Berkeleybee
03-31 06:00 PM
Thank you Jkays and Cpolisetti for bringing this to our attention.
I just sent Mitra an email.
best,
Berkeleybee
I just sent Mitra an email.
best,
Berkeleybee
wallpaper Cute Quotes And Sayings With
GC Struggle
03-10 11:02 AM
Don’t worry… there is an option to contest the decision.. you could use an MTR.. Hope the below info helps
ALL Gurus,
My name is Sai. I am very confused and need your advice on how to handle my current issue with I140 and H1b status.
Issue Details:
1) Applied GC EB2-RIR on JAN 2005
2) Applied for I140 on July 4th 2007 and I485 on August 22nd 2007.
3) Received EAD and AP for both myself and my Wife.
2) Got RFE I-140 on DEC 10th 2007, asking for Company financial documents and my Education details. but my I485 in still pending.
3) Responded to RFE with mentioned documents on Jan 30th 2008
4) Finally I-140 Denied on FEB 29th 2008 and Deniel notice is not yet received. I dont know the reason for deniel yet. whether its an company issue or my education related, I still dont know.
5) I am on H1B since 2001, applied for 8th year extension (regular) on 19th FEB 2008 (10 days before to my I140 deniel), as of now receipt not received. My current H1b expires on 29th March 2008 and my 1-140 denied on 29th of FEB 2008.
6) My wife is on H1b Visa.
Questions based on my Issue:
1) Since my I140 got denied, is there any impact on my 8th year H1b Extension? Am I going to be Out of Status? If so please advice on how to retain my status.
Apply for an MTR as soon as you receive your denial notice. You get abt 30 days to file for an MTR.. and based on the MTR receipt notice you can get your extension
2) What are the options open to me, since my I140 is denied. Which one is better : MTR or APPEAL?
3) Can I apply for a new Labor (PERM)? If YES:
1. Can I apply for new LABOR before APPEAL or should be applied after the APPEAL.
2. Can I apply for LABOR with a new employer or only with Current employer? and what about my 9th year H1b extension if I file the labor with a new employer?
First of all apply for an MTR and based on the reason for denial decide the future course of action (if you the reason for denial is education.. then you might face the same problem with the new employee)
4) If my Deniel is on my education related, then Can my attorney file an MTR and request the USCIS to consider my case as a EB3? if requested what are the chances of USCIS approving my I-140?
Use a good attorney... Using a company might hamper your MTR process as these guys hide a lot of factual information. Yes there is a possibility for requesting to change the category of the case
5) If the USCIS is OK for converting from EB2 to EB3, will the same application's applied ealier for 485/EAD/AP are valid or not?
No idea on this..
I need your suggestion. Please.. advice me on what steps need to be taken to carefully handle I140 deniel and also to maintain my status in USA.
Apply for an MTR and at the same time apply for a new LC because an MTR can take anywhere between 3 – 18 months
ALL Gurus,
My name is Sai. I am very confused and need your advice on how to handle my current issue with I140 and H1b status.
Issue Details:
1) Applied GC EB2-RIR on JAN 2005
2) Applied for I140 on July 4th 2007 and I485 on August 22nd 2007.
3) Received EAD and AP for both myself and my Wife.
2) Got RFE I-140 on DEC 10th 2007, asking for Company financial documents and my Education details. but my I485 in still pending.
3) Responded to RFE with mentioned documents on Jan 30th 2008
4) Finally I-140 Denied on FEB 29th 2008 and Deniel notice is not yet received. I dont know the reason for deniel yet. whether its an company issue or my education related, I still dont know.
5) I am on H1B since 2001, applied for 8th year extension (regular) on 19th FEB 2008 (10 days before to my I140 deniel), as of now receipt not received. My current H1b expires on 29th March 2008 and my 1-140 denied on 29th of FEB 2008.
6) My wife is on H1b Visa.
Questions based on my Issue:
1) Since my I140 got denied, is there any impact on my 8th year H1b Extension? Am I going to be Out of Status? If so please advice on how to retain my status.
Apply for an MTR as soon as you receive your denial notice. You get abt 30 days to file for an MTR.. and based on the MTR receipt notice you can get your extension
2) What are the options open to me, since my I140 is denied. Which one is better : MTR or APPEAL?
3) Can I apply for a new Labor (PERM)? If YES:
1. Can I apply for new LABOR before APPEAL or should be applied after the APPEAL.
2. Can I apply for LABOR with a new employer or only with Current employer? and what about my 9th year H1b extension if I file the labor with a new employer?
