MannyD
10-02 03:04 PM
But see that is exactly my question. Say u surrender All your I-94 copies. however on entering they still give you a BRAND new I-94 on the airplane (assuming you are crossing by airplane ofcourse). Now That has a totally new I-94 number than what your H1B I-94 had. That is where i get confused.
Crudely stated, I94 indicates the date by which you ought to leave US and is given to you when you land in the US - so you will have a new I94 number every time you enter US. I don't think you should bother about more than two I94s at any time. One will be the one on your passport and the other in your newest H1B approval in case you have an approval after your entry into US. Let's say you are one of the "happy" folks who have to extend H1B every year: So here, when you leave US you submit the I94 from the H1B approval document (I797) that you'd be using to get your visa stamped abroad. When you land you'd get a new I94 that's valid until the date in the I797 (= visa expiry date now in your passport).
Crudely stated, I94 indicates the date by which you ought to leave US and is given to you when you land in the US - so you will have a new I94 number every time you enter US. I don't think you should bother about more than two I94s at any time. One will be the one on your passport and the other in your newest H1B approval in case you have an approval after your entry into US. Let's say you are one of the "happy" folks who have to extend H1B every year: So here, when you leave US you submit the I94 from the H1B approval document (I797) that you'd be using to get your visa stamped abroad. When you land you'd get a new I94 that's valid until the date in the I797 (= visa expiry date now in your passport).
wallpaper That new Hummer HX concept?
logiclife
06-25 06:36 PM
Hi all,
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
sunny1000
02-27 11:59 AM
Scratch my answer below...logiclife is right...pls consult a very good immigration lawyer (like sheila Murthy, Rajiv Khanna, Matthew Oh).
Hi all
I am a green card holder. I received my green card through an application filed by a former employer, and received it in September 2004. I got married in Arpil 2006, my wife is from my home country, she had been in the US previously on an F-1 status which has since ran out. She became pregnant soon after we were married. She came up to the US last September on a B visa. She was given 6 months stay on her I-94; and had the baby here in January of 2007. Her expiration date on the I-94 is in 3 weeks and she is going to leave (with the baby) to maintain good status standing.
I filed for her (I-130) last July. Our plan at this time is for her to go to grad school, apply for a new F-1 to come back here. We are presently waiting for a decsion on the grad school application from the school she applied to.
I hope this isnt too confusing, but can anyone offer any suggestions or help with our situation? In terms of what options are out there for my wife to be here with me if things dont work out with grad school/ F-1 visa? As I mentioned I did file for her, but as I am not a citizen it will take longer. Also our newborn baby is a US citizen as she was born here.
Thank you!!
Hi all
I am a green card holder. I received my green card through an application filed by a former employer, and received it in September 2004. I got married in Arpil 2006, my wife is from my home country, she had been in the US previously on an F-1 status which has since ran out. She became pregnant soon after we were married. She came up to the US last September on a B visa. She was given 6 months stay on her I-94; and had the baby here in January of 2007. Her expiration date on the I-94 is in 3 weeks and she is going to leave (with the baby) to maintain good status standing.
I filed for her (I-130) last July. Our plan at this time is for her to go to grad school, apply for a new F-1 to come back here. We are presently waiting for a decsion on the grad school application from the school she applied to.
I hope this isnt too confusing, but can anyone offer any suggestions or help with our situation? In terms of what options are out there for my wife to be here with me if things dont work out with grad school/ F-1 visa? As I mentioned I did file for her, but as I am not a citizen it will take longer. Also our newborn baby is a US citizen as she was born here.
Thank you!!
2011 source Hummer+hx+replica
JunRN
05-16 02:55 PM
My friend is in the I-140 stage of green card processing
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
It is easier to convert from Consular Processing to Adjustment of Status (i-485) than the other way around. So, she can choose Consular Processing for now if PD is not current and then, once PD becomes current and she's still here in US, she can submit I-485.
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
It is easier to convert from Consular Processing to Adjustment of Status (i-485) than the other way around. So, she can choose Consular Processing for now if PD is not current and then, once PD becomes current and she's still here in US, she can submit I-485.
more...
Sakthisagar
10-20 12:55 PM
there is no need for pro-immigrant senator to respond becoz as soon as they respond..... it will increase the visibility and importance of grassley..... many a times in politics, the purpose of putting out provocative statement is to provoke a response..... to that effect, no response is the best response.... it is better for california director to respond & fight with a sitting senator, which de-values grassley's perceived seniority.....
That means let Immigrants suffer in hell. with this ignorant guy's letters, and inturn USCIS responds and issues a dump memo on that letter again, and the suffering becomes more and more day by day. Is the republicans have majority or Democrats I have doubts about that. This bipartisan is a key word to do nothing and enjoy all the benefits of being the ruling side. There is no seniority issue here. These senators are weeds who make immigrants life miserable.
