Winner
04-21 02:26 PM
This is a grey area subject to interpretations. Talk to an Anttorney - the reason I say this is - when your 485 gets denied wrongfully (your Attorney will tell you if the REASON was wrongful) - say AC21 old employer revoke 140 after 180 days - then an MOTIC whould resolve your issue - which typically takes a few weeks to 2 months or a bit more. Whether you stay here or work here - it is the same - no "Particular status". Once your MOTIC gets approved, you are back in status - so it is a big grey area subject to interpretation and Attorneys have different views based on how conservative one wants to be.
If you are sure your 485 can get denied for a "right reason" - then MTR or Appeal may not work - so you have to work out other options.
Thanks Chandu. I'm not in this situation right now, but my comany is trying to force me to use my EAD instead of renewing my H1B, so I'm just looking for some vaild reasons which I can present them and request them to renew my H1B.
If you are sure your 485 can get denied for a "right reason" - then MTR or Appeal may not work - so you have to work out other options.
Thanks Chandu. I'm not in this situation right now, but my comany is trying to force me to use my EAD instead of renewing my H1B, so I'm just looking for some vaild reasons which I can present them and request them to renew my H1B.
wallpaper Colin Farrell And Salma Hayek
ThinkTwice
07-11 05:59 PM
the bay area.
- SFSU
- SJSU
Please post this info for ALL international students.
- SFSU
- SJSU
Please post this info for ALL international students.
pachai_attai
09-04 09:05 AM
485 approved on August 31st. Approved 3 weeks after I sent out the RFE.
2011 Salma Hayek does juice
gc_on_demand
03-25 02:16 PM
Folks,
I would like to share my success story of getting my I-485 application approved with a revoked/withdrawn I-140. We received our Green Cards and Welcome Letters in the mail yesterday. If you go through my profile, you should be able to get most of the information, but here it is anyway:
1] Company A applied for my LC followed by the I-140 application. We never got a chance to file I-485.
2] After I quite company A, they withdrew my I-140 application.
3] Company B started the process again with my labor application, followed by my new I-140 application. We didn't capture the older PD at this stage, but the A# was the same as the old one.
4] When we sent in our I-485 application, we included a letter describing that we would like to retain the older PD (we sent them a snippet of page 27 of the Field Adjudicator's Manual - Yates memo). In the interest of being transparent, we mentioned that the earlier I-140 was withdrawn by the previous employer. After an unrelated RFE, our case was finally approved last Friday (03/18).
I am sharing this information so that others who are stuck in a similar situation can use this as a datapoint in their struggle against the USCIS. I wish you all the very best in your Green Card journey.
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
I would like to share my success story of getting my I-485 application approved with a revoked/withdrawn I-140. We received our Green Cards and Welcome Letters in the mail yesterday. If you go through my profile, you should be able to get most of the information, but here it is anyway:
1] Company A applied for my LC followed by the I-140 application. We never got a chance to file I-485.
2] After I quite company A, they withdrew my I-140 application.
3] Company B started the process again with my labor application, followed by my new I-140 application. We didn't capture the older PD at this stage, but the A# was the same as the old one.
4] When we sent in our I-485 application, we included a letter describing that we would like to retain the older PD (we sent them a snippet of page 27 of the Field Adjudicator's Manual - Yates memo). In the interest of being transparent, we mentioned that the earlier I-140 was withdrawn by the previous employer. After an unrelated RFE, our case was finally approved last Friday (03/18).
I am sharing this information so that others who are stuck in a similar situation can use this as a datapoint in their struggle against the USCIS. I wish you all the very best in your Green Card journey.
You said you didn't get a chance to file for I 485 with company A , means you did transfer H1b. Did company A withdraw before you transfered H1b ? Did you do transfer with in initial 6 year of H1b ?
more...
mrdelhiite
07-11 03:34 PM
^^^^^bump^^^^
pappu
08-16 12:42 PM
Fact sheet for download
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/WashingtonDC_IV_Rally_w_FactSheet.doc
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/WashingtonDC_IV_Rally_w_FactSheet.doc
more...
go_guy123
01-26 01:38 PM
This is an important step zero. I am sure Reid will push this through in the Senate.
But in this congress it's all about what the House does.. Need to see the House version of this bill..
CIR (aka mass amnesty) was not doable in the past, and is not now and wont be in future. They could not do it even when democratic party was in power in congress (high tide of democratic party). It is impossible now with GOP in control.
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
But in this congress it's all about what the House does.. Need to see the House version of this bill..
CIR (aka mass amnesty) was not doable in the past, and is not now and wont be in future. They could not do it even when democratic party was in power in congress (high tide of democratic party). It is impossible now with GOP in control.
It si pure lip seervice by Sen Reid
2010 salma hayek grown ups bikini
Refugee_New
03-24 02:30 PM
Now everything is queued..... no more cutting lines.
Thanks for the news vinabath. You know what?
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
Thanks for the news vinabath. You know what?
