gssh
07-18 10:47 AM
CORE team has done an excellent job. Keep it up.
wallpaper Sienna Miller and Rhys Ifans
sriharirag
07-16 10:47 AM
Here is the full article.
>>>>>>>>>>>
U.S. to Reverse
Some Denials
Of Work Visas
By MIRIAM JORDAN
July 16, 2007; Page A2
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
Tens of thousands of skilled workers, many of them in the U.S. on temporary H1B visas, responded to an official invitation, in a June 12 "visa bulletin" issued by the State Department, to take the final step in July toward attaining U.S. permanent residency. That sent workers, their families and their employers scrambling to compile paperwork and meet other requirements such as medical exams. Normally, eligible employment-sponsored workers wait years for their numbers to be called.
Then, July 2, as applications poured into processing centers, the State Department announced in a bulletin "update" that no employment-based immigrant visas were left for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 because of "sudden backlog reduction" by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS announced it would reject applications that it received.
People familiar with the situation say that officials are working out the final details of a plan that would at least partially rectify the problem.
It isn't clear, however, whether the immigration agency will now accept all applications and process them later, accept only those that have arrived, or come up with some other approach.
The July 2 decision provoked outrage among immigration lawyers, foreign workers and their employers. July 5, Microsoft Corp. announced that it plans soon to open a software-development center in Vancouver, Canada, with a view to "recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." The announcement sent a clear signal to the government of the high-tech industry's dissatisfaction with the visa situation.
July 6, a large Chicago immigration law firm filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the government. Separately, the American Immigration Law Foundation, a nonprofit group, said it will file this week its own suit seeking class-action status.
Meanwhile, disgruntled green-card applicants cried foul, saying they had been unfairly treated by the government despite playing by the rules.
July 10, they registered their disappointment at the immigration system by dispatching hundreds of flower bouquets to the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief Emilio Gonzalez.
The next day, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes Silicon Valley, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff requesting "all correspondence, emails, memoranda, notes, field guidance or other documentation" leading to the immigration system's about-face July 2.
The problem may have resulted from a communications breakdown between the State Department, which issues a monthly bulletin detailing who is eligible to file a green-card application, and USCIS, which processes the visa applications. The State Department has said that its role is to ensure that every visa slot available is used. In the past, however, the immigration agency has failed to use all of the slots.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
U.S. to Reverse
Some Denials
Of Work Visas
By MIRIAM JORDAN
July 16, 2007; Page A2
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
Tens of thousands of skilled workers, many of them in the U.S. on temporary H1B visas, responded to an official invitation, in a June 12 "visa bulletin" issued by the State Department, to take the final step in July toward attaining U.S. permanent residency. That sent workers, their families and their employers scrambling to compile paperwork and meet other requirements such as medical exams. Normally, eligible employment-sponsored workers wait years for their numbers to be called.
Then, July 2, as applications poured into processing centers, the State Department announced in a bulletin "update" that no employment-based immigrant visas were left for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 because of "sudden backlog reduction" by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. USCIS announced it would reject applications that it received.
People familiar with the situation say that officials are working out the final details of a plan that would at least partially rectify the problem.
It isn't clear, however, whether the immigration agency will now accept all applications and process them later, accept only those that have arrived, or come up with some other approach.
The July 2 decision provoked outrage among immigration lawyers, foreign workers and their employers. July 5, Microsoft Corp. announced that it plans soon to open a software-development center in Vancouver, Canada, with a view to "recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." The announcement sent a clear signal to the government of the high-tech industry's dissatisfaction with the visa situation.
July 6, a large Chicago immigration law firm filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against the government. Separately, the American Immigration Law Foundation, a nonprofit group, said it will file this week its own suit seeking class-action status.
Meanwhile, disgruntled green-card applicants cried foul, saying they had been unfairly treated by the government despite playing by the rules.
July 10, they registered their disappointment at the immigration system by dispatching hundreds of flower bouquets to the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief Emilio Gonzalez.
The next day, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), whose district includes Silicon Valley, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff requesting "all correspondence, emails, memoranda, notes, field guidance or other documentation" leading to the immigration system's about-face July 2.
