSINESS LETTERHEAD TEMPLATES
ArkBird
06-17 01:54 PM
TOTALLY unknown...
No one knows what they look at and won't look at while deciding on your I485. If you one of the "chosen" one, you may get called for personal interview and I have heard lots of horror stories about the stuff they asked at the interview. At the same most of the people get the GC without hitch.
So, the morale of the story is stop worrying. There is nothing you can do/prepare to effect decision on your I-485. Since you have played by book and assuming you don't have any law related issues, you should be fine.
Cheers
ArkBird
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
No one knows what they look at and won't look at while deciding on your I485. If you one of the "chosen" one, you may get called for personal interview and I have heard lots of horror stories about the stuff they asked at the interview. At the same most of the people get the GC without hitch.
So, the morale of the story is stop worrying. There is nothing you can do/prepare to effect decision on your I-485. Since you have played by book and assuming you don't have any law related issues, you should be fine.
Cheers
ArkBird
I can empathize. I might me more luckier than you, and there are people *luckier* than me. (You know what I mean..) But, if for some reason I don't get my GC, and you get your GC in a few years, me being lucky to start with is of no use. Nothing is sure till GC is on-hand for anyone.
So, I would appreciate if someone could let me know if there are any disadvantages process-wise when it comes to I-485 adjudication on a pre-approved labor.
Thanks.
more...
house Card amp; Letterhead Template
jettu77
11-19 10:04 AM
I also received only 2 AP papers. Does it matter.
I checked my case online on 11/09/07 and found that AP of my spouse and
myself have been approved.
Today my attorney sent the document and on my spouse's AP document
the Date issued is //199 at the top right corner. It should have been a correct date and not //199
and in the paragraph below
.....presentation of the original of this document prior to //199 allows a customs....
I think it is the mistake of USCIS and I will follow up with my Attorney and also USCIS on monday.
If anyone had this same issue please reply as to what needs to be done.
Thank you...
I checked my case online on 11/09/07 and found that AP of my spouse and
myself have been approved.
Today my attorney sent the document and on my spouse's AP document
the Date issued is //199 at the top right corner. It should have been a correct date and not //199
and in the paragraph below
.....presentation of the original of this document prior to //199 allows a customs....
I think it is the mistake of USCIS and I will follow up with my Attorney and also USCIS on monday.
If anyone had this same issue please reply as to what needs to be done.
Thank you...
tattoo letterhead template in
gcadream
02-25 07:54 AM
That is really cool man !!
2 months less in 3 yrs is no big deal...its almost 3 yrs extn for you.
Thanks for sharing with us, lets see how the ball rolls out for me.
2 months less in 3 yrs is no big deal...its almost 3 yrs extn for you.
Thanks for sharing with us, lets see how the ball rolls out for me.
more...
pictures letterheads templates
2BeeNot2Bee
10-13 10:08 PM
How about spiderman style? Undies outside
you mean Superman or Spiderman?:D
you mean Superman or Spiderman?:D
dresses formal letterhead,
pappu
10-18 10:16 AM
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?
sorry to hear this. There are several instances where employers have been callous or did not take adequate interest in filing the application. My experience with lawyers is also the same, especially if the lawyer is hired by the company. I would suggest members who are yet to hire an attorney to hire their own attorney instead of going with the company attorney. a company attorney will only work in the interest of the company. if you dont have a choice in this matter, then also hire your own attorney as a consultant and run each and every document by him before it is submitted to the authorities. It will keep you safe from such irregularities. Some extra money spent on having your own lawyer as a consultant is always helpful.
In your case i recommended seeking advice from multiple lawyers. submit your question to our attorney- sonal verma for the confrence call. legal advice for IV members is free in these conference calls. In future try to be on top of things wth HR with your application and be aware of all documents and proccedures instead of depending on HR and lawyers. I am sure there must be a way your situation can be sorted out. good luck.
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?
sorry to hear this. There are several instances where employers have been callous or did not take adequate interest in filing the application. My experience with lawyers is also the same, especially if the lawyer is hired by the company. I would suggest members who are yet to hire an attorney to hire their own attorney instead of going with the company attorney. a company attorney will only work in the interest of the company. if you dont have a choice in this matter, then also hire your own attorney as a consultant and run each and every document by him before it is submitted to the authorities. It will keep you safe from such irregularities. Some extra money spent on having your own lawyer as a consultant is always helpful.
In your case i recommended seeking advice from multiple lawyers. submit your question to our attorney- sonal verma for the confrence call. legal advice for IV members is free in these conference calls. In future try to be on top of things wth HR with your application and be aware of all documents and proccedures instead of depending on HR and lawyers. I am sure there must be a way your situation can be sorted out. good luck.
more...
makeup formal letterhead. formal
jungalee43
06-30 07:39 AM
Thanks neverbefore.
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
Buddy, it does seem you are being pre-adjudicated, as the other guys are saying. We had an interview last December for exactly this purpose and the reason was two consecutive failures of clear biometrics on our part. It was for the better though because now our case is just waiting for a visa number unless something changes rather drastically. However, we did not encounter the term "initial interview".