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
more...
sw33t
05-31 11:47 AM
/\/\/\/\
hair Two of our favorites are Salma
ChainReaction
06-25 08:42 AM
My I140 is pending at Texas Service center ,so i will be mailing my 485 at the address stated @ TSC I140 receipt notice.
more...
Bpositive
08-13 12:16 PM
Have heard of US citizens in India who are having problems getting work visa. And are getting paid in cash! Seems like the number of illegal US citizen aliens in India may be going up over the next ten years....
hot salma hayek grown ups swimsuit. A Bamboo Set for Salma Hayek
nutakksa
08-28 02:11 PM
See my signature below. Waiting for FP notices from TSC. spoke to my attorney. They mentioned that they are getting FP notices slowly from TSC.
---------
TSC/EB2/PD March 2003
485 RD June 18 / ND July 17
FP notice - ??????
AP- Approved on 8/22 for self and family - yet to receive app notices
EAD - Approved on 8/27 for self and family - Yet to receive App notices.
---------
TSC/EB2/PD March 2003
485 RD June 18 / ND July 17
FP notice - ??????
AP- Approved on 8/22 for self and family - yet to receive app notices
EAD - Approved on 8/27 for self and family - Yet to receive App notices.
more...
house salma hayek grown ups swimsuit. salma hayek wallpapers hd.
johnggberg
08-10 12:55 PM
close this thread please
tattoo salma hayek grown ups bikini. salma hayek movies names.
LostInGCProcess
11-10 11:47 AM
Dear Friends/Experts,
- I am planning to visit India in end of November' 2008....I was wondering as EMPLOYER "A" H1B is already stamped in my passport and stamp is valid till Oct'2009. I was wondering do i need to get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped?
- My concern is regarding the EMPLOYER "A" H1B Status on USCIS website (above). Does this above status means that H1B from EMPLOYER "A" has been revoked? Do i need to get EMPLOYER "B" visa stamped now?
- The reason I am asking is due to the delay concerns due to PIMS system.:mad: I am planning to get it stamped at NEW DELHI.:confused:
I will appreciate your quick response.
Thanks, :confused::confused:
Please clarify: First H1 was from Dec 2007 and second H1 is from June 2007??? I hope it was a typo.
Ans1) You do not need to get get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped at a consulate abroad. At the POE you have to show the latest H1B to the IO who would issue the I94 based on the exp date on the new H1.
Ans2) Again same answer. You don't need to get a new visa stamped every time you change a company and would travel abroad. You need to get the visa stamped, only if it is expiring within 6 months.
Enjoy your trip and congratulation on your engagement!!
- I am planning to visit India in end of November' 2008....I was wondering as EMPLOYER "A" H1B is already stamped in my passport and stamp is valid till Oct'2009. I was wondering do i need to get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped?
- My concern is regarding the EMPLOYER "A" H1B Status on USCIS website (above). Does this above status means that H1B from EMPLOYER "A" has been revoked? Do i need to get EMPLOYER "B" visa stamped now?
- The reason I am asking is due to the delay concerns due to PIMS system.:mad: I am planning to get it stamped at NEW DELHI.:confused:
I will appreciate your quick response.
Thanks, :confused::confused:
Please clarify: First H1 was from Dec 2007 and second H1 is from June 2007??? I hope it was a typo.
Ans1) You do not need to get get a *NEW* H1B visa stamped at a consulate abroad. At the POE you have to show the latest H1B to the IO who would issue the I94 based on the exp date on the new H1.
Ans2) Again same answer. You don't need to get a new visa stamped every time you change a company and would travel abroad. You need to get the visa stamped, only if it is expiring within 6 months.
Enjoy your trip and congratulation on your engagement!!
more...
pictures Salma Hayek
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
dresses salma hayek grown ups bikini
DyersEve
10-20 10:02 PM
thnx but do you mean what the text says or the font/format/position of it?
more...
makeup salma hayek grown ups
RedHat
08-29 11:41 PM
Today i got REF regarding my GC .
USCIS is asking me to provide following:
1)All Documents pertaining to US immegration status. Including most recent I-94 , EAD, and all my H1 copies
2)Copies of all US Federal Tax retuns ever filed.
3)Copies of first and last pay stubs of all US employers.
4)Birth Ceritificatates
5)Marriage cetificate and cermony photos.
I have all documents except my first paycheck of the first employer.
I came to USA in the year of 1999 without my employer permision.
I stayed with frieds help without informing the my employer(who filed the H1B was not interested to bring me usa becuase market was not good). It took 8 months to get job after that i contact my employer and i was with him for 6 months and joined another company.
Only problem is , i stayed 8 months in the USA without job(without status).
Between 1999 to 2007 i visited inida 4 times without any issues.
USCIS is asking me submit my first paycheck. - I did not work first 8 months
Anyone can guide me how to handle this case?.
If i tell my employer was not paid first 8 months will that be any problem?
And what are chances of get my GC.
Please help!
USCIS is asking me to provide following:
1)All Documents pertaining to US immegration status. Including most recent I-94 , EAD, and all my H1 copies
2)Copies of all US Federal Tax retuns ever filed.
