red200
09-04 02:35 PM
Gradually it has to come to 2007 for sure
because
1)It came till OCT 2006 in 2007 as well as in 2008 , There would be really few members who would have missed the two boats under EB2
but there will be EB3 -> EB2 conversions not sure how many , Hard to estimate
2)The applications to USCIS are gradually decreasing and the trend probably will continue in 2010, Hence lesser revenues for USCIS
so if PD is stable in coming months or even if it has slow and steady increment, I believe 2007 will be current again in coming 3 quarters, if it doesnt happen in oct bulletin
because
1)It came till OCT 2006 in 2007 as well as in 2008 , There would be really few members who would have missed the two boats under EB2
but there will be EB3 -> EB2 conversions not sure how many , Hard to estimate
2)The applications to USCIS are gradually decreasing and the trend probably will continue in 2010, Hence lesser revenues for USCIS
so if PD is stable in coming months or even if it has slow and steady increment, I believe 2007 will be current again in coming 3 quarters, if it doesnt happen in oct bulletin
pmat
03-14 03:50 PM
She doesn't need a transit visa. My mother-in-law came last week through Munich. She had a 10-yr multiple entry US visa stamped and didn't need any German transit visa.
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
andy garcia
07-30 02:26 PM
Even FP notice? I think it comes directly to you..
You are correct, they get a copy.
You are correct, they get a copy.
more...
sash
06-20 04:03 PM
OMG are you guys saying dont travel even in emergency situations?!!
chaks7
01-20 11:24 AM
My wife is the primary on the insurance and I am the dependent. My employer does not offer insurance. It is a consulting co. I checked with him; he said there were not enough people to go with Group policy and people have to find Individual Insurance. So COBRA may be the only option if something changes with her job.
more...
extra_mint
11-29 05:32 PM
Did you try to appeal the denial ??
Mine was denied for the same reasons (denied no rfe) and my lawyer appealed and it worked and I-140 approved.
Try to see if you can appeal. If I am not wrong you can appeal within 30 days of denial.
Guys,
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
Mine was denied for the same reasons (denied no rfe) and my lawyer appealed and it worked and I-140 approved.
Try to see if you can appeal. If I am not wrong you can appeal within 30 days of denial.
Guys,
I want to know what are the chances of getting I-140 approve if we file a new petition and current I-140 appeal process is pending with USCIS. My I-140 was denied on education basis. In denial notice USCIS wrote that we did not prove that my 3+3 (Diploma + Engg degree from India) degree is not equivalent to B.S in Computer science from Labor certification.
Guys please share your experience with me since its important for me to get I-140 approve for future growth.
Thanks
lazycis
06-05 10:14 PM
In such cases, the PO Box owner or auth rep. takes the note that is left in the PO Box and collects the mail piece. This also applies for signature confirmation and other USPS services that requires a signature
I second this. Eventually it will be delivered and signed off.
I second this. Eventually it will be delivered and signed off.
more...
ikass
05-29 08:18 AM
Hello IV members and leadership team,
I applaud you all for your time and effort in addressing issues that concern our eligibility to work legally and mutually benefit from this country. As we strive to get CIR passed, which has been elusive for years and still struggling at various levels, I was wondering why can`t we work to get small wins. I would like to mention four known ideas that we can push forward and that I believe can be accomplished via small amendments:
1) Temporarily remove Per country quota for Employment -Based Green Card
2) Do not count dependents towards numerical visa count
3) Issue EAD to candidates who have I-140 approved and renew it until Green Card number becomes available.
4) Do not tie EAD to specific company or wait six months in a position to change jobs
This four things can have a quick impact and give us all a temporary relief.
We can try and build advocacy effort to get this done. Especially for the June 7th and 8th advocacy days.
"SMALL CHANGE BIG IMPACT"
Thanks,
Giri
I applaud you all for your time and effort in addressing issues that concern our eligibility to work legally and mutually benefit from this country. As we strive to get CIR passed, which has been elusive for years and still struggling at various levels, I was wondering why can`t we work to get small wins. I would like to mention four known ideas that we can push forward and that I believe can be accomplished via small amendments:
1) Temporarily remove Per country quota for Employment -Based Green Card
2) Do not count dependents towards numerical visa count
3) Issue EAD to candidates who have I-140 approved and renew it until Green Card number becomes available.
