chapper
11-09 09:59 AM
USCIS Ombudsmun Report - Total I140 approved:
Approved
2000:89,583
2001: 99,659
2002: 93,533
2003:62,281
2004:67,552
2005:94,211
2006:104,168
Oct 2006 to April 2007: 65,098
Approved
2000:89,583
2001: 99,659
2002: 93,533
2003:62,281
2004:67,552
2005:94,211
2006:104,168
Oct 2006 to April 2007: 65,098
wallpaper Don#39;t use lip liners in summer
gcadream
03-04 08:24 AM
Thanks a lot Rakson for updating the forum with valuable question and answers with the lawyer. Really appreciate it !!
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
It cleared lot of my doubts as well but regarding point 'C'
[C. Can new company (B) transfer Priority date even if existing company(A) revokes their I-140?]
I have heard lawyers saying in this forum itself that it can be a problem if the previous employer revokes the approved I-140, irrespective whether it was fraud or not. I don't have the links saved for that discussion, otherwise I would have pasted it.
But are you very sure about point 'C' that what ever ur lawyer said is correct and final ?
pcs
01-20 10:09 AM
Since fresh grads are the ones getting most benefit from SKIL bill etc, we should spread the message in Universities. Is there a way to contact individual Universities ?????
2011 and custom ridal jewelry.
desi3933
07-19 11:35 AM
Hello IV Members,
I have a question about my Wife status(H4) here in United States, My I-485 (EB3/PD DEC 2003) got approved on July 16'th and my lawyer says they have applied my wife I-485 application on July 17'th after USCIS released rescinded July 2'nd bulletin.
My I-485 was applied before our marriage,Can anybody please share some thoughts on my wife status(H4) at present??.
Any help on getting more information will be greatly appreciated..My lawyer says she should be fine.please share your experiences.
Thanks.
You are ok.
Your wife had 180 days to file her I-485 after your approval. And that has been already filed. So no need to worry.
And, Congratulations for your I-485 approval. Welcome to the GC club.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
I have a question about my Wife status(H4) here in United States, My I-485 (EB3/PD DEC 2003) got approved on July 16'th and my lawyer says they have applied my wife I-485 application on July 17'th after USCIS released rescinded July 2'nd bulletin.
My I-485 was applied before our marriage,Can anybody please share some thoughts on my wife status(H4) at present??.
Any help on getting more information will be greatly appreciated..My lawyer says she should be fine.please share your experiences.
Thanks.
You are ok.
Your wife had 180 days to file her I-485 after your approval. And that has been already filed. So no need to worry.
And, Congratulations for your I-485 approval. Welcome to the GC club.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
txh1b
08-18 11:31 AM
What was the RFE about? You should not begin work for new employer as you do not qualify for H1b portability. Any employment prior to that has the risk of being considered unauthorized.
tabletpc
12-15 11:54 AM
Atul555:
Cool down. Nothing to be warried. Since you are married, 485 is not of much help. So you should think of maintaining h1b in order to keep your wife status h4.
1. With cool mind start applying for jobs, increase network. To be on safer side. find a good consultant. Ping me if you need help in finding a good consulatant. Yes when say good consualtant..he is good...!!!!
you still have 4 months time. SO cheer up.
My 2 cents..don't think of using EAD & keeping u r wife on foloow to join blah blah....!!!!
Also if you change your job , your GC journey you had so far will not get wasted. You don't have to file Labour/i-40 again. Make sure the new job is same or similiar. Discuss with your potential employer, they will help you.
Whats your area of work..??Are you into IT...????
My company is surplussing me among other employees to be laid off around Apr 2009.
My case is as follows:
Case EB3 India
PD Mar 2004
Labor and I-140 approved
I-485 filed during Jun-Jul 2007 rush, FP done, waiting for PD to become current
Right now I am working on H1-B extension, and to make things complicated, I got married in Jul 2008 and brought spouse on H4.
I am not sure which avenue is the best for me, I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
Cool down. Nothing to be warried. Since you are married, 485 is not of much help. So you should think of maintaining h1b in order to keep your wife status h4.
1. With cool mind start applying for jobs, increase network. To be on safer side. find a good consultant. Ping me if you need help in finding a good consulatant. Yes when say good consualtant..he is good...!!!!
you still have 4 months time. SO cheer up.
My 2 cents..don't think of using EAD & keeping u r wife on foloow to join blah blah....!!!!
Also if you change your job , your GC journey you had so far will not get wasted. You don't have to file Labour/i-40 again. Make sure the new job is same or similiar. Discuss with your potential employer, they will help you.
Whats your area of work..??Are you into IT...????
My company is surplussing me among other employees to be laid off around Apr 2009.
My case is as follows:
Case EB3 India
PD Mar 2004
Labor and I-140 approved
I-485 filed during Jun-Jul 2007 rush, FP done, waiting for PD to become current
Right now I am working on H1-B extension, and to make things complicated, I got married in Jul 2008 and brought spouse on H4.
I am not sure which avenue is the best for me, I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
more...
GCBy3000
11-09 02:44 PM
I moved from location A to location B within the same state with same employer. My legal consulting with company attorney is as below.
1. Yes, you can move to different location. But you have to move back to the original location once you get GC. How long you have to work at the original location is a grey area. My attorney said anywhere between 6months to one year will do.
2. If your employer is not willing to relocate you to the original location, you HAVE TO start your LC process again in the new location. Even before my labor approved from location A, I moved to location B. Since my company is good, they agreed to file 140 for location A just for me to keep the PD. Now my location B 140 is filed.
3. With the new perm process, there is no provision to state that a employee will work in multiple location. This is what I have heard from my attorney.
4. When I asked him what will happen if I dont move back to location A and continue working in location B, he said I will get into trouble when I to for interview for my citizenship. Until then, it should be fine. Only case it will be a probelm when a query is put to the employer and he does not backs you up. Of couse, no one should lie and I dont want my employer to lie for me.
Thanks folks for all the replies. I got to know finally that the employer can setup the LC to provide for any relocation. It looks like my employer usually does that so that the employees does not loose out in a relocation scenario.
Thanks for all the inputs
1. Yes, you can move to different location. But you have to move back to the original location once you get GC. How long you have to work at the original location is a grey area. My attorney said anywhere between 6months to one year will do.
2. If your employer is not willing to relocate you to the original location, you HAVE TO start your LC process again in the new location. Even before my labor approved from location A, I moved to location B. Since my company is good, they agreed to file 140 for location A just for me to keep the PD. Now my location B 140 is filed.
3. With the new perm process, there is no provision to state that a employee will work in multiple location. This is what I have heard from my attorney.
4. When I asked him what will happen if I dont move back to location A and continue working in location B, he said I will get into trouble when I to for interview for my citizenship. Until then, it should be fine. Only case it will be a probelm when a query is put to the employer and he does not backs you up. Of couse, no one should lie and I dont want my employer to lie for me.
Thanks folks for all the replies. I got to know finally that the employer can setup the LC to provide for any relocation. It looks like my employer usually does that so that the employees does not loose out in a relocation scenario.
Thanks for all the inputs
2010 of a summer wedding.
webpromo
03-25 09:50 AM
they gave the xerox copies of the passport , and hold my passport , I never heard any one in this situation , they are so stupid and racial ,and I don't think they make sense , read this this is real situation in US this is true , because I the victim of this
Guide to US Deportation (http://www.asifism.com/guide-to-us-deportation/)
Guide to US Deportation (http://www.asifism.com/guide-to-us-deportation/)
more...
when
02-29 12:42 PM
^^^^
hair Spring/Summer Bridal wedding
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
more...
psaxena
06-10 05:37 PM
people say I support it as if they are in the congress committee and the moment they say "I support it", the idea become a bill and gets passed.
I support it.
I support it.
hot Bridal makeup tips
Vet04
12-08 11:53 AM
I have been in USA Since 2003.
I started the GC process in 2004, started the process again, recaptured old PD. Was hoping to get GC this year when my PD was current for 2 months. Hope will get it this year.
After moving I saw lots of engineer,mostly software, seemed happy with jobs. Started doing some search and found that this is one of the least stressful jobs in US with great salary and growth potential. Thanks for the views guys, would like to know if can do MS with a bachelors in non engineering field.
I started the GC process in 2004, started the process again, recaptured old PD. Was hoping to get GC this year when my PD was current for 2 months. Hope will get it this year.