That means let Immigrants suffer in hell. with this ignorant guy's letters, and inturn USCIS responds and issues a dump memo on that letter again, and the suffering becomes more and more day by day. Is the republicans have majority or Democrats I have doubts about that. This bipartisan is a key word to do nothing and enjoy all the benefits of being the ruling side. There is no seniority issue here. These senators are weeds who make immigrants life miserable.
eb2_mumbai
09-11 10:27 AM
I can share my experience. I had BE + 3 Yr Exp + MS + 1.5 Yr Exp when I filed for GC. My employer filed the labor that was MS + 0 Yr exp. He said we cannot claim 1.5 Yr post MS since it was in house experience. The experience I gained after BS was not eligible so he said the post would go as MS + 0 . We did attach my experience certificate for work after BS (nothing for work experience in the same company) as supplimental qualification.
I know lots of friends working in expedia who were hired from our graduate school and their labor were all MS + 0 in EB2
I know lots of friends working in expedia who were hired from our graduate school and their labor were all MS + 0 in EB2
more...
gc_chahiye
11-27 01:47 PM
Rajen,
Thanks for your advice. He does not want to come to US for job as he left US for good.the consulting firm told him that they have applied for his substitution and brought him back here. So I am a little concerned to know if there is any other way of Labor substitution.
Consulting company lawyer says they filed it prior to July 15.
Thank you
If they filed it before July 15th, then yes its possible that they are telling the truth, as its only been banned from that date onwards. Expect a lot of scrutiny of the case (it got banned because of lots of fraud related to it).
Typically LC is substituted at I-140 stage by requesting the USCIS, however substitution can also be done at LC stage by requesting DOL.
Whats the status of the LC now? Why has the I-140 not been filed?
Thanks for your advice. He does not want to come to US for job as he left US for good.the consulting firm told him that they have applied for his substitution and brought him back here. So I am a little concerned to know if there is any other way of Labor substitution.
Consulting company lawyer says they filed it prior to July 15.
Thank you
If they filed it before July 15th, then yes its possible that they are telling the truth, as its only been banned from that date onwards. Expect a lot of scrutiny of the case (it got banned because of lots of fraud related to it).
Typically LC is substituted at I-140 stage by requesting the USCIS, however substitution can also be done at LC stage by requesting DOL.
Whats the status of the LC now? Why has the I-140 not been filed?
2010 3 Responses to “2012 Hummer H4
chanduv23
07-05 12:43 PM
by now everybody might have heard stories about how USCIS pulled staff and worked overtime and weekends to utilize the 60k visas in one month to prevent the july 485 filings.
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
Maybe politicians involved - only when powerful politicians are involved such things happen - USCIS/DOS does not do such things on its own.
What I am wondering is why did they do it. One obvious reason is the incresed fee comming into effect from July 30 2007. In addition to it what are the other reasons.
Is there any agenda within USCIS to prevent people from getting EAD and ac21 benefits?
Is USCIS filled with anti immgrant mentality who have takem upon themselves to make our lives difficult?
Maybe politicians involved - only when powerful politicians are involved such things happen - USCIS/DOS does not do such things on its own.
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hair Hummer H4 2012.
mna123
07-30 05:38 PM
I am stuck out side of US for my name check for last 9 months when I applied for my H-1. I have approved I 140. is there any way I can file my I 1485 and Advance parole or any thing to get back into US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
more...
raysaikat
07-08 12:10 PM
yes,
You have to wait until your priority date becomes current to apply your dependent's 485. And for that she needs to be in US and for this you need to have valid H1 so that she can get H4 if she is already not in US and doesn't have any VISA.
If you don't have H1 and she can't come unless she can come on H1 (herself) or Business VISA.
For some reason, if she couldn't land in USA before your GC approval, but if got married before the GC Approval, then you should submit one form(I am not sure which one some on 800 series).
I think it is not quite correct. The dependent should be able to do consular processing if she is not in US.
You have to wait until your priority date becomes current to apply your dependent's 485. And for that she needs to be in US and for this you need to have valid H1 so that she can get H4 if she is already not in US and doesn't have any VISA.
If you don't have H1 and she can't come unless she can come on H1 (herself) or Business VISA.
For some reason, if she couldn't land in USA before your GC approval, but if got married before the GC Approval, then you should submit one form(I am not sure which one some on 800 series).
I think it is not quite correct. The dependent should be able to do consular processing if she is not in US.
hot New Hummer HX pics
martinvisalaw
03-18 03:30 PM
Thank you for your previous answer. You mentioned that he can't file 485 legally in the scenario explained above. Is it illegal because he was laid off and not working anymore for the employer A? I believe as long as company A is interested in offering him the future position, he can file 'legally' with the job offer letter. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It would be fraudulent for him to file the 485 with no realistic chance of working for Co. A. As I said, if there is a chance, he could file.
It would be fraudulent for him to file the 485 with no realistic chance of working for Co. A. As I said, if there is a chance, he could file.
more...
house Hummer HX Concept
gxr
09-26 02:12 PM
Got EAD approved on 09/25. Filed on 07/03, RN is 09/11. - NSC, 140 still pending.
tattoo NAIAS 08: HUMMER HX Concept
logiclife
06-25 06:36 PM
Hi all,
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
My attorney (a great guy by the way) filed my I485 without my employment verification letter. When I raised the question, he argued that the employment verification letter cannot be a ground for denial and that worst case scenario will be USCIS sending a RFE.
Is it true that it is not a ground for denial?
Is is possible to send it it separately to complete the file?
What would be your advice?
Thanks is advance.
The most recent USCIS memo says that if initial evidence is missing, then they can deny the petition without bothering to send the RFE. This is memo as of June 17th.
Employment verification letter is listed in the intial evidence on 485 form. So it is very risk to send 485 without that coz it could get denied without you ever seeing an RFE.
Ask your lawyer if he has read the USCIS memo on June 17th. If he hasnt, then send him/her this link:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/RFEFinalRule060107.pdf
Thanks.
more...
pictures Hummer HX Concept
satishku_2000
10-05 06:49 PM
Another important thing whole EB2 and EB3 classification is , it does not matter how much experience or educational credetials a benificiary has. The job should require it too...
dresses 2008 Hummer HX Concept
needhelp!
02-13 10:55 PM
Thanks to all who responded.
more...
makeup Hummer HX Picture #1
seahawks
04-28 11:52 AM
See the whole thing here : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR2006010201376.html
My regtrogression brothers and sisters.....IF WE WANT TO END RETROGRESSION and end the H1B blackout WE HAVE GOT TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE ILLEGAL KIND and point out the congress and the general populace that there is another kind of immigration which is called ***TADA*** LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Its involves a process of granting permenant residence and citizenship to folks who are
1) Present Legally.
2) Entered LEgally.
3) Work legally.
4) Pay their income taxes.
5) Pay their social security and medicare taxes even when there is no guarantee of the benefits of either until they actually become citizens.
6) Play by the rules, file petitions for work permits and for permenant residency.
Our goal is not the hurt or help the cause of illegals but to make sure that we dont get punished due to wrath against them. After all, we played by the rules and we wait in line by the rules. We dont need amnesty. We need fair deal.
I once again urge you all to channel your energy to immigrationvoice.org This is a non-profit established with goal of ending retrogression using the next immigration bill as a vehicle. Its folks like you and me Losing sleep over retrogression. People like us wondering "What wrong did I do to deserve another 5-6 years of H1B extensions". I am not asking you to put money upfront. It does not cost anything to enroll or join or volunteer. But pooling ideas is invaluable. Stop sulking. Act now. [/QUOTE]
I totally agree we need participation more than anything else and spread the word. I have been sending feelers to friends who somehow don't get it. They pay attention when I talk to them, but then there is no action. Its a shame, but kudos to all of you guys. As for me, I have lined up to meet up with assistants, office staff for law makers from my district and offices from Senators of Washington state. I am working on the logistics to provide my inputs on Retrogression and IV. So far I have heard both of them support immigration reform. I am requesting to meet with them in person, but me and my wife needs to meet with office staff first. Next week will keep you guys posted more.
My regtrogression brothers and sisters.....IF WE WANT TO END RETROGRESSION and end the H1B blackout WE HAVE GOT TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM THE ILLEGAL KIND and point out the congress and the general populace that there is another kind of immigration which is called ***TADA*** LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Its involves a process of granting permenant residence and citizenship to folks who are
1) Present Legally.
2) Entered LEgally.
3) Work legally.
4) Pay their income taxes.
5) Pay their social security and medicare taxes even when there is no guarantee of the benefits of either until they actually become citizens.
6) Play by the rules, file petitions for work permits and for permenant residency.
Our goal is not the hurt or help the cause of illegals but to make sure that we dont get punished due to wrath against them. After all, we played by the rules and we wait in line by the rules. We dont need amnesty. We need fair deal.