4) Do not tie EAD to specific company or wait six months in a position to change jobs
This four things can have a quick impact and give us all a temporary relief.
We can try and build advocacy effort to get this done. Especially for the June 7th and 8th advocacy days.
"SMALL CHANGE BIG IMPACT"
Thanks,
Giri
GCWarrior
04-16 02:25 PM
Hi Gurus,
I am on 9th year H1B extension.I filed I140/485 concurrently in June 2007 and on April 11th I got the denial email for I140.
No RFE/NOID received.
Here is my case.
PD May 2003, EB2, own labor. During Dec 06, the labor was converted from NON RIR to RIR and amended to accept BS+5 OR MS+3 to reflect the current state.
I-140/485/EAD/AP applied in June 2007, NSC and received EAD/AP and used AP recently. My H1B valid till Feb 2009.
After 5 stressful days finally today, we got the denial notice and it looks like USCIS assumed my Labor under EB3 classification and rejected my I140 where as the labor certificate is approved under EB2 classification. our attorney believes that its the result of an overlook by IO at the amedments made to the original labor.
Please let me know what options I have.
Thanks
GCWarrior
I am on 9th year H1B extension.I filed I140/485 concurrently in June 2007 and on April 11th I got the denial email for I140.
No RFE/NOID received.
Here is my case.
PD May 2003, EB2, own labor. During Dec 06, the labor was converted from NON RIR to RIR and amended to accept BS+5 OR MS+3 to reflect the current state.
I-140/485/EAD/AP applied in June 2007, NSC and received EAD/AP and used AP recently. My H1B valid till Feb 2009.
After 5 stressful days finally today, we got the denial notice and it looks like USCIS assumed my Labor under EB3 classification and rejected my I140 where as the labor certificate is approved under EB2 classification. our attorney believes that its the result of an overlook by IO at the amedments made to the original labor.
Please let me know what options I have.
Thanks
GCWarrior
more...
bajrangbali
03-31 11:27 AM
Congratulations..your long wait is over..:)
Maverick1
11-16 01:45 PM
Let me restate to make sure I understood your question right :
Are you currently working as described in "A" and going to join a job as described in "B" ?
They don't look similar to me. If your LC was files verbatim as described in "A" and the new job description from your new employer is going to be as described in "B" you will have an issue.
As always the standard disclaimer : Take a legal advise. But it appears even to a lay man that they are not same/similar as described by you.
Do the following job descriptions qualify for AC21 provided all other factors such as salary and 485 pending for 180+ days have been met
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
Are you currently working as described in "A" and going to join a job as described in "B" ?
They don't look similar to me. If your LC was files verbatim as described in "A" and the new job description from your new employer is going to be as described in "B" you will have an issue.
As always the standard disclaimer : Take a legal advise. But it appears even to a lay man that they are not same/similar as described by you.
Do the following job descriptions qualify for AC21 provided all other factors such as salary and 485 pending for 180+ days have been met
Job A: Techincal Consultant
- Configures and implements risk management solutions using ASP.NET, VB.NET, XML, XSLT/XPATH.
- Basic working understanding of SQL Server, Oracle and related query language and tools
- Consulting development experience in IT or Systems Integration
- Excellent communication skills; written and verbal.
Job B: Project Manager
- Accomplishes project objectives by planning and evaluating project activities.
- Creates and executes project work plans and revises as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements
- Identifies resources needed and assigns individual responsibilities.
- Manages day-to-day operational aspects of a project and scope.
- Reviews deliverables prepared by team before passing to client.
etc etc.
On promotion with the same employer, i will have responsibilities for job B but i am looking to change employers. can i join new employer with job B and use AC21 ?
more...
tnite
07-26 09:27 AM
Hello everyone,
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I think your lawyer is too optimistic about EB3 March 2005 being current in the immediate future.Maybe he's right .I dont know
But looking at the possible choice you have mentioned :
1.This is the best option . ie you apply for I485 right now and add you wife when she's in the US later when the date is current.The reason being that for USCIS to approve your GC the date should be current and if its current then you're eligible to apply for your wife's I485.Its a loop. For one thing(GC Approval) to happen the other thing(Date being current) has to happen.
2.The 2nd choice is same as the 1st one. Many here are prediciting that there will be severe retrogression in the Oct bulletin and no one with a right state of mind can even guess the dates at this point of time.