Do indeed take all your documents. I am pasting here the list of docs our attorney asked us to take. These are rough notes I took over the phone so you might find some incoherence. Some of these docs were significant to our case and may not be applicable for you. I would always prefer to go for an overkill in immigration matters, so if anything seems remotely significant, take it along. If you like, you may want to read the account (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/all-other-green-card-issues/21138-my-aos-interview-experience-5.html#post304806) I posted here at IV immediately after our interview. I remember a lot of people advising me to take my attorney along. I didn't because they were asking for a lot of money. You might want to take a call on that.
And just chillax! You have done everything right, so why should anything adverse happen.
What will happen: Oath->Demand for driver's license->Demand for passport
Medical does not expire once filed
Officer will review the file along with us
We need to post a sticky note on file saying we are a family of 3 so we are seen together
Docs:
Appointment notice demands
Paystubs
Employment verification letter from employers
Mortgage papers
Education transcripts and degree
Tax returns
Marriage certificate
Birth certificates
Will be asked to get a police clearance certificate after the interview, so take it beforehand from the cities you have lived in previously
They might give us an I-792, send a copy to attorney. Always get the officer's name!
A copy of July 2007 visa bulletin
Arrival/departure record to/from US
Pictures (passport) and marriage and family
Driver's licenses
H4 and H1B Notices of Action
girlfriend letterhead templates of
kaisersose
07-27 07:47 PM
Is your question about Approved 140 or Pending 140.
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
Why would your employer do that unless you did something inappropriate?
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
I am also curious to know.
As far as I know, employer has to just send a letter to USCIS with the 140 receipt number which states that they want to revoke it and USCIS will locate the file with 485 and revoke it too.
Bad but what can we do ???????
Why would your employer do that unless you did something inappropriate?
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
hairstyles Letterhead template sample
ItIsNotFunny
12-03 05:41 PM
I think you should not take this risk. Once you leave the country without AP, the application is considered as revoked as per my reading somewhere. I am trying to find link.
I would like to see lawyer's opinion on this.
I would like to see lawyer's opinion on this.
Leo07
11-09 11:16 AM
Pappu,
I have completed the form.I felt there should be a Disclaimer from IV that this "Personal Information" will be used solely for the purpose mentioned below and WILL NOT be given to any Third party.
We definitely don't want to deal with more SPAM. It's not that this information of mine is not available on internet, but just to avoid any 'personalized' spam.
Thanks,
Leo07
All,
IV has put in significant effort in creating this survey to map the strength of our community.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
The objectives of this survey are:
�To counter the bogus anti's claims on H1s.
�To improve the brand image of IV community as a set of sophisticated highly-skilled immigrants who have and will contribute further to this country.
�To ensure that aspiring immigrants get a better picture of US immigration and immigrants..
Please utilize this opportunity to:
* Provide an honest feedback on your strong contribution to the USA.
A genuine feedback will help us communicate the reality to lawmakers with a lot of credibility. None of the individual responses will be shared. Our goal is to highlight the collective strength of our community and underline its importance to the value add for this country. You may have to do some homework to fill in ball-park figures. This will be worth it for individual and group confidence. We look forward to your responses.
See the survey here http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
Please post this information on other sites to get more people to participate in this survey.
I have completed the form.I felt there should be a Disclaimer from IV that this "Personal Information" will be used solely for the purpose mentioned below and WILL NOT be given to any Third party.
We definitely don't want to deal with more SPAM. It's not that this information of mine is not available on internet, but just to avoid any 'personalized' spam.
Thanks,
Leo07
All,
IV has put in significant effort in creating this survey to map the strength of our community.
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
The objectives of this survey are:
�To counter the bogus anti's claims on H1s.
�To improve the brand image of IV community as a set of sophisticated highly-skilled immigrants who have and will contribute further to this country.
�To ensure that aspiring immigrants get a better picture of US immigration and immigrants..
Please utilize this opportunity to:
* Provide an honest feedback on your strong contribution to the USA.
A genuine feedback will help us communicate the reality to lawmakers with a lot of credibility. None of the individual responses will be shared. Our goal is to highlight the collective strength of our community and underline its importance to the value add for this country. You may have to do some homework to fill in ball-park figures. This will be worth it for individual and group confidence. We look forward to your responses.
See the survey here http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36
Please post this information on other sites to get more people to participate in this survey.
ajju
10-15 02:21 PM
agree.. 90 days is too much.. esp when just dates need to be extended.. In the first place.. it should be non-expiring .. something like valid with I-485 Receipt... and then when accepting EAD employer can check the I-485 status that its still pending... and any change will send email to the employer about 485 current status...
But then my dear.. where's the money...
Guess people can't even take PUN any more... Got negative and abusive remarks for this.. atleast have guts/courtesy to leave name/handle...
But then my dear.. where's the money...
Guess people can't even take PUN any more... Got negative and abusive remarks for this.. atleast have guts/courtesy to leave name/handle...
No comments:
Post a Comment