siva007
04-02 05:14 PM
Hi,
I send my AINP Application package on 18th March (H1-B worker stream) and was received by the AINP on 20th March. However I have not received any confirmation or a file number yet since it takes 2 months. Any idea if my application will be considered according to the current policies or according to the new changes that are coming up on April 15th?
Please let me know.
Thanks.
I send my AINP Application package on 18th March (H1-B worker stream) and was received by the AINP on 20th March. However I have not received any confirmation or a file number yet since it takes 2 months. Any idea if my application will be considered according to the current policies or according to the new changes that are coming up on April 15th?
Please let me know.
Thanks.
wallpaper at Enchanted Kingdom and
waitnwatch
04-06 10:41 PM
the bill looks as good as dead unless there is a miracle overnight
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-04-07T031746Z_01_N06381163_RTRIDST_0_USA-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-4.XML
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-04-07T031746Z_01_N06381163_RTRIDST_0_USA-IMMIGRATION-UPDATE-4.XML
pappu
02-15 08:22 PM
ivuser very good ideas. I was waiting for others to respond to your post whole day to help with the tasks but nobody responded to even join you in a conference call. We get lot of people everyday on the forum, email and sometimes on the phone asking us to do xyz but very few actually volunteer to take it up upon themselves to execute their ideas.
Let us discuss these ideas offline. Thanks again for your interest.
Let us discuss these ideas offline. Thanks again for your interest.
2011 The first ride you see when
nshalady
06-15 12:11 AM
You can file I485 while H1 is pending. But if you read the H1 ext clause, you can see that you are eligible for H1 extension beyond 6 years only if your labor is pending for more than 1 year, or if you can't file for adjustment of status because of retrogression. Now, because you are eligible for I-485, you lose the eligibility to extend H1, which means, your pending H1 can be denied whether you file I485 or not. You might be lucky and get away with successful extension. But if the officer knows what he is doing, he'll not clear your extension. I have to add that I am assuming your H1 extension is BEYOND 6 years. If it is within 6 years, there is no problem. You'll get an extension.
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
more...
seba
09-24 03:29 PM
GreenTech, that's a good question. I am considering to transfer to offices in Asia or Europe next year and then attend B-school in the US after 2 years. That way, once I graduate, I will also at least have the option to get another 6-year H1 in the US.
thepaew, thanks for the advice. I have been thinking about this for a while, and my options are:
1) Start the GC process now and wait until I get the GC. Then think about B-school after I get the GC (I am not interested in part-time programs).
2) Forget the GC process and transfer to Europe or Asia next year and then attend B-school in the US after a few years.
Personally for me, having an MBA in 5 years is more valuable than having a GC in 5 years, so I am leaning towards option 2 above. However, if I don't get into B-school, then that's another story... I would probably transfer back to the US on L1 and start the GC process. At that point, I would apply under EB2 anyway with my Bachelor's and 5+ years experience.
Thanks again everyone for the replies and advice. And yes, of course you are not lawyers, but your help is still very useful. During my H1 renewal process, I got more useful info from here than from my company's lawyer!
thepaew, thanks for the advice. I have been thinking about this for a while, and my options are:
1) Start the GC process now and wait until I get the GC. Then think about B-school after I get the GC (I am not interested in part-time programs).
2) Forget the GC process and transfer to Europe or Asia next year and then attend B-school in the US after a few years.
Personally for me, having an MBA in 5 years is more valuable than having a GC in 5 years, so I am leaning towards option 2 above. However, if I don't get into B-school, then that's another story... I would probably transfer back to the US on L1 and start the GC process. At that point, I would apply under EB2 anyway with my Bachelor's and 5+ years experience.
Thanks again everyone for the replies and advice. And yes, of course you are not lawyers, but your help is still very useful. During my H1 renewal process, I got more useful info from here than from my company's lawyer!
bmoni
12-21 09:34 AM
We have Missouri State Chapter. Please check the state chapters section. show your support. I like the idea of midwest Conference call. I will be dialing in.
more...
jasmin45
08-06 10:16 AM
I just recived mail from embassy saying that there is no visa avilable for my case. When avilable they will call me for the interview again. Thank you ALL
Sorry to hear this news! As far as I understand the july fieasco and successive events did not effect consular processing especially for scheduled interviews. How did this happen? Well!
We Hope that the visa categories will be current in October and vias be allocated to you, when they open the FY 2008.
Sorry to hear this news! As far as I understand the july fieasco and successive events did not effect consular processing especially for scheduled interviews. How did this happen? Well!
We Hope that the visa categories will be current in October and vias be allocated to you, when they open the FY 2008.
2010 ride in Enchanted Kingdom
vishwak
08-05 01:53 PM
I think this is like saying.....My friends drove on I-101 at 80 MPH and they never get Ticket. Ahhha....Immigration is like game and we never know when you get trapped.
Take advise of your Attorney, still you need to work on your own to get exact information....and correct way of doing.
I think person shouldn't leave country after applying AP and come back with AP which got approved while abroad.
Yes they can if they have VALID H1/H4 Visa stamping.
Thanks.....No offense guys.
VK.
Take advise of your Attorney, still you need to work on your own to get exact information....and correct way of doing.
I think person shouldn't leave country after applying AP and come back with AP which got approved while abroad.
Yes they can if they have VALID H1/H4 Visa stamping.
Thanks.....No offense guys.
VK.
more...
Maverick5
08-26 05:20 PM
Thanks for your reply. As I am applying for LC with Software Engineer, and my Masters is in Mech Engg, I have asked my employer to put "Computer Science, Engineering (Any), Math or Related" in the majors required for the position.
I am hoping that Engineering (Any) would cover for Mech Engg.
I am hoping that Engineering (Any) would cover for Mech Engg.
hair When you ride
LostInGCProcess
09-04 01:56 PM
Also, if i-140 is revoked , that should trigger NOID or RFE which the lawyer will handle (hopefully successfully).
GCCovet
Remember, the NOID/RFE goes to your Attorney if you have submitted G-28 form. If not, it comes to you.
GCCovet
Remember, the NOID/RFE goes to your Attorney if you have submitted G-28 form. If not, it comes to you.
more...
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
hot Enchanted Kingdom - Space
jackisback
06-07 01:03 AM
I would (and did) send to the address on the confirmation page. If you search for other forums on EAD filing recently, that is what is also recommended there
more...
house Enchanted Kingdom - Flying
dngoyal
07-27 04:31 PM
this is the correct information. Applicant signature is not necessary if you have an attorney representation form. I have verified this with two different attorneys and also my HR guy, who suprisingly is very knowledgeable in GC process.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
do they have to attach copy of email with the application?
In my case my application was filed on 2nd July but my attorney asked me to send the email on 3rd July just for records.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
do they have to attach copy of email with the application?
In my case my application was filed on 2nd July but my attorney asked me to send the email on 3rd July just for records.
tattoo Enchanted Kingdom rides,
PHANI_TAVVALA
06-17 10:39 AM
it's fifth-third
more...
pictures Enchanted Kingdom will
boreal
07-08 08:29 PM
None... as I did not seem to see anywhere in the filing instruction that W2 is needed... unless there is some change. Who knows nowadays...;)
Correct - None is the answer! My law firm (Fragomen) didnt ask for them when they submitted my docs on JUly 2. Maybe they are needed if the USCIS comes back with an RFE.
Correct - None is the answer! My law firm (Fragomen) didnt ask for them when they submitted my docs on JUly 2. Maybe they are needed if the USCIS comes back with an RFE.
dresses Enchanted Kingdom opens
mchundi
02-16 05:04 PM
I did some research on murthy.com and found that AC21 did abolish 'per country of birth quota' on recycled numbers. I am posting a link to this murthy.com article of Oct 6, 2000 which clarifies the issue.
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDh1det.html
If the link fails I am reporducing the paragraph here: -
Major highlights of ACTA are listed below :
Per Country Quotas for Immigrant Visas
"Under Section 104, with respect to immigrant visas, the per country quota, which has been adversely affecting those from China and India and which the U.S. State Department had stated could possibly affect those from the Philippines in the near future, may have been resolved with this Bill. It has always been the case that not all of the available immigrant visas were issued, since most countries did not have enough applicants to use the total available. ACTA provides that if the INS or the U.S. State Department does not issue all of the immigrant visas that should be issued in that FY, the unused immigrant visa numbers should be made available to all countries without the per country quota limit applying."
Retrogression started as the recycled numbers are no longer available and with that country quota showed its horrible effect. It is clear guys we have to concentrate our energy and our thoughts on this quota. Quota on the basis of "country of birth" on talent or skill needed is really hard to explain and we can have good logical arguments to support its abolition.
Good work jungalee32,
It is also part of our resource data base that sandeep compiled, where all these issues are clearly explained. That is why once we have the unused numbers it is like increasing the per country quota. It will bring the priority date to current for a couple of years(even if there are more cases than unused numbers with them. Just because they cannot process that faster)
--MC
more...
makeup The Enchanted Kingdom EKstreme
GC20??
08-12 03:26 PM
As my priority date is current I contacted my local congressman's office for help with my I-485. NSC replied back to the office (see reply below) saying my background checks are still on. But the officer at the infopass appointment said my backgrounds checks are complete. I don't know whom to believe.
Is this some kind of standard reply that USCIS is giving for Congressman's or Senators case status inquiry?
Good morning XXXXXXXXXXX,
Re: I-485s <Applicant Name>
I have conversed with those in charge of these cases.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
committed to adjudicating immigration benefits in a timely, efficient
manner that ensures public safety and national security.
Toward that end, USCIS requires extensive background checks for every
application or petition it adjudicates. While background checks for
most applications or petitions are completed quickly, a small percentage
of cases involve unresolved background check issues that result in
adjudication delays.
Background checks involve more than just the initial submission of and
response related to biographical information and fingerprints. When
checks and/or a review of an administrative record reveal an issue
potentially impacting an applicant's eligibility for the requested
immigration benefit, further inquiry is needed. The inquiry may include
an additional interview and/or the need to contact another agency for
updates or more comprehensive information. If it is determined that an
outside agency possesses relevant information about a case, USCIS
requests such information for review. Upon gathering and assessing all
available information, USCIS then adjudicates the application as
expeditiously as possible.
We have checked into your constituent's case and have been assured that
the agency is aware of your inquiry, and is monitoring progress related
to it. However, unresolved issues in your constituent's case require
thorough review before a decision can be rendered. Unfortunately, we
cannot speculate as to when this review process will be completed.
We realize that your constituent may feel frustrated by delays related
to his or her case. As an agency, we must weigh individual
inconvenience against the broader concerns of public safety and national
security.
We hope this information and assurance are helpful. If we may be of
assistance in the future, please let us know.
I hope this information is helpful to you. At this time I am closing the
inquiry on this matter.
Thank you,
<Officer Name>
Immigration Services Officer
NSC Congressional Unit
Is this some kind of standard reply that USCIS is giving for Congressman's or Senators case status inquiry?
Good morning XXXXXXXXXXX,
Re: I-485s <Applicant Name>
I have conversed with those in charge of these cases.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
committed to adjudicating immigration benefits in a timely, efficient
manner that ensures public safety and national security.
Toward that end, USCIS requires extensive background checks for every
application or petition it adjudicates. While background checks for
most applications or petitions are completed quickly, a small percentage
of cases involve unresolved background check issues that result in
adjudication delays.
Background checks involve more than just the initial submission of and
response related to biographical information and fingerprints. When
checks and/or a review of an administrative record reveal an issue
potentially impacting an applicant's eligibility for the requested
immigration benefit, further inquiry is needed. The inquiry may include
an additional interview and/or the need to contact another agency for
updates or more comprehensive information. If it is determined that an
outside agency possesses relevant information about a case, USCIS
requests such information for review. Upon gathering and assessing all
available information, USCIS then adjudicates the application as
expeditiously as possible.
We have checked into your constituent's case and have been assured that
the agency is aware of your inquiry, and is monitoring progress related
to it. However, unresolved issues in your constituent's case require
thorough review before a decision can be rendered. Unfortunately, we
cannot speculate as to when this review process will be completed.
We realize that your constituent may feel frustrated by delays related
to his or her case. As an agency, we must weigh individual
inconvenience against the broader concerns of public safety and national
security.
We hope this information and assurance are helpful. If we may be of
assistance in the future, please let us know.
I hope this information is helpful to you. At this time I am closing the
inquiry on this matter.
Thank you,
<Officer Name>
Immigration Services Officer
NSC Congressional Unit
girlfriend Enchanted Kingdom Rides
miguy
03-16 09:16 AM
well, the connection is that if you get the Statement of Need from Canada, you can go to Canada to satisfy the 2 years j1-home residency requirement. While, if you get the SON from India, you would have to go to India. You have talked about plan B in your earlier post, I am a Canadian Citizen and my wife a Canadian PR(we live in Canada). So, if she gets a residency on J1, the worst is that she could come to Canada to satisfy the 2 yr requirement.
hairstyles Enchanted Kingdom
Eternal_Hope
05-11 11:20 AM
I second that. Use their tool to send your own letters.
We are already discussing this on the "Media Drive" thread.
Use one of our IV template letters and send it to the Media.
Let's do this today!
It is just a TOOL to write to senators! No one force you to use their template, and you can and SHOULD write you letter!
We are already discussing this on the "Media Drive" thread.
Use one of our IV template letters and send it to the Media.
Let's do this today!
It is just a TOOL to write to senators! No one force you to use their template, and you can and SHOULD write you letter!
ghost
09-19 04:32 PM
agreed, I just mean that publicly we whould not be asking explicitly to increase visa numbers.
It depends on who our audience is:
In interviews with newspapers for example, going into specifics like increasing visa numbers puts off the avg American, bec all he reads is increasing immigration.
But in speaking with a knowledgeable audience, like of course when approaching politicians, this can and should be done.
Excellent Strategy
It depends on who our audience is:
In interviews with newspapers for example, going into specifics like increasing visa numbers puts off the avg American, bec all he reads is increasing immigration.
But in speaking with a knowledgeable audience, like of course when approaching politicians, this can and should be done.
Excellent Strategy
pappu
08-10 04:09 PM
My GC is approved but still I want to continue my contribution (in steps of $20) for this good cause....However, I dont see any $20 contributions for last couple of weeks..Is it possible to start contribution of $20 for guy like me who have GC & wants to help for this cause?
Congrats on your GC and thanks for your support.
We took out the $20 per month option. We had that option for $20 per month for 6 months and only 200+ people signed up out of several thousand members who visit the site everyday. This happened when we announced that we may have to close this site and our work for lack of funds. After seeing lack of appreciation from members, running an organization and putting effort then seems useless to us in the core team. Why should we spend so much time and energy on something that only few people appreciate out of thousands in this community? Why should we run an organization where only a handful want to help out and everyone else is only interested in asking questions, complaining , picking up fights with others, criticizing IV?
Many people wrote to us saying $20 is too high and it should be reduced to $10 or even $1 per month and then everyone will contribute.
So pls tell us how we can survive with such amounts when others are spending hundreds or thousands and millions to prevent our bill?
Lack of funds affect our ability to go all out and get the work done. Lobbying is no charity. So unless each and every member feels to contribute from his/her heart contributions will not happen.
Previously people used to ask our achievements and say that they will contribute only after they see some results. We have given a few results till now and demonstrated commitment to the cause. If people are still not going to contribute, then such people will never contribute. We value everyone that has contributed and anyone who contributes in times of need.
Congrats on your GC and thanks for your support.
We took out the $20 per month option. We had that option for $20 per month for 6 months and only 200+ people signed up out of several thousand members who visit the site everyday. This happened when we announced that we may have to close this site and our work for lack of funds. After seeing lack of appreciation from members, running an organization and putting effort then seems useless to us in the core team. Why should we spend so much time and energy on something that only few people appreciate out of thousands in this community? Why should we run an organization where only a handful want to help out and everyone else is only interested in asking questions, complaining , picking up fights with others, criticizing IV?
Many people wrote to us saying $20 is too high and it should be reduced to $10 or even $1 per month and then everyone will contribute.
So pls tell us how we can survive with such amounts when others are spending hundreds or thousands and millions to prevent our bill?
Lack of funds affect our ability to go all out and get the work done. Lobbying is no charity. So unless each and every member feels to contribute from his/her heart contributions will not happen.
Previously people used to ask our achievements and say that they will contribute only after they see some results. We have given a few results till now and demonstrated commitment to the cause. If people are still not going to contribute, then such people will never contribute. We value everyone that has contributed and anyone who contributes in times of need.
No comments:
Post a Comment