3.Why do you think it would be a grave mistake in life? If you think u'r taking a big risk then make your wife's status independent of your's by applying for H1b or F1 which is option 4. You should talk to a lawyer about the intent issues on F1 visa. I am not aware of that. I know that if one's one F1 or any other non-dual intent visa they shouldnt(risky and chances are higher for denial) apply for any immigrant visa within 90 days of their arrival or in your wife's case change of status.Search for more info on the web.
But my choice would be the first one. It's not risky for the reasons I had mentioned.
my 2 cents
I got to know about this website recently and I wish I had known it earlier.
Anyway, I need advice/conformation
I got married recently outside the US. However, I did not come back with my wife b/c of a couple of reasons. And I cannot bring her here in the next 3 weeks. (My H1B is getting renewed...)
The company's lawyer is advising me not file for I-485 and wait till I become current again and apply with my wife then. (I am EB3 and my PD is March 2005)
After reading this web and others, if I go ahead and apply now the following are the choices that I have later. Please confirm if I am right or wrong
1. Get every document ready for my wife at all times and apply for I-485 immediately after I become current. As long as they receive her I-485 before they approve mine, she is going to be fine. She will be fine even if they receive her I-485 a day before they approve mine.
2. If my I-485 gets approved before my wife’s I-485 get there, under section 245(k), she has 180 days to send in her I-485 as long as PD is current. And there is no penalty and no other problem with this. She can stay in the country and wait for her I-485 to approve.
3. If I though that it was a grave mistake to apply for my I-485, I can withdraw it before it gets approved and reapply later with my wife’s when I become current again. No problem with this other than paying the fees again.
4. My wife and change her H4 to F1 any time she wants to as long as she goes to school full time. She could be on F1 and apply for I-485 when I become current (I feel uneasy on this one).
Please, let me know if what I listed above is right. These are the only choices that I have ready about. If there are more choices please, let me know that too. I have to make a decision by the end of tomorrow. Thank you all!
I think your lawyer is too optimistic about EB3 March 2005 being current in the immediate future.Maybe he's right .I dont know
But looking at the possible choice you have mentioned :
1.This is the best option . ie you apply for I485 right now and add you wife when she's in the US later when the date is current.The reason being that for USCIS to approve your GC the date should be current and if its current then you're eligible to apply for your wife's I485.Its a loop. For one thing(GC Approval) to happen the other thing(Date being current) has to happen.
2.The 2nd choice is same as the 1st one. Many here are prediciting that there will be severe retrogression in the Oct bulletin and no one with a right state of mind can even guess the dates at this point of time.
3.Why do you think it would be a grave mistake in life? If you think u'r taking a big risk then make your wife's status independent of your's by applying for H1b or F1 which is option 4. You should talk to a lawyer about the intent issues on F1 visa. I am not aware of that. I know that if one's one F1 or any other non-dual intent visa they shouldnt(risky and chances are higher for denial) apply for any immigrant visa within 90 days of their arrival or in your wife's case change of status.Search for more info on the web.
But my choice would be the first one. It's not risky for the reasons I had mentioned.
my 2 cents
GCMan007
03-12 11:50 AM
I have updated my profile..IV has been a source of strength in my Journey..i wish good things happen at USCIS and hard working legal immigrants like us get the GC quickly
more...
Ann Ruben
06-22 12:10 PM
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
zCool
03-20 11:11 PM
withdrawl in that case would be death-knell to your AOS case..
there is theoretical opening for "approvable" 140 cases in yates memo, but it's more theory than practice, in the world wher USCIS is revoking approved 140s , one can't depend on such a slim glimmer of hope..
there is theoretical opening for "approvable" 140 cases in yates memo, but it's more theory than practice, in the world wher USCIS is revoking approved 140s , one can't depend on such a slim glimmer of hope..
more...
Alabaman
09-01 02:10 PM
It is time USA opens its borders to allow more people from good cultures like India to come and settle here. Americans can learn family values from Indians. If America restricts immigrants it will turn into a country of bigoted, nepotistic creeps who will export their ugly culture of disowning their own parents to our shores and around the world. Programmers have long enjoyed high inflated salaries that are unreasonable. These salaries now need to come down and be competitive globally. Time for a 'change' in immigration and congress to open its arms to immigrants who made this country so great. It is time to make Kennedy's dream a reality. Indians who settle here need to have loyalty to their culture and should not become Americanized. Take the good things from this culture and not lose your own good cultural values that made India the best country in the world until the gora British came and ruined it.
