perm2gc
09-01 09:49 AM
I am in the process of changing job. The new employer is saying that I can start working with them from the very next day, after they file H1B transfer application. ie I don't have to wait for the receipt. Is this true? They are asking me to give 2 weeks notice immediately so that by the time they file H1B, 2 weeks will get over, and I can start there immediately.
Please reply its kind of urgent for me.
Thanks.
It is always good to wait until you get the Receipt Notice..You never know what will happen..Dont take Chances with USCIS..
Please reply its kind of urgent for me.
Thanks.
It is always good to wait until you get the Receipt Notice..You never know what will happen..Dont take Chances with USCIS..
wallpaper 1920*1440 Vista wallpaper
SGP
11-04 02:38 PM
anyone having inputs to the query below:
Adding to the scenario above, what if the old company (which got I-140 approval) agrees to continue the GC process? In that case, can't we apply for H1 extension with Company B using approved I-140 with Company A? After all, GC is a future employment application
In this scenario, you can apply for H1 extension with Company B using approved I140 of company A.
Adding to the scenario above, what if the old company (which got I-140 approval) agrees to continue the GC process? In that case, can't we apply for H1 extension with Company B using approved I-140 with Company A? After all, GC is a future employment application
In this scenario, you can apply for H1 extension with Company B using approved I140 of company A.
bijualex29
06-22 07:53 AM
I-485 can be rejected if filed with incomplete initial evidence.
Folks, it is the time for us to be more careful than even to make sure that our lawyer files I-485 correctly. With there mistake, we can really get screwed up. All they can say one word �Sorry�.
It happened to me while filing for H-1 extension, I got only one year extension, based on Labor pending whereas my I-140 was approved at that time, they refilled at no cost to me with 3 year extension.
Here in I-485, refilling will not be possible, since by the time we get the receipt notice, the date might have moved back already.
Folks, it is the time for us to be more careful than even to make sure that our lawyer files I-485 correctly. With there mistake, we can really get screwed up. All they can say one word �Sorry�.
It happened to me while filing for H-1 extension, I got only one year extension, based on Labor pending whereas my I-140 was approved at that time, they refilled at no cost to me with 3 year extension.
Here in I-485, refilling will not be possible, since by the time we get the receipt notice, the date might have moved back already.
2011 3D Wallpapers, Nature
raminmd
08-14 06:04 PM
Hi guys, thanks for the replies...that is a touch reassuring
I spoke to my lawyer. She said she was re-sending the app in today with a cover letter explaining the wrongful rejections. She said that if they still reject it, she will go through the liaison and try to get them to accept it. Is this standard procedure?
Secondly, on a different note, I am not sure who did it or why, someone gave me a red dot.
I spoke to my lawyer. She said she was re-sending the app in today with a cover letter explaining the wrongful rejections. She said that if they still reject it, she will go through the liaison and try to get them to accept it. Is this standard procedure?
Secondly, on a different note, I am not sure who did it or why, someone gave me a red dot.
more...
RDB
12-21 10:32 AM
A1. Yes, they will interview you together.
A2. It is NOT advisable to take the immigration attorney with you IF your case is clear, i.e. no out of status etc. When we went for the interview, the officer clearly told us that you did good by not having an attorney - they get annoyed by them :). As soon as he realized that we didn't have anybody representing us, he was way more relaxed than with other people who had representation.
A3. Yes, they can and will approve on the spot if they are satisfied with your answers!
A4. Yes, they can stamp the passport if they approve it - in my case, they approved it but couldn't stamp the passport because my PD was not current. He said, you will get the card as soon as your PD becomes current.
Just relax and take all the necessary documentation with you - and be absolutely confident in your answers. Oh, and btw, I was also promoted when we went for the interview and that doesn't make any difference - as long as you are employed (same company is better).
Hope this helps.
Hello Everybody,
My wife & I have our 485 interviews in January. Any advice is appreciated. Mine is a EB (EB- 2) petition. Our PD is April 2006. We filed for 485's in July 2007 and our 485's were transferred to National Benefits Center in 2008. I was promoted hence my title is different now from what was filed on the Labor application and job duties only changed a little bit. My petitioner is the same,
Couple of questions -
Will they interview my wife & I together ?
Is it advisable to take the immigration attorney with us for the interview.?
Can the IO approve the case on the spot.?
Can IO stamp the passport since my PD is current.?
If somebody can direct me to any recent experiences for folks who did have interviews - that would be really helpful.
Thanks!