First of all apply for an MTR and based on the reason for denial decide the future course of action (if you the reason for denial is education.. then you might face the same problem with the new employee)
4) If my Deniel is on my education related, then Can my attorney file an MTR and request the USCIS to consider my case as a EB3? if requested what are the chances of USCIS approving my I-140?
Use a good attorney... Using a company might hamper your MTR process as these guys hide a lot of factual information. Yes there is a possibility for requesting to change the category of the case
5) If the USCIS is OK for converting from EB2 to EB3, will the same application's applied ealier for 485/EAD/AP are valid or not?
No idea on this..
I need your suggestion. Please.. advice me on what steps need to be taken to carefully handle I140 deniel and also to maintain my status in USA.
Apply for an MTR and at the same time apply for a new LC because an MTR can take anywhere between 3 – 18 months
averagedesi
08-31 11:41 AM
I am not sure what you mean by there is no issue with my EAD.
Here is an excerpt from an USCIS FAQ
Who is eligible for an EAD that is valid for two years?
The two-year EAD is available to pending adjustment applicants (i.e., those who have filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) who have filed for an EAD under Section 274.a.12(c)(9) of Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 C.F.R.) and who are currently unable to adjust status because an immigrant visa number is not currently available. USCIS will continue to grant EADs that are valid for one-year for adjustment applicants who have an available immigrant visa number and are filing for employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. Section 274a.12(c)(9). In order to be eligible for an EAD with a two year validity period, an applicant’s I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must be approved.
Here is the actual link to the FAQ
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=62ae15d3ffd7a110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ea0db6f2cae63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
So my I140 is approved, when my EAD was approved on July 30th my priority date which is March 25. 2005 was not current.
Here is an excerpt from an USCIS FAQ
Who is eligible for an EAD that is valid for two years?
The two-year EAD is available to pending adjustment applicants (i.e., those who have filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) who have filed for an EAD under Section 274.a.12(c)(9) of Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 C.F.R.) and who are currently unable to adjust status because an immigrant visa number is not currently available. USCIS will continue to grant EADs that are valid for one-year for adjustment applicants who have an available immigrant visa number and are filing for employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. Section 274a.12(c)(9). In order to be eligible for an EAD with a two year validity period, an applicant’s I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, must be approved.
Here is the actual link to the FAQ
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=62ae15d3ffd7a110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=ea0db6f2cae63110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD
So my I140 is approved, when my EAD was approved on July 30th my priority date which is March 25. 2005 was not current.
2011 Tags: cute quotes love spanish
waiting4gc02
03-06 01:41 PM
Guys:
Everyone is talking EB2....what are the prospects for EB3 - India??
Is it going to move forward..??
Good Luck..??
Everyone is talking EB2....what are the prospects for EB3 - India??
Is it going to move forward..??
Good Luck..??
more...
surabhi
10-17 03:52 PM
Widely known as payroll tax is actually FICA tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax) 6.2 % of federal and 1.5% of medicare...together coming close to 8%. I'm not aware of any state component above this 8%...
But do consider your desi employer needs to carry a liability insurance of 1 million, otherwise most established vendors and clients won't work with him...He needs to pay premium on that depending on how many consultant are working....
So practically, claim as they may, NO consultancy firm can pay you 90% of your billing and still do business profitably.... They are hiding something behind their numbers...
If you are getting 85% of the billing and your consultancy is paying your payroll taxes and you are paying your medical insurance premium, consider that as a very good deal... I personally could manage 80% of the billing while I was doing consulting...
I agree. 90% of the bill rate never includes the employer taxes portion.
It all adds up. It may not be profitable as one assumes. The relocation costs, medical insurance, unpaid vacation days, unpaid holidays..
But do consider your desi employer needs to carry a liability insurance of 1 million, otherwise most established vendors and clients won't work with him...He needs to pay premium on that depending on how many consultant are working....
So practically, claim as they may, NO consultancy firm can pay you 90% of your billing and still do business profitably.... They are hiding something behind their numbers...
If you are getting 85% of the billing and your consultancy is paying your payroll taxes and you are paying your medical insurance premium, consider that as a very good deal... I personally could manage 80% of the billing while I was doing consulting...
I agree. 90% of the bill rate never includes the employer taxes portion.
It all adds up. It may not be profitable as one assumes. The relocation costs, medical insurance, unpaid vacation days, unpaid holidays..
map_boiler
08-02 01:41 PM
FedEx is the best, by far. UPS next. DHL is the worst (my personal experience).