The problem may have resulted from a communications breakdown between the State Department, which issues a monthly bulletin detailing who is eligible to file a green-card application, and USCIS, which processes the visa applications. The State Department has said that its role is to ensure that every visa slot available is used. In the past, however, the immigration agency has failed to use all of the slots.
Write to Miriam Jordan at miriam.jordan@wsj.com
cbpds
12-09 01:25 PM
Well its just wasting GC numbers as this person is leaving US anyways, why GC???
I have seen many people leave US after once they get their GC, how stupid is that?
i have not come across any success stories of USCIS to CP move.
Also, i am not sure if the company must keep an empty chair for you..till you complete the CP process.
I was told that as long as the firm can give a letter stating that the job will be offered once you get ur GC..that should be good enough.
you are venturing into the unknown jungles....;-) ..best of luck
I have seen many people leave US after once they get their GC, how stupid is that?
i have not come across any success stories of USCIS to CP move.
Also, i am not sure if the company must keep an empty chair for you..till you complete the CP process.
I was told that as long as the firm can give a letter stating that the job will be offered once you get ur GC..that should be good enough.
you are venturing into the unknown jungles....;-) ..best of luck
2011 photo of Sienna Miller
Fugu
01-11 04:19 PM
I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to my questions.
My husband and I are British, not sure if that slows things up or down :)
Thanks again for all your help.
My husband and I are British, not sure if that slows things up or down :)
Thanks again for all your help.
more...
harivenkat
05-05 12:16 PM
Immigration bill would bring Arizona-style law to Pa. - Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_15017379)
Rep. Scott Perry supports a proposal that would give police the power the check immigration status. An immigration lawyer said its overly simple.
By JEFF FRANTZ
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 05/04/2010 10:43:28 PM MDT
A state representative proposed legislation Tuesday -- backed by several local lawmakers -- that was inspired by a controversial law passed last week in Arizona to combat illegal immigration.
If passed, the bill by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, would charge local law enforcement with checking immigration status, investigating businesses suspected of knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring businesses to verify a potential employee's legal status.
The proposal came a day after state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a bill in direct opposition to Arizona's law.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, supports Metcalfe's effort and said he will likely join as bill co-sponsor.
The federal government has failed to enforce the nation's immigration laws, Perry said, which is now forcing states to act because illegal immigration fosters crime, lowers wages and puts an added burden on taxpayers.
"What do we gain having cheaper tomatoes in the short term to sell out our security and sovereignty in the long term?" Perry said.
Both Perry and Metcalfe said the proposal doesn't target any one ethnic or immigrant group.
Jos� Colon, president of the board for the Centro Hispano Jos� Hern�ndez, said much of York's Hispanic community agrees too many illegal immigrants abuse the system. He said he supports people stopped for violating the law having to prove who they are, saying it only makes sense in an age of terror.
But Colon said the necessary immigration laws already exist, and the federal government needs to better enforce them. The federal government is more equipped to properly deal with the issue than states or municipalities, he said.
Colon was also bothered by the rhetoric Metcalfe used introducing his proposal, when he spoke of murders and rapists. The vast majority of people here illegally came to work, Colon said, and it makes it harder to have the serious, necessary discussion of the issue with such inflamed rhetoric. And, he added, such talk could create friction between the Hispanic community and others.
Craig Trebilcock, a local immigration attorney, said the federal government has failed to create a working immigration policy.
But Metcalfe's policy is "still ridiculous," Trebilcock said. "The people pressing these laws don't understand how complex it is to determine the immigration status of someone."
There are 42 types of visas, Trebilcock said, and that's before counting those granted asylum and others. Local law enforcement, no matter how well meaning, are not trained or equipped to become primary immigration enforcement officers, Trebilcock said.
"You'll end up with a bunch of lawsuits," Trebilcock said. "A bunch of municipalities getting sued because of the thousands of people getting stopped, there's going to be a couple problems."
Instead, he said, the law will discourage legal immigrants -- doctors, scientists, laborers, students -- that the country needs from every coming here.
About the bill
If passed, House Bill 2479, would:
# Require an employer to verify a prospective employee's immigration status. Lying about immigration status would be a second-degree misdemeanor.
# Require a law enforcement officer to verify a person's immigration status if the officer reasonably suspects that a person legally stopped, detained or arrested is in the country illegally. An officer could not inquire about people's immigration status if they were not first stopped for another offense.
# Require county district attorneys to investigate companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Companies caught knowingly doing so could lose access to state grants and their licenses to operate.
# Create a third-degree felony for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens into Pennsylvania. Police would be able to impound smugglers' vehicles.
According to the office of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, Ron Miller , R-Jacobus; Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County; and Seth Grove , R-Dover Township, are co-sponsors. Rep. Scott Perry has said he will likely also be a co-sponsor.
Click here to read the full proposal.
Political outlook
In 2007, state Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Scott Perry were part of a group that introduced a series of bills that would have changed some of Pennsylvania's immigration laws. Those never made it out of committee.
Metcalfe said Tuesday his proposal has bipartisan support but is not likely to receive much support from House Democratic leadership or Gov. Ed Rendell. However, he said, with a budget fight looming and representatives up for election in November, there could be an opportunity to muster the political will necessary for passage.
But Metcalfe's bill isn't the only piece of immigration legislation now in Harrisburg.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a proposal that would reinforce current laws and, in the event of future changes to federal law, stop local law enforcement to serve as immigration officers.
"It is very important that we make it clear that Pennsylvania does not support racial profiling," Leach said.
Rep. Scott Perry supports a proposal that would give police the power the check immigration status. An immigration lawyer said its overly simple.
By JEFF FRANTZ
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 05/04/2010 10:43:28 PM MDT
A state representative proposed legislation Tuesday -- backed by several local lawmakers -- that was inspired by a controversial law passed last week in Arizona to combat illegal immigration.
If passed, the bill by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, would charge local law enforcement with checking immigration status, investigating businesses suspected of knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring businesses to verify a potential employee's legal status.
The proposal came a day after state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a bill in direct opposition to Arizona's law.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, supports Metcalfe's effort and said he will likely join as bill co-sponsor.
The federal government has failed to enforce the nation's immigration laws, Perry said, which is now forcing states to act because illegal immigration fosters crime, lowers wages and puts an added burden on taxpayers.
"What do we gain having cheaper tomatoes in the short term to sell out our security and sovereignty in the long term?" Perry said.
Both Perry and Metcalfe said the proposal doesn't target any one ethnic or immigrant group.
Jos� Colon, president of the board for the Centro Hispano Jos� Hern�ndez, said much of York's Hispanic community agrees too many illegal immigrants abuse the system. He said he supports people stopped for violating the law having to prove who they are, saying it only makes sense in an age of terror.
But Colon said the necessary immigration laws already exist, and the federal government needs to better enforce them. The federal government is more equipped to properly deal with the issue than states or municipalities, he said.
Colon was also bothered by the rhetoric Metcalfe used introducing his proposal, when he spoke of murders and rapists. The vast majority of people here illegally came to work, Colon said, and it makes it harder to have the serious, necessary discussion of the issue with such inflamed rhetoric. And, he added, such talk could create friction between the Hispanic community and others.
Craig Trebilcock, a local immigration attorney, said the federal government has failed to create a working immigration policy.
But Metcalfe's policy is "still ridiculous," Trebilcock said. "The people pressing these laws don't understand how complex it is to determine the immigration status of someone."
There are 42 types of visas, Trebilcock said, and that's before counting those granted asylum and others. Local law enforcement, no matter how well meaning, are not trained or equipped to become primary immigration enforcement officers, Trebilcock said.
"You'll end up with a bunch of lawsuits," Trebilcock said. "A bunch of municipalities getting sued because of the thousands of people getting stopped, there's going to be a couple problems."
Instead, he said, the law will discourage legal immigrants -- doctors, scientists, laborers, students -- that the country needs from every coming here.
About the bill
If passed, House Bill 2479, would:
# Require an employer to verify a prospective employee's immigration status. Lying about immigration status would be a second-degree misdemeanor.
# Require a law enforcement officer to verify a person's immigration status if the officer reasonably suspects that a person legally stopped, detained or arrested is in the country illegally. An officer could not inquire about people's immigration status if they were not first stopped for another offense.
# Require county district attorneys to investigate companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Companies caught knowingly doing so could lose access to state grants and their licenses to operate.
# Create a third-degree felony for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens into Pennsylvania. Police would be able to impound smugglers' vehicles.
According to the office of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, Ron Miller , R-Jacobus; Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County; and Seth Grove , R-Dover Township, are co-sponsors. Rep. Scott Perry has said he will likely also be a co-sponsor.
Click here to read the full proposal.
Political outlook
In 2007, state Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Scott Perry were part of a group that introduced a series of bills that would have changed some of Pennsylvania's immigration laws. Those never made it out of committee.
Metcalfe said Tuesday his proposal has bipartisan support but is not likely to receive much support from House Democratic leadership or Gov. Ed Rendell. However, he said, with a budget fight looming and representatives up for election in November, there could be an opportunity to muster the political will necessary for passage.
But Metcalfe's bill isn't the only piece of immigration legislation now in Harrisburg.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a proposal that would reinforce current laws and, in the event of future changes to federal law, stop local law enforcement to serve as immigration officers.
"It is very important that we make it clear that Pennsylvania does not support racial profiling," Leach said.
Administrator2
01-20 02:02 PM
This looks great.....good work.
However, it looks like the reputation button is not working right. :)
Thanks Saralayar! A lot of members helped to make this change. Ideas and effort from a large number of members were pooled in. Special Thanks to coopheal for working on the wiki. That was awesome work.
Hi! Ennada,
We tested again and the Reputation button is working fine. We have disabled the reputation messages. Please let us know what is not working with the reputation button and we will fix it.
Thanks,
However, it looks like the reputation button is not working right. :)
Thanks Saralayar! A lot of members helped to make this change. Ideas and effort from a large number of members were pooled in. Special Thanks to coopheal for working on the wiki. That was awesome work.
Hi! Ennada,
We tested again and the Reputation button is working fine. We have disabled the reputation messages. Please let us know what is not working with the reputation button and we will fix it.
Thanks,
more...
redcard
07-16 09:27 PM
Today, I spoke to a USCI Agent and his supervisor at NSC about my case..
I quizzed them about July 2007 revised visa bulletin etc.
He looked around, checked it for like 10 minutes and said HE DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MEMO. All he said that he has this MEMO which states that July 2007 (original) bulletin ..based on that EB1-3 for all countries are current.
:-) May be NSC approves application :-) as practically NO ONE can stop them..
Again this is based on my call to actual live human being at NSC..
I doubt this very much to be true...in case it is.. USCIS has a big problem in their hands.. they really need to clean up the house.. before the shi** hits the roof..
I quizzed them about July 2007 revised visa bulletin etc.
He looked around, checked it for like 10 minutes and said HE DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MEMO. All he said that he has this MEMO which states that July 2007 (original) bulletin ..based on that EB1-3 for all countries are current.
:-) May be NSC approves application :-) as practically NO ONE can stop them..
Again this is based on my call to actual live human being at NSC..
I doubt this very much to be true...in case it is.. USCIS has a big problem in their hands.. they really need to clean up the house.. before the shi** hits the roof..
2010 Sienna Miller, promoting the
YesWeWillGet
09-23 08:13 PM
First of all thanks for your valuable feedback.
FYI: I am a derivative I-485 applicant (my spouce is a primary 485 applicant).
So, Did you mean I can join an employer on EAD and file for green card processing (labor cert, 140, and 485) as a primary applicant with my prospective employer?
Thanks,
FYI: I am a derivative I-485 applicant (my spouce is a primary 485 applicant).
So, Did you mean I can join an employer on EAD and file for green card processing (labor cert, 140, and 485) as a primary applicant with my prospective employer?
Thanks,
more...
quizzer
11-16 01:03 PM
Hi Raj
If ur case is pending more than 30days from the processing time shown on there website ur lawyer or employer can open a service request(SR).they will send u the decision usually within30days from the date of SR.
Quizzer rd is dec2006 EB2. But there site shows they r processing feb2007 case so after 30 days his lawyer opened a SR and got response that what he meant.
Sunny is right.
The approval came after 27 days of opening the SR.
If ur case is pending more than 30days from the processing time shown on there website ur lawyer or employer can open a service request(SR).they will send u the decision usually within30days from the date of SR.
Quizzer rd is dec2006 EB2. But there site shows they r processing feb2007 case so after 30 days his lawyer opened a SR and got response that what he meant.
Sunny is right.
The approval came after 27 days of opening the SR.
hair Sienna Miller (Pic:Getty)
royus77
07-10 12:02 PM
Why AILA not suing State Dept. or USCIS for other issues... read a letter posted by someone in a forum
To AILF/AILA,
I appreciate your effort in filing lawsuit on behalf of July I-485 filers.
There are several critics on your July I-485 lawsuit. They criticize that you are doing for the benefit of your members (AILA). Definitely, your members will be benefited by huge amount of legal fees. Also, the critic says it is waste of time.
Even one of your reputed member (Rajiv Khanna @ immigration.com) posted in his website that chance of winning the law suit is very minimum.
He posted in his website as follows: "Please note folks, I don�t think this class will be easily approved by courts. CIS could argue a lot of things against it, which I don�t wish to publish in an open forum."
Why you cannot sue for the people who struck at Consulate due to administrative process without probable cause.
Several of them working in U.S (they have proof of employment, pay stubs, worked in the U.S on H1B visa for many years) just went to their home country for short vacation and applied for visa; they have rented house in the U.S and unable to break the lease; unable to pay car dues; their U.S citizen children also held overseas; they are loosing their jobs. State department is holding these visa application for more than a year in several cases.
What steps AILA has taken in this issue. If not, why you are not aware of this issue or why you are not giving importance. Do you think this issue will not bring such a huge legal fee like I-485 lawsuit?
Do you have the number of people who held like that ?Most of the people are struck because of the Name Check which USCIS cannt also do any thing because of security .
VB fiasco was done due to the mis communication between DOS and USCIS and it effected nearly 700k people ..thats the reason .No body is paying AILA for the 485 lawsuit
To AILF/AILA,
I appreciate your effort in filing lawsuit on behalf of July I-485 filers.
There are several critics on your July I-485 lawsuit. They criticize that you are doing for the benefit of your members (AILA). Definitely, your members will be benefited by huge amount of legal fees. Also, the critic says it is waste of time.
Even one of your reputed member (Rajiv Khanna @ immigration.com) posted in his website that chance of winning the law suit is very minimum.
He posted in his website as follows: "Please note folks, I don�t think this class will be easily approved by courts. CIS could argue a lot of things against it, which I don�t wish to publish in an open forum."
Why you cannot sue for the people who struck at Consulate due to administrative process without probable cause.
Several of them working in U.S (they have proof of employment, pay stubs, worked in the U.S on H1B visa for many years) just went to their home country for short vacation and applied for visa; they have rented house in the U.S and unable to break the lease; unable to pay car dues; their U.S citizen children also held overseas; they are loosing their jobs. State department is holding these visa application for more than a year in several cases.
What steps AILA has taken in this issue. If not, why you are not aware of this issue or why you are not giving importance. Do you think this issue will not bring such a huge legal fee like I-485 lawsuit?
Do you have the number of people who held like that ?Most of the people are struck because of the Name Check which USCIS cannt also do any thing because of security .
VB fiasco was done due to the mis communication between DOS and USCIS and it effected nearly 700k people ..thats the reason .No body is paying AILA for the 485 lawsuit
more...
jasmin45
07-16 07:01 PM
It was worth a try. Oh well !
Its a crime to influence someone at position to have access to information systems and distribute the data without written permission from the organization.
Both the parties can be prosecuted for this crime..you for soliciting the information for which you have no authority to receive except following proper protocol
Its a crime to influence someone at position to have access to information systems and distribute the data without written permission from the organization.