Ritesh
A2. It is NOT advisable to take the immigration attorney with you IF your case is clear, i.e. no out of status etc. When we went for the interview, the officer clearly told us that you did good by not having an attorney - they get annoyed by them :). As soon as he realized that we didn't have anybody representing us, he was way more relaxed than with other people who had representation.
A3. Yes, they can and will approve on the spot if they are satisfied with your answers!
A4. Yes, they can stamp the passport if they approve it - in my case, they approved it but couldn't stamp the passport because my PD was not current. He said, you will get the card as soon as your PD becomes current.
Just relax and take all the necessary documentation with you - and be absolutely confident in your answers. Oh, and btw, I was also promoted when we went for the interview and that doesn't make any difference - as long as you are employed (same company is better).
Hope this helps.
Hello Everybody,
My wife & I have our 485 interviews in January. Any advice is appreciated. Mine is a EB (EB- 2) petition. Our PD is April 2006. We filed for 485's in July 2007 and our 485's were transferred to National Benefits Center in 2008. I was promoted hence my title is different now from what was filed on the Labor application and job duties only changed a little bit. My petitioner is the same,
Couple of questions -
Will they interview my wife & I together ?
Is it advisable to take the immigration attorney with us for the interview.?
Can the IO approve the case on the spot.?
Can IO stamp the passport since my PD is current.?
If somebody can direct me to any recent experiences for folks who did have interviews - that would be really helpful.
Thanks!
Ritesh
Cloakendagger
06-15 12:36 PM
Also you could shoot up the small band market. Thats how I got started. I was managing bands then they asked me to build their websites. Go to a local club or venue on local band night and hand out your card.
The nice thing about bands is that are willing to push the limites on what one can do with flash and webdesign in general.
Cloak
The nice thing about bands is that are willing to push the limites on what one can do with flash and webdesign in general.
Cloak
more...
Saralayar
07-08 07:09 PM
Depends on what you are looking for and what your priorities are:
1) Ask what work you will get? Ask to speak with the team members of the team you will work with and get your role clarified.
2) compensation. How much $$$$ they are paying more wrt current position or wrt other offers you may have in recent future.
3) As someone said correctly, get to know the work culture and the team make sure you don't end up being chained to work.
The advantage is that you can rise quickly (not much competition) & stable job.
So see whats important for you.
Guys, this forum is not the place to discuss about individual companies. If you have any questions related to immigration to US, you can start a thread for it.
Administrator, please delete this thread.
1) Ask what work you will get? Ask to speak with the team members of the team you will work with and get your role clarified.
2) compensation. How much $$$$ they are paying more wrt current position or wrt other offers you may have in recent future.
3) As someone said correctly, get to know the work culture and the team make sure you don't end up being chained to work.
The advantage is that you can rise quickly (not much competition) & stable job.
So see whats important for you.
Guys, this forum is not the place to discuss about individual companies. If you have any questions related to immigration to US, you can start a thread for it.
Administrator, please delete this thread.
2010 Vista plant - drop, forest,
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
more...
payur
08-09 01:45 PM
It is your passport number
See his/her post, this is the first post. If you are not sure why confuse others, you can always say that you are not sure, why on earth did you think it was passport number?:eek:
See his/her post, this is the first post. If you are not sure why confuse others, you can always say that you are not sure, why on earth did you think it was passport number?:eek:
hair Best Nature Wallpapers Images
skark
03-18 11:55 AM
I just noticed in I-765 that if you are applying for EAD renewal then they need you to send your current Employment authorization document! Did anyone that applied for EAD renewal send their EAD card with their application. I'm concerned because if one is working on EAD and needs to send this document 120 days prior for the renewal process and does not get the new EAD for couple months, what proof does one have on work authorization?
I dont want to apply online as I dont want to go for biometrics (FP) again for EAD!
I dont want to apply online as I dont want to go for biometrics (FP) again for EAD!
more...
.jpg "Nature Vista Style Wallpapers")
Blog Feeds
08-08 09:30 AM
These are fun and hot summer days for us Immigration lawyers filing H1B cases (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html). As employers are starting to hire again, we are faced with the challenges of the new Labor Condition Application System, iCert.
The Labor Condition Application is a document which must be certified by the US Department of Labour and it an integral part in the H-1B applications. This document details the terms and conditions of employment, details of the employer, the work profile, rate of salary, prevailing salary (it means the lowest salary that can be paid to a h-1b visa holder) and the location where the h-1b holder will work. As of July 1, 2009 all LCA applications must be done via the icert system (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
In the past week or so many LCA cases came back with denial notices. The notices had the following language:
Reason for Denial: Section C.12 of this application contains an obvious inaccuracy. The Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) value entered in Section C.12 of the ETA Form 9035E could not be verified by the CNPC as a valid nine-digit FEIN assigned by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In order for the employer to overcome the issue identified on the denial determination for any future LCAs submitted using this exact FEINThe solution according to AILA for correcting an LCA denial when DOL states it cannot verify the FEIN is to provide FEIN documentation to the LCA Helpdesk in Chicago. This morning, DOL revised the FEIN-based iCERT denial notice, and it contains information on what documents to send via email to DOL or by fax. We hope this will resolve the problem and the unnecessary delays as the system takes almost a week to process a regular case. We will keep you posted.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html)
The Labor Condition Application is a document which must be certified by the US Department of Labour and it an integral part in the H-1B applications. This document details the terms and conditions of employment, details of the employer, the work profile, rate of salary, prevailing salary (it means the lowest salary that can be paid to a h-1b visa holder) and the location where the h-1b holder will work. As of July 1, 2009 all LCA applications must be done via the icert system (http://icert.doleta.gov/)
In the past week or so many LCA cases came back with denial notices. The notices had the following language:
Reason for Denial: Section C.12 of this application contains an obvious inaccuracy. The Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) value entered in Section C.12 of the ETA Form 9035E could not be verified by the CNPC as a valid nine-digit FEIN assigned by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In order for the employer to overcome the issue identified on the denial determination for any future LCAs submitted using this exact FEINThe solution according to AILA for correcting an LCA denial when DOL states it cannot verify the FEIN is to provide FEIN documentation to the LCA Helpdesk in Chicago. This morning, DOL revised the FEIN-based iCERT denial notice, and it contains information on what documents to send via email to DOL or by fax. We hope this will resolve the problem and the unnecessary delays as the system takes almost a week to process a regular case. We will keep you posted.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html)
hot Windows Vista wallpapers,
immiusa
09-09 10:27 AM
I agree that TANA & ATA are big organizations. But their focus is entertainment. And I heard that there is a lot of corruption. There are some allegations that people spend lot of money to become the president(or some other highest post). Who ever is competing for the highest post, they spend lot of money towards new membership program. they register all new members and ask them to vote for them. This happens just before the elections for the post. I do not think, people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for new member registration with out expecting some thing back. Probably, there may be lot of corruption involved. I do not think, it is good idea of joining such kind of organizations. More over, there may be more organizations for each indian language in USA. Are we going to attach with all of them?
This is my opinion. If you do not like, you can remove it.
This is my opinion. If you do not like, you can remove it.
more...
house Natural vista wallpaper 3
Polk1848
06-13 11:16 AM
IV core shud approach republicans who are saying no amnesty to law breakers.
Let us approach them and convince them to bring amendments to reward law abiding people like us.
Americans want immigrants like yourself who follow the rules and contribute to American society; it is our valued tradition. What we don't want is illegals walking all over our laws. The illegals hurt lawfull immigrants. I married an immigrant who followed the rules, she's very bitter over the way this country is pandering to the Hispanic Reconquista crowd. Americans don't want the amnesty, but the government is pushing for it. Legal immigrants and applicants, IMO, should stand up and be heard to fight anmesty as well.
Let us approach them and convince them to bring amendments to reward law abiding people like us.
Americans want immigrants like yourself who follow the rules and contribute to American society; it is our valued tradition. What we don't want is illegals walking all over our laws. The illegals hurt lawfull immigrants. I married an immigrant who followed the rules, she's very bitter over the way this country is pandering to the Hispanic Reconquista crowd. Americans don't want the amnesty, but the government is pushing for it. Legal immigrants and applicants, IMO, should stand up and be heard to fight anmesty as well.
tattoo Nature Wallpapers, Vista
.jpg "wallpaper vista nature.")
SunnySurya
07-13 11:56 AM
Folks,
Please advise if you have any knowledge on the issue. Also, I am aware that I will need to take a good lawyer advise on this but what I am looking for is your take.
Background:
During July'07 fiasco I was able to submit my first 485 application on the 07/02/07 itself. Because of the volume of applications received, USICS was taking a long time to issue receipts. Since we all were hearing stories of applications getting lost or returned or denied for no explicit reasons and I was afraid that this window of opportunity may not open for a very long time, I decided to re-file my 485 application based on the same I-140 on Aug 10th, just days before the window closing. Both applications were filed at Nebraska Service Center.