I once again urge you all to channel your energy to immigrationvoice.org This is a non-profit established with goal of ending retrogression using the next immigration bill as a vehicle. Its folks like you and me Losing sleep over retrogression. People like us wondering "What wrong did I do to deserve another 5-6 years of H1B extensions". I am not asking you to put money upfront. It does not cost anything to enroll or join or volunteer. But pooling ideas is invaluable. Stop sulking. Act now. [/QUOTE]
I totally agree we need participation more than anything else and spread the word. I have been sending feelers to friends who somehow don't get it. They pay attention when I talk to them, but then there is no action. Its a shame, but kudos to all of you guys. As for me, I have lined up to meet up with assistants, office staff for law makers from my district and offices from Senators of Washington state. I am working on the logistics to provide my inputs on Retrogression and IV. So far I have heard both of them support immigration reform. I am requesting to meet with them in person, but me and my wife needs to meet with office staff first. Next week will keep you guys posted more.
girlfriend Hummer H4 Modified.
vegasbaby
02-19 07:23 PM
I thought this might be of your interest.
Home - Upgrading to EB2: Can I use the same job? (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/content/155-upgrading-to-eb2-can-i-use-the-same-job.html)
Home - Upgrading to EB2: Can I use the same job? (http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/content/155-upgrading-to-eb2-can-i-use-the-same-job.html)
hairstyles tn_AS08Hummer HX Con.
vshivaji
09-26 02:01 PM
Even i got the Section: UNKNOWN thing from NSC. My 140 approved on MAY 2007, But online case status is still showing case pending, Is it because of this?
TeddyKoochu
06-25 02:21 PM
Hi Gurus / Attorneys,
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
I think your best bet is to expedite all documents suggested by Pbuckeye, If its a direct client then your employer must have all of MSA/SOW/PO, they should have been sent at the first place or atleast at RFE time. Also if possible try to capture some of your timesheets and work emails; I know some people have used this as evidence. You may also provide the contact details of your manager like phone / email, I have seen instances that when the letter has not been provided USCIS has contacted the manager and all they have to confirm is that you work with them and how long tentatively in the future (This can be counterproductive as well if the response is cold). Iam not sure but if your H1B extension is denied and you have filed a MTR whether you can work legally assuming I94 expired, please check this with your attorney.
With your PD you are atleast 3-4 years from filing 485, worst case if you have to go back you can convert to CP assuming the future job offer from the petitioning company is valid. It’s a very sad situation I hope that your MTR gets approved, all the best.
I have come to this country in 1999 and have worked for company A and after 7 years , I transferred my H1B to company B based company A's approved I-140 in 2007 before July fiasco. Hence missed the July 2007.
Now I have been working for company B for the last 3 years and got my I-140 approved again and applied for H1B extension. Received RFE asking for client letter.
Client was reluctant to give the letter and my H1B got denied.
Asking client for the letter : Client says that they can't give a letter, it's against their company policy :confused:
My Options :
1. MTR : I am not sure if I can get the client letter to open MTR and also file a new H1 in parallel.
2. Go back to my home country : My employer said that they will apply for a new H1B for consular processing (does this come under quota ?)
I own a home here and now leaving everything in a week is making me worried.
Also my priority date is Nov 2002 under EB3 and I am not sure how I can pursue this from my home country, if needed.
Thanks in advance for all your help and suggestions !!
I think your best bet is to expedite all documents suggested by Pbuckeye, If its a direct client then your employer must have all of MSA/SOW/PO, they should have been sent at the first place or atleast at RFE time. Also if possible try to capture some of your timesheets and work emails; I know some people have used this as evidence. You may also provide the contact details of your manager like phone / email, I have seen instances that when the letter has not been provided USCIS has contacted the manager and all they have to confirm is that you work with them and how long tentatively in the future (This can be counterproductive as well if the response is cold). Iam not sure but if your H1B extension is denied and you have filed a MTR whether you can work legally assuming I94 expired, please check this with your attorney.
With your PD you are atleast 3-4 years from filing 485, worst case if you have to go back you can convert to CP assuming the future job offer from the petitioning company is valid. It’s a very sad situation I hope that your MTR gets approved, all the best.
hemasar
05-24 10:10 AM
I thought this would be the most appropriate place to post.
I am on my 3rd year of H1-B (non-technical field), just moved to a new company and was going to start my process toward getting a gc in the next month or so. Now, with all of this, I am very confused.
Do you folks think that it is most appropriate to sit tight and wait to see what happens? or to just go for it now?
I'd appreciate your input, as I have to make a decision soon.
If your employer is sponsoring your GC (LC and I140 by spending their money) then go for it.
I am on my 3rd year of H1-B (non-technical field), just moved to a new company and was going to start my process toward getting a gc in the next month or so. Now, with all of this, I am very confused.
Do you folks think that it is most appropriate to sit tight and wait to see what happens? or to just go for it now?
I'd appreciate your input, as I have to make a decision soon.
If your employer is sponsoring your GC (LC and I140 by spending their money) then go for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment