fromnaija
07-11 06:31 PM
I am not sure if my previous employer will support, even i am not sure if they have sent a I-140 cancellation request to USCIS.
Can i file 485 through my current employer based on previously approved I-140 as my current I-140 has priority date recapture request.
If your former employer will not support your GC application and you are not even sure if they already cancelled your 140, then you CANNOT file 485 based on that 140.
As chennai already advised you may have your 140 premium processed.
However, reading back your origiinal post I don't think you can file 485 until your new 140 is approved since you are porting PD. So your PD must be ported to the new 140 successfully and the PD current before you can submit 485. Sorry for the initial confusion.
Can i file 485 through my current employer based on previously approved I-140 as my current I-140 has priority date recapture request.
If your former employer will not support your GC application and you are not even sure if they already cancelled your 140, then you CANNOT file 485 based on that 140.
As chennai already advised you may have your 140 premium processed.
However, reading back your origiinal post I don't think you can file 485 until your new 140 is approved since you are porting PD. So your PD must be ported to the new 140 successfully and the PD current before you can submit 485. Sorry for the initial confusion.
wallpaper Cute Short Hairstyle with
cjain
11-13 09:32 AM
Tom,
This is completely false. Even if the employer revokes an un approved i-140, the I-485 is not affected if the following conditions are met:
- I-140 should've been "approvable when filed"
- New job should be in same/similar field
Read the Aytes Memo (google: aytes memo) for more clarification.
and stop spreading lies
The AC21 can be used only if the following 2 conditions are met:
a. I140 is approved.
b. 180 days after the receipt date of I1485.
One may leave the employer even before the 180 days or before the 140 approval with a risk that the emploeyer will not revoke I140 and no RFE comes for 485. The safest is to use AC21 only after the I140 approval.
If 180 days passed (485 receipt date) and if I140 is approved, there is no problem even if the employer revokes the I140 after you move the company. You may get an RFE to produce the offer letter from the new company.
This is completely false. Even if the employer revokes an un approved i-140, the I-485 is not affected if the following conditions are met:
- I-140 should've been "approvable when filed"
- New job should be in same/similar field
Read the Aytes Memo (google: aytes memo) for more clarification.
and stop spreading lies
The AC21 can be used only if the following 2 conditions are met:
a. I140 is approved.
b. 180 days after the receipt date of I1485.
One may leave the employer even before the 180 days or before the 140 approval with a risk that the emploeyer will not revoke I140 and no RFE comes for 485. The safest is to use AC21 only after the I140 approval.
If 180 days passed (485 receipt date) and if I140 is approved, there is no problem even if the employer revokes the I140 after you move the company. You may get an RFE to produce the offer letter from the new company.
abhijitp
01-25 02:42 PM
I am happy to inform all of you in NORCAL that the permit to conduct a signature/letter campaign at Fremont BART is with us!!!
NOTE: This cannot be used by another member at another station-- this is a non-transferrable permit SOLELY for the campaign at Fremont at the said times, but you can request a similar permit for any BART station!
Now, I need at least ONE other member to be there on a weekday evening of your choice (I am planning to go there EVERY weekday evening for 2 weeks) and help me conduct this campaign!
PLEASE.... this is the last call.. don't let us down!
NOTE: This cannot be used by another member at another station-- this is a non-transferrable permit SOLELY for the campaign at Fremont at the said times, but you can request a similar permit for any BART station!
Now, I need at least ONE other member to be there on a weekday evening of your choice (I am planning to go there EVERY weekday evening for 2 weeks) and help me conduct this campaign!
PLEASE.... this is the last call.. don't let us down!
2011 Cute Short Hairstyles
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
axp817
02-03 01:49 PM
Documentation informing the USCIS of your having utilized AC21 benefits isn't necessary, but is a proactive measure usually taken to have a clean slate on the applicant's part.