Always use FedEx, and if not possible, use UPS. Never DHL.
FedEx is the best shipping company for both domestic and international.
DHL is worse than UPS.
It is in this order
FedEX
UPS
DHL
I have very very bad experiance with DHL.
Always use FedEx, and if not possible, use UPS. Never DHL.
FedEx is the best shipping company for both domestic and international.
DHL is worse than UPS.
It is in this order
FedEX
UPS
DHL
I have very very bad experiance with DHL.
more...
pappu
05-05 12:02 PM
Thank you
2010 cute love quotes for girls.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
whereismygclost
06-17 05:42 PM
Hi sk.aggarwal,
How did you calculate that he has to leave the country for four months? I think it should for a year,correct me if I am wrong.Or is your calculation based on based on the assumption that the labor will be approved within 4 months and then he can file for H1 extension? I am in the same boat,could you please clarify?
How did you calculate that he has to leave the country for four months? I think it should for a year,correct me if I am wrong.Or is your calculation based on based on the assumption that the labor will be approved within 4 months and then he can file for H1 extension? I am in the same boat,could you please clarify?
hair cute quotes about dogs. Cute Quotes For Photos. Cute Quotes Icons Layout;
chanduv23
08-15 07:50 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
cooldude0807
06-02 09:04 AM
I have a lawyer who is representing me..so he got the RFE & he fowarded it to me. In your case i would just call USCIS and check to see if you will recieve RFE's since you don't have a lawyer representing you.
hot house We hear more cute quotes
ss1026
02-07 12:44 AM
The immigrant visa dates for EB-2 ROW (France is part of ROW - Rest Of the World) are current. That means if you convince your company to apply for a EB-2 GC, it could be approved quickly, probably within a year or two. Just for comparision, EB-2 dates for India are in Early 2004 (that is a five year wait). It makes sense to go with EB-2 employment GC. I am an India and the wait for us is the longest across the board. In the current economic scenario, it might be prudent to wait a bit before starting your employment GC. It is best to follow your attorney/firms advice on the timing.
I am not sure if you have the patience or the desire to wait for your future daughter to grow to 21 and apply for a family GC. I am not sure what the wait times are for family based GC for ROW but they are not as attractive as employment based Green card. There is no comparision in the wait times though so I imagine the other person was probably kidding. And for clarification, the longest wait for employment based GC for EB-3 India which is currently at Oct 2001 (about 7.5 years).....and that is my category :-( . It certainly aint a decade yet though it seems headed that way.
I am not sure if you have the patience or the desire to wait for your future daughter to grow to 21 and apply for a family GC. I am not sure what the wait times are for family based GC for ROW but they are not as attractive as employment based Green card. There is no comparision in the wait times though so I imagine the other person was probably kidding. And for clarification, the longest wait for employment based GC for EB-3 India which is currently at Oct 2001 (about 7.5 years).....and that is my category :-( . It certainly aint a decade yet though it seems headed that way.
more...
house quotes on crushes. cute quotes
sbmallik
12-27 03:18 PM
To the original poster:
Since the MTR was already filed you can still extend the H-1B. However, if the MTR gets denied then no further H-1B visa extension is possible.
BTW - even the H-1B extension can be applied based on 'Labor Certification applied more than a year ago' criteria an I-140 denial will override the above benefit.
Since the MTR was already filed you can still extend the H-1B. However, if the MTR gets denied then no further H-1B visa extension is possible.
BTW - even the H-1B extension can be applied based on 'Labor Certification applied more than a year ago' criteria an I-140 denial will override the above benefit.
tattoo cute quotes about myself. cute
arunasri
08-26 04:21 PM
My EAD is pending. I applied on Jul 3rd. Current EAD expires on Sep 26th. I am little worried.
Do you have USCIS phone# with extensions that you pressed to reach Customer service.
Do you have USCIS phone# with extensions that you pressed to reach Customer service.
more...
pictures cute quotes and sayings about boys. cute quotes and sayings about
glamzon
08-02 03:15 PM
lol...nice joke ..can i borrow your pigeon for this weekend ..need to make some weekend deliveries ;)
dresses cute quotes for my boyfriend.
rajeshbillabong
09-24 11:55 AM
All they said was that you do not have enough ties in India and you will work there.
It sounds very lame to me.
It sounds very lame to me.
more...
makeup cute quotes
vrbest
01-21 05:50 PM
Sorry.. might be a dumb question.. Do we get I-94 when we enter using AP - If so what would be the expiry date on it and do we need to renew I94 every time then...