In September 2007 USCIS issued me the receipt notice for the first application. So I decided to put a stop payment on the second application, in the hope that my second application will be rejected without prejudice. That did not happen. I got a letter from USICS threatening me to adversely affect all my future 485 applications. So I paid. A different A# was issued to me for my second application. (So I have two A#s now) Also, per their website, my receipt date for the second application is the date they received the corrected payment, which is some time in late November.
Now, my priority date is current. I am thinking of taking one of the following actions. Please advise, what should be an appropriate course of action.
a) Do Nothing as I might get my first 485 will adjudicated before they start working on the second application, whose receipt date is sometime in November.
b) Send a letter to USICS requesting them to withdraw my application (Please advise what reason should I state)
I am afraid to choose option 2 as they might send my application for some sort of reconciliation.
Thanks
Sunny
Please advise if you have any knowledge on the issue. Also, I am aware that I will need to take a good lawyer advise on this but what I am looking for is your take.
Background:
During July'07 fiasco I was able to submit my first 485 application on the 07/02/07 itself. Because of the volume of applications received, USICS was taking a long time to issue receipts. Since we all were hearing stories of applications getting lost or returned or denied for no explicit reasons and I was afraid that this window of opportunity may not open for a very long time, I decided to re-file my 485 application based on the same I-140 on Aug 10th, just days before the window closing. Both applications were filed at Nebraska Service Center.
In September 2007 USCIS issued me the receipt notice for the first application. So I decided to put a stop payment on the second application, in the hope that my second application will be rejected without prejudice. That did not happen. I got a letter from USICS threatening me to adversely affect all my future 485 applications. So I paid. A different A# was issued to me for my second application. (So I have two A#s now) Also, per their website, my receipt date for the second application is the date they received the corrected payment, which is some time in late November.
Now, my priority date is current. I am thinking of taking one of the following actions. Please advise, what should be an appropriate course of action.
a) Do Nothing as I might get my first 485 will adjudicated before they start working on the second application, whose receipt date is sometime in November.
b) Send a letter to USICS requesting them to withdraw my application (Please advise what reason should I state)
I am afraid to choose option 2 as they might send my application for some sort of reconciliation.
Thanks
Sunny
more...
pictures Nature Wallpapers, Vista
abhijitp
07-17 06:25 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletinUpdate17Jul07.pdf
dresses Evolution of Nature - Vista
Bimmer740i
07-21 09:54 PM
Yes you can.
My previous H-1B expired on 06/17 and I applied my AOS on July 2nd. After I sent the AOS, I got my H-1B approved for 3 years. My lawyer told me that they will have to send it in the future if there is an RFE.
My previous H-1B expired on 06/17 and I applied my AOS on July 2nd. After I sent the AOS, I got my H-1B approved for 3 years. My lawyer told me that they will have to send it in the future if there is an RFE.
more...
makeup Resolution Vista Wallpaper
vinabath
07-02 03:48 PM
You decided to marry a girl because your PD was current, married her and promised her you would get her an EAD in 3 months...and you did all this in 2 weeks ???
Man! You are fast!
Actually I was slow. The God(USCIS) made me fast.
Man! You are fast!
Actually I was slow. The God(USCIS) made me fast.
girlfriend wallpaper vista nature.
kanshul
05-07 08:56 PM
I used AC21 3 months ago and filled the paperwork with USCIS. No RFE yet but I would not care if I get an RFE as well...
I think it is best to notify USCIS. I hired Murthy and I don't think they are doing this just to get money. If your case gets messed u say 3-4 yeare later and you end up taking UCSIS in court then this paperwork (which USCIS will most probably do nothing with) will be very helpful.
I think it is best to notify USCIS. I hired Murthy and I don't think they are doing this just to get money. If your case gets messed u say 3-4 yeare later and you end up taking UCSIS in court then this paperwork (which USCIS will most probably do nothing with) will be very helpful.
hairstyles Nature Vista Style Wallpapers
amitga
10-21 04:14 PM
Reviewed by whom? Its not going anywhere.
chanduv23
09-04 10:41 PM
My apologies for those who signed for this event. This has been called off. A decision was made by Chapter volunteers in the Tri State Conference call tonight.
THANKS FOR THE UNDERSTANDING
THANKS FOR THE UNDERSTANDING
LC2002
04-14 11:05 AM
it is nice to see people with older priority dates are getting approved. At least USCIS is working in proper order rather than in wild pattern
If USCIS would have been working in proper order, I should have got approval long ago as my PD had been current for more than a year. Anyway this is over can't complain. Good luck for all those waiting.
If USCIS would have been working in proper order, I should have got approval long ago as my PD had been current for more than a year. Anyway this is over can't complain. Good luck for all those waiting.
No comments:
Post a Comment