After moving I saw lots of engineer,mostly software, seemed happy with jobs. Started doing some search and found that this is one of the least stressful jobs in US with great salary and growth potential. Thanks for the views guys, would like to know if can do MS with a bachelors in non engineering field.
more...
house Makeup Bride Trends for Summer
joydiptac
09-30 05:37 PM
I liked the tone and tenor of aila...
Before you get all mushy about AILA and start bashing USCIS take deep look and see if AILA is really acting as a friend or a adversary in friends disguise?
Before you get all mushy about AILA and start bashing USCIS take deep look and see if AILA is really acting as a friend or a adversary in friends disguise?
tattoo dream wedding makeup would
vineet
01-17 07:32 PM
Heard about a similar issue with the EAD for a colleague at work today. Will let you know what the company lawyers recommend him to do....
-Viny
-Viny
more...
pictures Indian ridal make-up guide II
voldemar
03-19 09:33 AM
I-140 withdrawal is not mandatory but it's good for both - employer and employee. Check other threads when approved I-140 was revoked on Ability to Pay issue when USCIS added together all pending I-485 for the company. If you use AC21 to change employer and previous employer withdraw approved I-140 you are safe to go.
dresses Beauty Tips for Summer Brides
chris
02-05 02:50 PM
18003755283
1
2
1
receipt no
1
1
3
4
Good luck
Chris,
How did you reach to the IO (Officer ) to know your status , is there any number/ options..
Please advice.
Thanks.
1
2
1
receipt no
1
1
3
4
Good luck
Chris,
How did you reach to the IO (Officer ) to know your status , is there any number/ options..
Please advice.
Thanks.
more...
makeup DRAMATIC WEDDING MAKEUP
Blessing&Lifeisbeautiful
08-13 04:28 PM
From your case alone this is rather a sweeping judgment. I can assure you they do NOT process based on receipt date if they did my husbands EAD which was received on May 3rd would be approved by now and yours would not. He is still waiting thirteen weeks on.
Was it TSC?
Was it TSC?
girlfriend summer wedding makeup. ridal
LostInGCProcess
03-03 12:02 PM
Yes, the wording is very important. When I sent the AC21 documentation, it was just a letter explaining employment details and particulars, but when I replied to NOID, they specifically requested "prospects of employment" - and we responded as "this is a full time permanent job and the prospects are good" - which means they see it as future employment.
As long as you have worked for original employer for a good period of time, stick to your skills, have good w2 history, you don't have to worry - you can always show that your prospects are good.
Though Green card if for future employment - the entire process revolves around how best you fit the future employment category - AC21 is one such rule that gives you room and flexibility.
Thanks for your quick response. I might as well ask one more question that's in my mind. Did you go thru the company's attorney or you hired yourself? I really don't trust my company's attorney as they work for the best interest of the company rather then the employees...may not be the norm but mostly its that way.
Could you PM me if you know good attorney's other then Ms Murthy (cause they are expensive)
Thanks.
As long as you have worked for original employer for a good period of time, stick to your skills, have good w2 history, you don't have to worry - you can always show that your prospects are good.
Though Green card if for future employment - the entire process revolves around how best you fit the future employment category - AC21 is one such rule that gives you room and flexibility.
Thanks for your quick response. I might as well ask one more question that's in my mind. Did you go thru the company's attorney or you hired yourself? I really don't trust my company's attorney as they work for the best interest of the company rather then the employees...may not be the norm but mostly its that way.
Could you PM me if you know good attorney's other then Ms Murthy (cause they are expensive)
Thanks.
hairstyles wedding makeup look,
tushbush
02-03 08:11 PM
Congratualtions Ivar!
Hi EveryOne,
I got my Green card in mail yesterday. I want to thank IV and everyone for all the support during this GC journey. I wish everyone all the best for their green card process. I wish everyone gets to file 485 irrespective of priority dates and ultimately get their green cards. This is a question to Admin, i have a recursive donation going on, I would like to make a one time donation and stop the recursive donation.
Thanks.
Hi EveryOne,
I got my Green card in mail yesterday. I want to thank IV and everyone for all the support during this GC journey. I wish everyone all the best for their green card process. I wish everyone gets to file 485 irrespective of priority dates and ultimately get their green cards. This is a question to Admin, i have a recursive donation going on, I would like to make a one time donation and stop the recursive donation.
Thanks.
obviously
08-04 11:05 AM
Hi, can someone help crack this puzzle?
I have an EB3 application with a PD of Nov 2002 (India). Filed I-485 in June 2007, along with medical forms etc. Of course, that category is 'unavailable' now.
In 2005, we started an EB2 application, within the same company, for a new job, this one requiring a Masters degree.
The EB2 I-140 was just approved, and the notice has the Nov 2002 Priority Date.
The attorney had earlier said they could port the priority dates from the EB3 to EB2 and interfile.
Now, he just called saying he is confused and not sure!
His views:
- There is no formal way to find out if the new I-140 was matched up with the old I-485.
- He says he will ask his peers and will also call USCIS Customer Service.
- He thinks we might need to file a new I-485 to support the new EB2 I-140 to show that there is a pending I-485 - because the underlying EB3 is Unavailable.
Appreciate any inputs!
Cheers!
I have an EB3 application with a PD of Nov 2002 (India). Filed I-485 in June 2007, along with medical forms etc. Of course, that category is 'unavailable' now.
In 2005, we started an EB2 application, within the same company, for a new job, this one requiring a Masters degree.
The EB2 I-140 was just approved, and the notice has the Nov 2002 Priority Date.
The attorney had earlier said they could port the priority dates from the EB3 to EB2 and interfile.
Now, he just called saying he is confused and not sure!
His views:
- There is no formal way to find out if the new I-140 was matched up with the old I-485.
- He says he will ask his peers and will also call USCIS Customer Service.
- He thinks we might need to file a new I-485 to support the new EB2 I-140 to show that there is a pending I-485 - because the underlying EB3 is Unavailable.
Appreciate any inputs!
Cheers!
walking_dude
01-30 12:24 PM
Here's a template you can use to E-mail. Put your name and address as newspapers don't normally respond to E-mails sent anonymously. Also customize as required. Please kep the reference to IV Press Release as it's important to get coverage for our issue.
Contact info for MI Newspapers - http://action.aclumich.org/michigannewspapers
Dear Editor,
I'm a regular reader of your newspaper, and would like you to cover the issues faced by legal highly-skilled immigrants due to decision by Michigan Secretary of State Ms. Terri Lynn Land to deny Driving Licences to residents on temporary visa status. This rule impacts thousands of legal immigrant workers in Michigan, like me, by impacting our ability to commute to work. It also affects a large number of International students studying in the state universities.
As a regular reader , I feel disappointed by the lack of media coverage for an issue affecting thousands in the state, including yours. Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) , a non-profit grassroots organization working to fix the issues faced by legal employment-based immigrants has issued a press release on the issue.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb661904.htm
I urge you to cover this issue through a news story. Immigration Voice has been collecting stories from affected members of our community. If your newsreporters need any help in developing the story, Immigration Voice can certainly help you on this issue. Michigan chapter of Immigration Voice can be contacted by E-mailing - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
Sincerely,
xxxx
<<name>>
<<address>>
<<phone>>
Contact info for MI Newspapers - http://action.aclumich.org/michigannewspapers
Dear Editor,
I'm a regular reader of your newspaper, and would like you to cover the issues faced by legal highly-skilled immigrants due to decision by Michigan Secretary of State Ms. Terri Lynn Land to deny Driving Licences to residents on temporary visa status. This rule impacts thousands of legal immigrant workers in Michigan, like me, by impacting our ability to commute to work. It also affects a large number of International students studying in the state universities.
As a regular reader , I feel disappointed by the lack of media coverage for an issue affecting thousands in the state, including yours. Immigration Voice (http://www.immigrationvoice.org) , a non-profit grassroots organization working to fix the issues faced by legal employment-based immigrants has issued a press release on the issue.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/1/prweb661904.htm
I urge you to cover this issue through a news story. Immigration Voice has been collecting stories from affected members of our community. If your newsreporters need any help in developing the story, Immigration Voice can certainly help you on this issue. Michigan chapter of Immigration Voice can be contacted by E-mailing - vivek AT ImmigrationVoice DOT org
Sincerely,
xxxx
<<name>>
<<address>>
<<phone>>
No comments:
Post a Comment