Also I have H1B extended till 2011 but stamping on passport expired already.. If I come back using AP, can I still be on H1B status ?
Thanks in advance!
Also I have H1B extended till 2011 but stamping on passport expired already.. If I come back using AP, can I still be on H1B status ?
Thanks in advance!
girlfriend cute quotes about school. cute
tnite
08-03 11:40 PM
I received a NOID (Notice Of Intent Deny) from USCIS.
Reason: The Form I-693 is incomplete that there is no evidence that the required TB skin test has been conducted or any annotation from civil surgeon stating that this test was medically inappropriate. Therefore we are requesting that you submit a new form I-693 which indicates that the TB skin test has been administered along with the results.
I called the surgeon who did my medical exam in 2005, they said that during that time, the TB skin test is optional and they had done only x-ray test instead of skin test.
When I told the doctor about this NOID, he said they I can take only the skin test and they can attach the skin test result with the existing I-693 form and mail the sealed envelop to the USCIS.
Do you have any idea at what stage the NOID is issued? Am I close enough to get 485 approved?
Did anyone faced a similar situation like mine?
It doesn't matter when NOID is issued. All that matters is TB test, get it done as fast as possible.
Reason: The Form I-693 is incomplete that there is no evidence that the required TB skin test has been conducted or any annotation from civil surgeon stating that this test was medically inappropriate. Therefore we are requesting that you submit a new form I-693 which indicates that the TB skin test has been administered along with the results.
I called the surgeon who did my medical exam in 2005, they said that during that time, the TB skin test is optional and they had done only x-ray test instead of skin test.
When I told the doctor about this NOID, he said they I can take only the skin test and they can attach the skin test result with the existing I-693 form and mail the sealed envelop to the USCIS.
Do you have any idea at what stage the NOID is issued? Am I close enough to get 485 approved?
Did anyone faced a similar situation like mine?
It doesn't matter when NOID is issued. All that matters is TB test, get it done as fast as possible.
hairstyles cute quotes about him. cute
Sakthisagar
05-19 11:02 AM
Look i am not trying to say "mera bharat Mahan". All i am saying is tell me why should the Indian PM work to get us the Green Card. If you feel the Indian PM is incompetent, that is a different issue. Even if there was a competent PM, why should he/she work to get our Green Card?
Mexico is a bordering country and has a different kind of trade and agreeements. It is not the same for other countries like India and China.
Tell me why not Indian PM can't indicate to The US President on immigration? what is wrong in that logically, only for dollars and election fund they need NRIs how many Indians who are in US contribute to the Indian economy. Tell me what is wrong in asking ?
Mexico might be bordering country but India aslo ahve trade agreements with US, is PM afrain of US authorities? or there is no order for the all powerful all is wel madame and her son who is good for nothing?
Tail Note: heard from confidential sources when Indian PM visited White house it is said for every question President Obama asks he was on hot line with his master madame in Delhi for answers, he can never say anything without asking her!
Mexico is a bordering country and has a different kind of trade and agreeements. It is not the same for other countries like India and China.
Tell me why not Indian PM can't indicate to The US President on immigration? what is wrong in that logically, only for dollars and election fund they need NRIs how many Indians who are in US contribute to the Indian economy. Tell me what is wrong in asking ?
Mexico might be bordering country but India aslo ahve trade agreements with US, is PM afrain of US authorities? or there is no order for the all powerful all is wel madame and her son who is good for nothing?
Tail Note: heard from confidential sources when Indian PM visited White house it is said for every question President Obama asks he was on hot line with his master madame in Delhi for answers, he can never say anything without asking her!
bsbawa10
07-11 10:13 PM
Did not want to go off topic but I was just wondering why this thread is not on "Donor Forum". In other words I was thinking what goes in Donor forum and what does not and how is that decision made. Also does anybody think that donor forum is mis-named. Donor is the one who just donates and does not get anything special back. These should be called "Paid Services". What do you think ?
pbojja
02-09 08:34 PM
Link - The link is not working..
Krishna/Sri, could you give me the correct link.
Thanks Krishna / Sri for very useful information. I will try this option before the other ones.
Thank you very much.
You can give it a try ..It did not work for me so I travelled . Yes you need visa for Canada .
Krishna/Sri, could you give me the correct link.
Thanks Krishna / Sri for very useful information. I will try this option before the other ones.
Thank you very much.
You can give it a try ..It did not work for me so I travelled . Yes you need visa for Canada .
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий