Sunx_2004
09-08 06:32 PM
Is he EB-3 India, His PD is not even current. He must have ported to EB2..I guess..
Yes, A colleague case is similar to yours. Got his "Welcome" mail via USPS, Online status still show as pending, but only difference, his case is EB3, not EB2. I-485 filed during the July rush, both the primary applicant and the spouse got the welcome notice via USPS mail. LUD seems to be in August sometime. The online status is not really reliable. Still shows as case received and pending. PD is July '04. He is not sure, and his consulting his attorney, if any action required on his side. Not sure, this is a exception or more cases like this.
Yes, A colleague case is similar to yours. Got his "Welcome" mail via USPS, Online status still show as pending, but only difference, his case is EB3, not EB2. I-485 filed during the July rush, both the primary applicant and the spouse got the welcome notice via USPS mail. LUD seems to be in August sometime. The online status is not really reliable. Still shows as case received and pending. PD is July '04. He is not sure, and his consulting his attorney, if any action required on his side. Not sure, this is a exception or more cases like this.
wallpaper Human Brain Lobes,
gcwait2007
12-25 05:55 PM
Your PD does not have to be current (it changes from month to month), if it was current at some time in the past, that will be enough.
Fight for your rights!
Hello lazycis,
I have a quick question. Many of our PD were current in July 2007. If our names are stuck in FBI name check for 2 yrs, can we file for WoM? Please advise. Many of us are under the impression that the our PD dates have to be current at the time of WoM and our namecheck should be stuck at FBI atleast for 1 year during which the PD date is current. In other words, the PD date should be current over a period of 12 months at the time of filing WoM.
Q 2. Is there any limit countrywise, for issuing GC?
Thanks in advance.
Fight for your rights!
Hello lazycis,
I have a quick question. Many of our PD were current in July 2007. If our names are stuck in FBI name check for 2 yrs, can we file for WoM? Please advise. Many of us are under the impression that the our PD dates have to be current at the time of WoM and our namecheck should be stuck at FBI atleast for 1 year during which the PD date is current. In other words, the PD date should be current over a period of 12 months at the time of filing WoM.
Q 2. Is there any limit countrywise, for issuing GC?
Thanks in advance.
nidar
03-05 11:04 AM
just did
2011 Brain, cerebral hemisphere
GCwaitforever
08-16 10:41 PM
Check them out ...
http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/documents/all_forms.html
http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/hsmp.html?
http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/documents/all_forms.html
http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/hsmp.html?
more...
vinayskadam
11-23 08:49 PM
@sameer2730 :
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
mihird
02-24 02:19 PM
Visa stamping is not necessary to remain in the US so wondering why a CPA would consider this a necessary work expense.
My CPA had itemized my wife's travel expenses for H1-B stamping on the 2006 return. Here's the logic for justifying the travel to get the visa stamped.
The H4->H1-B change of status is truly a change of intent, and traveling back to your home country and re-entering with a proper visa within a reasonable time after the change of status is what most immigration attorneys will advise.
GC expenses, however should not be claimed. H1-B is needed for the job, GC is not...
There are instances of people have trouble re-entering if they had not got their H1-B visa stamped in a timely manner after the change of status...
My CPA had itemized my wife's travel expenses for H1-B stamping on the 2006 return. Here's the logic for justifying the travel to get the visa stamped.
The H4->H1-B change of status is truly a change of intent, and traveling back to your home country and re-entering with a proper visa within a reasonable time after the change of status is what most immigration attorneys will advise.
GC expenses, however should not be claimed. H1-B is needed for the job, GC is not...
There are instances of people have trouble re-entering if they had not got their H1-B visa stamped in a timely manner after the change of status...
more...
sasidhar79
09-16 03:09 PM
To all IV members please sign the online petition to drop Lou Dobbs and make this country more progressive.
2010 Brain Anatomy - Frontal and
immi_seeker
09-13 01:22 PM
What is this fight all about ??? eb3-->eb2 ... or spillover??? changing any/both of them will not solve underlying problem.. Grow up people
why not go for real problem??? if you want to ask congress/administration, ask for some real solutions which will help everyone. To name a few...
1. Capture lost Visa numbers
2. Get rid of country quota.. how does this country based quota makes sense in EB Category??
Totally agree with this. Eventhough i dont agree with i_got_skillz language, what he has been trying to say is the same thing. This spill over stuff will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog. This EB3I talk abt spill over stuff will not only help them but will also bring EB2I in to the same boat(infact Eb2I is also in bad shape with or without spill over).
why not go for real problem??? if you want to ask congress/administration, ask for some real solutions which will help everyone. To name a few...
1. Capture lost Visa numbers
2. Get rid of country quota.. how does this country based quota makes sense in EB Category??
Totally agree with this. Eventhough i dont agree with i_got_skillz language, what he has been trying to say is the same thing. This spill over stuff will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog. This EB3I talk abt spill over stuff will not only help them but will also bring EB2I in to the same boat(infact Eb2I is also in bad shape with or without spill over).
more...
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
hair stock photo : rain lobe
sledge_hammer
04-08 07:26 PM
Your join date is March 2009. We know you are not a donor. We know you have not participated in any IV campaigns. But you want IV to be answerable to you.
Please tell us why!
Please feel free to delete my id.
I am done here. Wish good luck to everybody. Hope everyone gets GC soon.
Please tell us why!
Please feel free to delete my id.
I am done here. Wish good luck to everybody. Hope everyone gets GC soon.
more...
paskal
08-22 03:44 PM
there's a nice amtrak ride from buffalo to ny- i've been on it many years ago
that's something to consider too, you could join the NY busgoers once you reach union station!
that's something to consider too, you could join the NY busgoers once you reach union station!
hot Lobes of the Brain
learning01
04-06 10:11 PM
There is no serious effort by the republicans. They are fractured, divided, into groups. They have no motivation to get this comprehensive bill passed. I have been observing the tactics and attitudes of these republican senators and democratic senators. I am more shocked by the game of one-upmanship on the part of Frist, Kyl, Cornyn, Craig. I don't see rhyme or reason in their sppeches. The bill has no life for the next 3 weeks.
i am sorry..i couldnt follow todays proceedings..whn i cam to iv site in the evening..everyone says bill is dead
whn i went to immigration-law.com, they say the following
cud someone tell me which one is true??????????
We reported earlier the Senate Republican Members Agreement last night. Today, the Democratic Minority Leader and other Democractic leaders agreed to the proposal, turning the Republican agreement into the Bi-Partisan Agreement. This dramatic break-through opens a door to the possibility of passing the Senate version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2454, as amended before this week is over and before the Congress goes into the recess next two weeks.
The development is accompanied by three other developments:
President released statement supporting the bi-partisan agreement;
Senate rejected the Democrat's motion to cloture for the Specter amendments to S.2454;
Senate also relected the Republican Kyl' motion for his amendments.
Now we see the light at the end of the tunnel!!
i am sorry..i couldnt follow todays proceedings..whn i cam to iv site in the evening..everyone says bill is dead
whn i went to immigration-law.com, they say the following
cud someone tell me which one is true??????????
We reported earlier the Senate Republican Members Agreement last night. Today, the Democratic Minority Leader and other Democractic leaders agreed to the proposal, turning the Republican agreement into the Bi-Partisan Agreement. This dramatic break-through opens a door to the possibility of passing the Senate version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2454, as amended before this week is over and before the Congress goes into the recess next two weeks.
The development is accompanied by three other developments:
President released statement supporting the bi-partisan agreement;
Senate rejected the Democrat's motion to cloture for the Specter amendments to S.2454;
Senate also relected the Republican Kyl' motion for his amendments.
Now we see the light at the end of the tunnel!!
more...
house lobes, cerebellum, rain
Beta_mle
02-20 12:58 PM
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time.
When I look back at the timelines, when we applied for the 485s, we thought he was in status but afterwards, we realized he might not have been. Since then, we have renewed the H4 twice, and each time there was an I94 attached and the last one is still valid, so he is in status now.
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
When I look back at the timelines, when we applied for the 485s, we thought he was in status but afterwards, we realized he might not have been. Since then, we have renewed the H4 twice, and each time there was an I94 attached and the last one is still valid, so he is in status now.
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
tattoo The frontal lobes lie directly
chessboard
12-08 03:14 AM
congratulation to all winner... especially to winner who use the "stargate" background and put the text only...
nice contest.....
nice contest.....
more...
pictures Four Lobes of the Brain
pasupuleti
09-25 05:08 PM
I got denied by discover credit card due to not having a green card.
They said, it is just their policy that they won't give credit cards to
people who don't have green cards.
I could't co-sign my friends student loan application as i did't have a green card. They said, i have to be Permanent legal resident to co-sign.
Though i have a mortgage now, my first mortagage application got denied on same grounds.
Apparently fannie mae guildelines stipulates that H1B(foriegn investment) needs to put 60% down to get a mortgage loan.
But most of the lenders do mortgages anyways even for the people who does't have a ssn:).
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
They said, it is just their policy that they won't give credit cards to
people who don't have green cards.
I could't co-sign my friends student loan application as i did't have a green card. They said, i have to be Permanent legal resident to co-sign.
Though i have a mortgage now, my first mortagage application got denied on same grounds.
Apparently fannie mae guildelines stipulates that H1B(foriegn investment) needs to put 60% down to get a mortgage loan.
But most of the lenders do mortgages anyways even for the people who does't have a ssn:).
No one has ever been denied mortgage because their green card is pending, all other things (credit record, finances etc) being equal...that would constitute housing discrimintaion...
Just a thought, especially in response to those (and there are some on this forum) who feel discriminated in this country and compare their situation to that of exploited laborers in some podunk land...
dresses largest part of the rain,
skd
01-09 05:07 PM
Not a bad idea, I don't know what's purpose it will serve, Still just to know...I don't mind this poll.
more...
makeup BRAIN LOBES AND CEREBELLUM,
shuvro58
01-03 03:18 AM
hi all http://my-used-stuff.com/smiley.gif
girlfriend The rain#39;s four lobes
seahawks
07-02 12:07 AM
Guys,
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
I read it and it does mention that if you came prior to an year from filing, your G-325A does not count. I wonder why that is because Finger printing is triggered by G-325A was what I thought and its a form with 3 copies so to speak so I thought it goes to 3 different offices, who knows how it works.. anyways here is what I am doing for now..
Wait until my attorney gets back to me
Go for the FP and probably explain to them and see if anything can be done.
Wrote to my district congressman's immigration specialist who I had met before while campaigning for IV goals on CIR. Well I won't sweat it out, will see what happens I guess.
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
I read it and it does mention that if you came prior to an year from filing, your G-325A does not count. I wonder why that is because Finger printing is triggered by G-325A was what I thought and its a form with 3 copies so to speak so I thought it goes to 3 different offices, who knows how it works.. anyways here is what I am doing for now..
Wait until my attorney gets back to me
Go for the FP and probably explain to them and see if anything can be done.
Wrote to my district congressman's immigration specialist who I had met before while campaigning for IV goals on CIR. Well I won't sweat it out, will see what happens I guess.
hairstyles Frontal lobe in the rain,
john2255
07-20 02:44 PM
I am sorry to start a new thread but I feel the following thread is not getting the importance it should get. Everyone please dont miss the following thread. Its a big defeat during our celebrations.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10751
Major loss to us Cornyn amendment rejected
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10751
Major loss to us Cornyn amendment rejected
pscdk
08-21 10:29 AM
Congratulations.
gc_chahiye
10-31 03:25 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong i.e. I can continue working as I have already applied for my H1 extension and whatever the H1 extension response is based on that if it is approved I can stay on H1 else if extension denied for some reason then at that point I can move to EAD and file a new I-9 Form with my employer and continue my work.
Thanks
yes you can continue working. Assuming that USCIS honors the original filing date (ie. they assume that your H1 extension was filed before the previous H1 ran out) and gives you a I-94 in the approval you are all set. Make sure your lawyer includes proof that you filed on time, but to the wrong center. IN the worst case if the extension is denied (or approved without an I-94) you can always move to EAD and continue working. The time you spent working past your original I-94 expiry would however then count as unauthorized.
Thanks
yes you can continue working. Assuming that USCIS honors the original filing date (ie. they assume that your H1 extension was filed before the previous H1 ran out) and gives you a I-94 in the approval you are all set. Make sure your lawyer includes proof that you filed on time, but to the wrong center. IN the worst case if the extension is denied (or approved without an I-94) you can always move to EAD and continue working. The time you spent working past your original I-94 expiry would however then count as unauthorized.
No comments:
Post a Comment