3)Copies of first and last pay stubs of all US employers.
4)Birth Ceritificatates
5)Marriage cetificate and cermony photos.
I have all documents except my first paycheck of the first employer.
I came to USA in the year of 1999 without my employer permision.
I stayed with frieds help without informing the my employer(who filed the H1B was not interested to bring me usa becuase market was not good). It took 8 months to get job after that i contact my employer and i was with him for 6 months and joined another company.
Only problem is , i stayed 8 months in the USA without job(without status).
Between 1999 to 2007 i visited inida 4 times without any issues.
USCIS is asking me submit my first paycheck. - I did not work first 8 months
Anyone can guide me how to handle this case?.
If i tell my employer was not paid first 8 months will that be any problem?
And what are chances of get my GC.
Please help!
girlfriend Salma Hayek Profile:
cooldude0807
12-12 12:17 PM
How about Montgomery, so that folks from Mobile can also show up for the meet & it will be a good center point....
hairstyles salma hayek pictures
InTheMoment
07-11 10:37 PM
With all correct things said above: Yates Memo, Conditions of AC21 met (same/similar job, salary etc. 180+ days) and proof that you are regularly paid since joining the company (paystubs), EVL from new employer...
With all of the above supplied I can say from my own experience of joining a small company (50 employees) and submitting AC21 docs (to pre-empt any RFE - because I changed address and state of workplace; against my attorneys advise of waiting for an RFE) that it was the best thing I did. I had no RFE issued before I-485 approval.
So just send in the AC21 docs if you feel that there are redflags that may trigger an RFE for EVL (I-140 getting revoked, address change across state - diff from original employer, petition being very old)
With all of the above supplied I can say from my own experience of joining a small company (50 employees) and submitting AC21 docs (to pre-empt any RFE - because I changed address and state of workplace; against my attorneys advise of waiting for an RFE) that it was the best thing I did. I had no RFE issued before I-485 approval.
So just send in the AC21 docs if you feel that there are redflags that may trigger an RFE for EVL (I-140 getting revoked, address change across state - diff from original employer, petition being very old)
gcnotfiledyet
02-26 11:29 AM
http://hammondlawgroup.blogspot.com/
From this group it does not look like there is any rule followed by states as they follow CGFNS guidelines. It is just that USCIS has started using OOH for PTs. It looks like AILA will be filing something with USCIS.
My first question: you have been here for 5yrs on h1b then why did you not file green card under schedule A when it was current until Dec 2006? I am really surprised. You would have been on green card long time back. Actually I am even surprised that you did not go for masters even afer being here for 5years.
If there is any other way you can continue your presence in US then go for it. You just have to be patient for USCIS to start accepting what state boards accept while issuing licenses. If state boards do not mind foreign bachelors to practise PT then I don't understand why USCIS would care. I think its just another shot from USCIS to shoot immigrants out of this country.
Getting into masters of PT can't be that quick. Schools just don't accept students everyday. They have deadlines for every semester and there is so much paperwork including exams, evaluations, proof of funding etc etc. So do talk to lawyer for your options to stay here, talk to school on how to enroll in masters, if your spouse is on h1 then get onto h4 by filing cos. These are just my guesses. Again talk to lawyer for your options ASAP.
From this group it does not look like there is any rule followed by states as they follow CGFNS guidelines. It is just that USCIS has started using OOH for PTs. It looks like AILA will be filing something with USCIS.
My first question: you have been here for 5yrs on h1b then why did you not file green card under schedule A when it was current until Dec 2006? I am really surprised. You would have been on green card long time back. Actually I am even surprised that you did not go for masters even afer being here for 5years.
If there is any other way you can continue your presence in US then go for it. You just have to be patient for USCIS to start accepting what state boards accept while issuing licenses. If state boards do not mind foreign bachelors to practise PT then I don't understand why USCIS would care. I think its just another shot from USCIS to shoot immigrants out of this country.
Getting into masters of PT can't be that quick. Schools just don't accept students everyday. They have deadlines for every semester and there is so much paperwork including exams, evaluations, proof of funding etc etc. So do talk to lawyer for your options to stay here, talk to school on how to enroll in masters, if your spouse is on h1 then get onto h4 by filing cos. These are just my guesses. Again talk to lawyer for your options ASAP.
abhisam
07-09 11:59 AM
How are you saying you will not get it before september 10? I am not sure is it really taking beyond 2 months nowadays to get the EAD?
As per the processing dates, they are processing the applications recieved on March 17th,2008 at Nebraska.
I am hoping that I will recieve my approval before September 10th, but incase i dont..what are my options?
I know they approved many applications last month before the 30th june deadline but i guess they will go back to their slow procedures now.
As per the processing dates, they are processing the applications recieved on March 17th,2008 at Nebraska.
I am hoping that I will recieve my approval before September 10th, but incase i dont..what are my options?
I know they approved many applications last month before the 30th june deadline but i guess they will go back to their slow procedures now.
No comments:
Post a Comment