No offence intended, If India is the best country in the world with its "wonderful" cultures why are there so many Indians hell bent on getting the Green Card? Waiting so many years painfully? Why not just return home and live in "best place on earth"? Why would you want to turn America into India? It is good to respect your host country's culture. They are not perfect and so also are many other countries. Please let's call a spade a spade and nothing else.
Having said that, this article reminds us that the debate should be: What group of people does America need to allow into this country on a permanent basis? (Emphasis on permanent basis). Aged parents of US citizens or long time resident and highly skilled immigrants?
If I had a chance to write this part of the immigration law, I would stop a system where US citizens can file green cards for sibblings and parents. I would however, make it almost automatic for parents of citizens/green card holders to be granted 5 to 10 year visitor visas. I dont expect my parents who are in their 60s to move to the US. To do what at that age?? I cant sit at home with them... they will just be lonely!!
I would also stop the green card lottery program. The freed up green quota from these two groups I will move to long time LEGAL residents (say 5 years or 10 years) who have been paying taxes, working and contributing to the economy.
No offence intended, If India is the best country in the world with its "wonderful" cultures why are there so many Indians hell bent on getting the Green Card? Waiting so many years painfully? Why not just return home and live in "best place on earth"? Why would you want to turn America into India? It is good to respect your host country's culture. They are not perfect and so also are many other countries. Please let's call a spade a spade and nothing else.
Having said that, this article reminds us that the debate should be: What group of people does America need to allow into this country on a permanent basis? (Emphasis on permanent basis). Aged parents of US citizens or long time resident and highly skilled immigrants?
If I had a chance to write this part of the immigration law, I would stop a system where US citizens can file green cards for sibblings and parents. I would however, make it almost automatic for parents of citizens/green card holders to be granted 5 to 10 year visitor visas. I dont expect my parents who are in their 60s to move to the US. To do what at that age?? I cant sit at home with them... they will just be lonely!!
I would also stop the green card lottery program. The freed up green quota from these two groups I will move to long time LEGAL residents (say 5 years or 10 years) who have been paying taxes, working and contributing to the economy.
dpp
07-11 11:06 AM
I485 premium would be way too complicated, unless it takes longer than 14 days. The agency is suppose to do much more checks before granting legal residency, so it may be difficult for them to process i485s in 14 days. Jusy my thoughts.
Why not? USCIS already approved 60K 485 applications in 2 weeks time. How come they cannot do the same with some extra money (i.e. premium processing). They can do anything if want to do.
Why not? USCIS already approved 60K 485 applications in 2 weeks time. How come they cannot do the same with some extra money (i.e. premium processing). They can do anything if want to do.
gv007
06-19 06:28 PM
Im still stuck neck deep in the PBEC quagmire.
for PBEC - What numbers are you guys calling ?
GA RIR
PD - Oct 2003
NOF - received March,
NOF - PBEC received April 2
still IN PROCESS
My HR called DBEC to get the final status of LC. They replied that "notice of forward" had been issued and since there is no query from that position. They have asked my Hr to call in 15 days to hear the final status.
Have you guys heard anything like "notice of forward"( it was something like this)...
These LC people in dallas are killing me..!
DB
for PBEC - What numbers are you guys calling ?
GA RIR
PD - Oct 2003
NOF - received March,
NOF - PBEC received April 2
still IN PROCESS
My HR called DBEC to get the final status of LC. They replied that "notice of forward" had been issued and since there is no query from that position. They have asked my Hr to call in 15 days to hear the final status.
Have you guys heard anything like "notice of forward"( it was something like this)...
These LC people in dallas are killing me..!
DB
dingox100
11-19 02:18 PM
My friend tried to get his brother. his brother is working in some IT company in india. The visa officer asked only one question
Visa officer: Whats your Age?
my friends brother: 26
Visa officer: sorry , visa cant be issued.. rejected.
No more questions and no more answers
Visa officer: Whats your Age?
my friends brother: 26
Visa officer: sorry , visa cant be issued.. rejected.
No more questions and no more answers
vine93
03-10 01:12 AM
bump
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기