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
It is true that in a majority of the cases the AC21 documentation might never reach the applican't 485 file, but in an unforeseen circumstance such as the denial of one's 485 based on 140 revocation (which, as we know isn't very uncommon) and matters reaching an immigration court, proof that one had taken proactive steps and gone out of one's way to inform the USCIS might make one's case stronger and thus make it easier to have the case reopened.
I was fortunate enough to not have to make that decision -whether to send AC21 documentation or not, the attorneys (Fragomen) representing the new employer recommended sending it making it easy for me.
Just my 2 cents,
vallabhu
01-02 12:37 PM
I am from ATL
I don't know what is excellent documentation
we sent the syllabubs signed by registrar of Osmania
eduction evaluation done by a prof from GA sate university
and my transcripts.
next time i will add a recommendation letter from employer.
deos any know how long it is taking to process such appeals.
I don't know what is excellent documentation
we sent the syllabubs signed by registrar of Osmania
eduction evaluation done by a prof from GA sate university
and my transcripts.
next time i will add a recommendation letter from employer.
deos any know how long it is taking to process such appeals.
more...
anandrajesh
12-26 09:14 AM
I'll be there. 9 CST works fine for me.
2010 A hot collage of Rihanna short
Pagal
09-27 12:04 PM
Hello,
I think you are fine to do day trading on any visa type.
Just because you conduct multiple transactions per day does not legally imply that you are paying any less attention to your regular job.
If you are called for an AOS interview, a curious IO may ask how did you manage both, but you can always show that you did your job well by providing copies of your performance evaluations and/or letters from your supervisors/HR.
In summary, good luck w day trading! Do donate part of the profits to IV... :)
I think you are fine to do day trading on any visa type.
Just because you conduct multiple transactions per day does not legally imply that you are paying any less attention to your regular job.
If you are called for an AOS interview, a curious IO may ask how did you manage both, but you can always show that you did your job well by providing copies of your performance evaluations and/or letters from your supervisors/HR.
In summary, good luck w day trading! Do donate part of the profits to IV... :)
more...
gc_wannabe
06-16 11:05 PM
Hi- When I started off with the green card process, I had not idea about what most of the things meant. I joined a very reputable Fortune 500 company in 2006 (the same year I came to the US on a H1B), and started my GC process in 2007. The company offered me an pre-approved labor with a 2006 PD, which had a matching requirement w.r.t job description and salary.
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Please don't start off with the jumping the queue argument. When I used the labor substitution, it was perfectly legal, and didn't even know what a priority date is :-)
Thanks.
During July 2007, i filed for my I-140 and I-485. Subsequently, my I-140 got approved without any issues. Now, given that my priority date is close to being current (2/14/2006), I'm afraid if using a pre-approved labor will have any role to play with my I-485 approval.
And no, I'm not working for a consultant. And I have been with the same employer since 2006.
Please don't start off with the jumping the queue argument. When I used the labor substitution, it was perfectly legal, and didn't even know what a priority date is :-)
Thanks.
hair Ideas bob hairstyle ideas.
aadimanav
02-07 11:36 AM
Hello Friends,
Just curious to know your opinion / experience regarding the current job opportunities in India (near DELHI / NCR) for IT guys. What realistic salary/benefits should someone expect with graduate degree (masters) from US and 8 years of working experience as Programmer Analyst/ Developer / Sr Developer in desi/vedesi mid-sized consulting companies in US? I have no clue, no rough idea, so I thought may be I should ask you guys.
Regards,
Just curious to know your opinion / experience regarding the current job opportunities in India (near DELHI / NCR) for IT guys. What realistic salary/benefits should someone expect with graduate degree (masters) from US and 8 years of working experience as Programmer Analyst/ Developer / Sr Developer in desi/vedesi mid-sized consulting companies in US? I have no clue, no rough idea, so I thought may be I should ask you guys.
Regards,
more...
srkamath
07-16 10:47 PM
^^
immi_seeker, you applied for an EAD extension in a normal time frame, he/she didn't apply too early.
We know for a fact that they give 1 year EAD the first time round, we are not sure if they also give renewals i exactly one year increments.
Assuming that an adjudicating officer approved your EAD, I still believe that they did so because they expect to decide on your case by the end of this year, which is good news for all of us.
I'm not trying to falsely raise your hopes here, but i'm just drawing optimistic conclusions.
immi_seeker, you applied for an EAD extension in a normal time frame, he/she didn't apply too early.
We know for a fact that they give 1 year EAD the first time round, we are not sure if they also give renewals i exactly one year increments.
Assuming that an adjudicating officer approved your EAD, I still believe that they did so because they expect to decide on your case by the end of this year, which is good news for all of us.
I'm not trying to falsely raise your hopes here, but i'm just drawing optimistic conclusions.
hot Very Short Black Hairstyle
memyselfandus
08-22 09:37 PM
I have used for all of H1B and also for complete Green Card Processing. If it is just anything after I-140; they charge about $600 rest of the processing.
You always get a response within a day from its director John Dorer.
You can reach them at info@usavisanow.com
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
You always get a response within a day from its director John Dorer.
You can reach them at info@usavisanow.com
Can I have some recommendations for good attorney?
more...
house Labels: lack short
senthil
06-12 05:33 AM
just the H1B filing receipt ( which is expected in few days of filin ) should be enough to be named "active" on H1B and no worry after that except finding an active project to work on.
tattoo cute short haircuts for women
obviously
08-04 12:08 PM
Thanks for sharing!
my attorney said When you interfile, even if ur previous PD is current, you cannot file 140+485 together.. you have to first file the 140 requesting the previous PD be ported and then once that is approved..file you 485..!!
>> I have both the I-140's now, the EB2 and the Eb3. So this is not a case of filing I-140 together with I-485. Qn is can the underlying I-485 EB3 pending adjudication be matched up with the new I-140 EB2 which has the older EB3 PD? If not, is filing a new I-485 to follow on the new EB2 I-140 the only option? Currently EB3 India is Unavailable and EB2 India PD is Jun 06. My new EB2 PD is Nov 02.
but he said....if ur PD is current you can take a chance and file both 140(requesting porting)+485 ..but then the chances of 485 being sent back are high..
>> ok, thanks.
Whew, just when you think this darn thing will be over ... :D
Cheers!
my attorney said When you interfile, even if ur previous PD is current, you cannot file 140+485 together.. you have to first file the 140 requesting the previous PD be ported and then once that is approved..file you 485..!!
>> I have both the I-140's now, the EB2 and the Eb3. So this is not a case of filing I-140 together with I-485. Qn is can the underlying I-485 EB3 pending adjudication be matched up with the new I-140 EB2 which has the older EB3 PD? If not, is filing a new I-485 to follow on the new EB2 I-140 the only option? Currently EB3 India is Unavailable and EB2 India PD is Jun 06. My new EB2 PD is Nov 02.
but he said....if ur PD is current you can take a chance and file both 140(requesting porting)+485 ..but then the chances of 485 being sent back are high..
>> ok, thanks.
Whew, just when you think this darn thing will be over ... :D
Cheers!
more...
pictures Popular Short Hairstyles for
snathan
06-20 09:45 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
dresses with. cute short haircuts
alterego
05-09 07:54 PM
The Employer won`t be touching the I-140 or any other related GC apps.About the time frame for getting same or similar job...I am seriously keeping my fingers crossed!!!!
Thanks for all the detailed inputs alterego !!!
Best advise. Try your best to have an AC21 compatible job offer by Aug/Sept time frame. I doubt you'll see any issues emerging before then.
Your status is legal as long as your 485 is pending. A job will secure your status. Work hard finding a same or similar one.
Thanks for all the detailed inputs alterego !!!
Best advise. Try your best to have an AC21 compatible job offer by Aug/Sept time frame. I doubt you'll see any issues emerging before then.
Your status is legal as long as your 485 is pending. A job will secure your status. Work hard finding a same or similar one.
more...
makeup short haircuts for lack women
javadeveloper
12-02 01:29 PM
Hello Guys, I am in dilemma about applying for my greencard. I cam to U.S in 1999 ON F-1 and later converted to H1B after working on CPT and OPT. My 6th year is going to end Spet 30th 2009. I have never been too inclined about settling over in U.S and I didn't care to apply for my Greencard. I am in the process of completing my part-time M.B.A and would like to extend my stay by another year or 2 (that is end of 2010 or 2011).
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
One of my friends is a client of Murthy , as per my friend 1 year extensions are possible after 6 years.I am not sure how far this is true.Better to check with some attorney.Let us know if you have some info
My question is: I have all my papers ready to be submitted to my lawyer to apply for labor certification. But considering that it will take 3-4 months for advertisement and other stuff and probably another 3 months or more for getting labor cleared, I am wondering if I will be able to apply for I-140 and therby H1B 7th year extension. Have I runt out of time? Should I even apply for my labor or just convert to F-1 and wrap up my studies before returning back? I will greatly appreciate your suggestions.
One of my friends is a client of Murthy , as per my friend 1 year extensions are possible after 6 years.I am not sure how far this is true.Better to check with some attorney.Let us know if you have some info
girlfriend lack women. cute short
nashdel
08-07 11:09 PM
Mine approved August 2nd, Wife`s pending. May be this is one of the administrative fixes from USCIS! As primary on EAD I would have to Work in same job classification, can not stay here for long without work or open a new business. But spouse on EAD can do either one of those per my knowledge. They can allot visa number to another primary. I do not think this is the reasoning from USCIS and there has to be some other reason though such as security check. I wonder if it is smart for them to allot visa numbers to primary and secondary in 2:1 ratio. Will ease problems for lot of people.
hairstyles Other cute short hairstyle for
mnkaushik
06-04 04:57 PM
Slightly off topic. But do we need to send our original BC if we are sponsoring someone other than your parents. I am in the process of sponsoring my aunt and would like to know if i need to send my orginal BC. Sorry for going off topic.
Hydra
09-07 03:53 AM
Sorry people...but when other stamp are insert in the vote list ?
gccovet
05-08 02:31 PM
:confused:
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
Hi, I am not an expert, quoting from things I have read in the past.
Ans 1: Notifying or not notifying about job change should not delay AOS process. It might help that you might not get a RFE. People on IV and RK forum have mixed views on this. Some choose to notify some do not. In case you do not notify, you might get an RFE asking for pay stub and current company. I know Shila Murthy and some other lawyers prefer to notify.
Ans 2: Your corporate lawyer can apply, they will have to get a G28 filled out and signed from you.
Ans 3: As of now, using AC21, job title is not a problem at all. What matters is, job description, should be same or similar (definition on same/similar not clear yet- may be very soon). If the job description is very similar then it should not be a problem.
Ans 4: If salary is more then it is not a problem, should not be less then specified in I-140/LC.
Again, I don't consider myself an expert. so take this with a pinch of salt.
Good luck.
GCCovet
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
Hi, I am not an expert, quoting from things I have read in the past.
Ans 1: Notifying or not notifying about job change should not delay AOS process. It might help that you might not get a RFE. People on IV and RK forum have mixed views on this. Some choose to notify some do not. In case you do not notify, you might get an RFE asking for pay stub and current company. I know Shila Murthy and some other lawyers prefer to notify.
Ans 2: Your corporate lawyer can apply, they will have to get a G28 filled out and signed from you.
Ans 3: As of now, using AC21, job title is not a problem at all. What matters is, job description, should be same or similar (definition on same/similar not clear yet- may be very soon). If the job description is very similar then it should not be a problem.
Ans 4: If salary is more then it is not a problem, should not be less then specified in I-140/LC.
Again, I don't consider myself an expert. so take this with a pinch of salt.
Good luck.
GCCovet
No comments:
Post a Comment