Both the parties can be prosecuted for this crime..you for soliciting the information for which you have no authority to receive except following proper protocol
hot Scared: Sienna Miller said she
nchendica
06-27 07:32 PM
Good house keeping. Keep it up.
Hopefully there wont be any answer for you guys. People are waiting in line for years and you guys cut short with sub labor. Good keep it up.
Hopefully there wont be any answer for you guys. People are waiting in line for years and you guys cut short with sub labor. Good keep it up.
more...
house Sienna Rose Miller (born 28
larmani
08-13 11:35 PM
I am also in the same boat.
I have an earlier approved I-140 from my previous company (PD : 30 Nov 2005). In addition, I also have an approved I-140 from my current company (PD: 27 March 2007). However, my latest I-140 still shows the priority
date of 27 March, 2007. As My old priority date is current, my attorney sent a letter to TSC requesting for recapture of my previous priority date. But, TSC sent a reply back saying that we should contact National
Service Center. HUG..!!
Did any one in the similar situation? How did you resolve?
Appreciate your help.
I have an earlier approved I-140 from my previous company (PD : 30 Nov 2005). In addition, I also have an approved I-140 from my current company (PD: 27 March 2007). However, my latest I-140 still shows the priority
date of 27 March, 2007. As My old priority date is current, my attorney sent a letter to TSC requesting for recapture of my previous priority date. But, TSC sent a reply back saying that we should contact National
Service Center. HUG..!!
Did any one in the similar situation? How did you resolve?
Appreciate your help.
tattoo Sienna Miller - Environmental
eb3_nepa
07-18 11:13 AM
Ok then i volunteer to bump this thread :) Only problem is that still will not push thid topic way up.
There was a suggestion to send flowers to the core team, let us instead send donations. I am SURE that the core team needs contributions more than flowers.
Howzzat about the $5 contribution suggestion, with each contribution we lose some percentage as taxes and feees. I am not saying we contribute $10 EVERY month, but can the members not make a ONE TIME contribution of TEN DOLLARS?
There was a suggestion to send flowers to the core team, let us instead send donations. I am SURE that the core team needs contributions more than flowers.
Howzzat about the $5 contribution suggestion, with each contribution we lose some percentage as taxes and feees. I am not saying we contribute $10 EVERY month, but can the members not make a ONE TIME contribution of TEN DOLLARS?
more...
pictures sienna miller gi joe. sienna
amenon
05-01 05:38 PM
Hi,
Note: I have already posted this on the "Ask an attorney" forum, but I would also like some input from the experts here.
Thanks.
Onto the issue:
My wife(on H4, no 485 filed) is going to be out of the US for the next couple of months and I need to know the effect of my 485 PD becoming current (and approved) during this time. The following are the details of the situation.
My 485 is pending with a PD of Dec 06 and I am on an H1B visa. The 485 was filed before I got married, so my wife is currently on an H4 and has not been able to file her I485. She will be traveling outside the US for the next couple of months. From the visa bulletins I have been seeing over the last couple of months, it looks like there is a slim chance that my PD will be current.
One of the options as I understand is that she could travel back as soon as the PD's are announced and if we know that the PD will be current in the next month. At this point she could file her I485.
My question is about what the options are if she is unable to make it back to the US in time. i.e. she is outside the US and my I485 is approved which means she cannot travel back on the H4 (as its not valid). What are the timelines we will have to deal with if she has to stay outside the US to have her I485 equivalent filed through a consulate? Is there anyway she can travel to the US once my 485 is approved?
Thanks.
Note: I have already posted this on the "Ask an attorney" forum, but I would also like some input from the experts here.
Thanks.
Onto the issue:
My wife(on H4, no 485 filed) is going to be out of the US for the next couple of months and I need to know the effect of my 485 PD becoming current (and approved) during this time. The following are the details of the situation.
My 485 is pending with a PD of Dec 06 and I am on an H1B visa. The 485 was filed before I got married, so my wife is currently on an H4 and has not been able to file her I485. She will be traveling outside the US for the next couple of months. From the visa bulletins I have been seeing over the last couple of months, it looks like there is a slim chance that my PD will be current.
One of the options as I understand is that she could travel back as soon as the PD's are announced and if we know that the PD will be current in the next month. At this point she could file her I485.
My question is about what the options are if she is unable to make it back to the US in time. i.e. she is outside the US and my I485 is approved which means she cannot travel back on the H4 (as its not valid). What are the timelines we will have to deal with if she has to stay outside the US to have her I485 equivalent filed through a consulate? Is there anyway she can travel to the US once my 485 is approved?
Thanks.
dresses Sienna Miller sorry for her
JunRN
12-17 06:57 PM
Almost always, AC21 can trigger an RFE or interview. There's always a risk in filing AC21. First, your new employment may not match your LC therefore your GC will be denied. Second, the new employer is banned by USCIS and that is not in your knowledge. Lastly, AC21 rule may change anytime because the standing rule is just a memo from previous USCIS chief. If that changes and you're in the middle of it, you might find yourself ineligible.
If I were you, I will not change employment. If that is not an option and you have to for some reasons, file AC21 and make sure that your next employer is not banned by USCIS, willing to go through AC21, meaning provide you with documents, and be ready to receive an RFE or request for interview.
If I were you, I will not change employment. If that is not an option and you have to for some reasons, file AC21 and make sure that your next employer is not banned by USCIS, willing to go through AC21, meaning provide you with documents, and be ready to receive an RFE or request for interview.
more...
makeup sienna miller topless italy
bestia
01-26 08:52 PM
What was RFE about?
girlfriend Sienna Miller (Pic:Getty)
NKR
07-18 12:18 PM
$320 an hr!
His 'RFE response' charges were $450!
go figure...
lotsa people are making money out of the s*ituation we are in!
Except us...
His 'RFE response' charges were $450!
go figure...
lotsa people are making money out of the s*ituation we are in!
Except us...
hairstyles Sienna Miller Pop Magazine |
lost_in_gc_land
01-31 01:26 PM
Hi statuslaw,
Can you share all your experience and discussions with the DOS and their contact information for my case? Thank you and once again congratulations from the bottom of my heart. This can be pretty hard on someone...I have been waiting for over 75 days.
Can you share all your experience and discussions with the DOS and their contact information for my case? Thank you and once again congratulations from the bottom of my heart. This can be pretty hard on someone...I have been waiting for over 75 days.
masti_Gai
01-05 12:50 PM
He needs to find a consultant who can sponsor a H1B for him. But H1B for this fiscal year is over he might have to wait for the fiscal year of 2008
readblack
10-25 01:57 PM
Hi,
I am in similar boat and have some additional comments/questions.
My Labor PERM filed July08, I140 Approved Aug09. PD for EB2 not available. H1B 6yr expire in sep2010.
1. If H1B is transferred to another employer before March2010, does it mean my current exployer holdmy destiny, as he can revoke my I140 and I cannot apply for 3 year renewal? I can get copy of I140 approval.
2. What exactly 'revoke I140' means? does it mean current employer calls USCIS and asks to do something to my petition?
3. Incase current employer doesnot revoke I140,Is it possible that my PD would always be july2008 even if
-a. I switch employers and they file H1B?
-b. I go outside country for 6-11months for job or study and come back and work on H1B extension of 3 yrs?
-c. I am unemployed and on H4 in between for sometime?
Thanks in advance.
I am in similar boat and have some additional comments/questions.
My Labor PERM filed July08, I140 Approved Aug09. PD for EB2 not available. H1B 6yr expire in sep2010.
1. If H1B is transferred to another employer before March2010, does it mean my current exployer holdmy destiny, as he can revoke my I140 and I cannot apply for 3 year renewal? I can get copy of I140 approval.
2. What exactly 'revoke I140' means? does it mean current employer calls USCIS and asks to do something to my petition?
3. Incase current employer doesnot revoke I140,Is it possible that my PD would always be july2008 even if
-a. I switch employers and they file H1B?
-b. I go outside country for 6-11months for job or study and come back and work on H1B extension of 3 yrs?
-c. I am unemployed and on H4 in between for sometime?
Thanks in advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment