jasmin45
07-16 07:05 PM
There's already a thread floating in the forum to discuss this. Did you search the forum before conveniently created this dupicate thread. Please be considerate to resources on IV. It will be very difficult to desseminate the information all over the place.
Please request admins to delete this one if you could not do so.
Please request admins to delete this one if you could not do so.
wallpaper Lyrics oh yeah u may song so
theshiningsun
02-24 03:50 AM
this is what i know
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
bharad
05-07 12:10 PM
Me and my wife's 485 applications received a soft LUD on 04/30/2009 and 05/01/2009 for two consecutive days.
2011 Baby tab by Justin Bieber at
permfiling
06-01 08:26 PM
I am one of those where I have I140 approved but waitting for visa num# and I know another person in similar boat.
- contributed $500 to IV
member of north ca chapter
There should be boat load of people who have their I140 approved and stuck. Irrespective of the population, it is important that this be addressed. They are one job away from loosing status. By issuing a 3 year employer independent EAD before a PR number becomes available is worthy cause. By this way, everyone in the pipeline knows that someday their paperwork will be cleared for good and until then they have the EAD to keep them going. The very fact that an I140 has been approved for a petitioner and the intent to immigrate has been approved, should allow the petitioner the temporary relief of having the choice to work and live little better. The the only thing that is preventing your status validated is the availability of Visa number, which is more of a procedural/legislative issue. So, hope this request is pushed in one or another form.
- contributed $500 to IV
member of north ca chapter
There should be boat load of people who have their I140 approved and stuck. Irrespective of the population, it is important that this be addressed. They are one job away from loosing status. By issuing a 3 year employer independent EAD before a PR number becomes available is worthy cause. By this way, everyone in the pipeline knows that someday their paperwork will be cleared for good and until then they have the EAD to keep them going. The very fact that an I140 has been approved for a petitioner and the intent to immigrate has been approved, should allow the petitioner the temporary relief of having the choice to work and live little better. The the only thing that is preventing your status validated is the availability of Visa number, which is more of a procedural/legislative issue. So, hope this request is pushed in one or another form.
more...
sureshvd
10-15 11:15 AM
Hi svr_76,
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
By accepting citizenship will not make you "FORIEGN". Even after 10 yrs you still be looked as Indian immigrant after all. You are right in a sense that sooner we all will cry for for PIO card.
up_guy
04-12 11:00 PM
I also have the same question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
Please suggest.
when I check 2 yrs old EAD application my attorney had used (c)(0)(9)
Is that right or it should be (c)(9) or
it should be (c) (09)
Please help folks
more...
mheggade
12-12 04:39 PM
DOS/USCIS had a co-ordination meeting to discuss how to prepare for the upcoming holiday's. The outcome of the meeting was to push EB2 cases as back as possible , so that people really can have a good time enjoying holiday. (When I say people read it as USCIS/FBI/DOS and lawyers ).
:)
I work for Federal agency as contractor I know very well how things work during the holiday season.
Happy long long holiday's you all.
:)
I work for Federal agency as contractor I know very well how things work during the holiday season.
Happy long long holiday's you all.
2010 Mp3 Justin Bieber - ft
GCOP
06-23 02:46 PM
I know that, we had not been successful in earlier years for this bill. But, as CIR chances are very uncertain, we should concentrate at least only on this Visa Recapture Bill this year. Passing of this bill will reduce backlog significantly. Let us focus on this bill .
more...
cbpds
08-03 06:27 PM
you missed on one fav diet control idea ---drinking Green tea :)
hair Baby Justin Bieber Guitar
willIWill
07-16 01:06 PM
now this is weird... aside from the poster's main question: why does uscis want proof of *continuous employment* since the poster filed for 485? all they should care about is the future job... isnt that right? why do they want employment history?
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
Chi_shark,
Here is the second point 'verbatim':
2. Please submit proof of your continuous employment authorization/maintaining status in the U.S. from 10/1/07 to the present. Such evidence may include copies of:
• Copies of both sides of your Form 1-94 Arrival/Entry Document;
• Copies of both sides of your Form I-20A-B/I-D (F-l students and dependants);
• Copies of both sides of your Form IAP-66;
• Copies of any Form 1-797 approval notice/notice of action;
• Copies of the pages in your passport which show U.S. visas. Immigration admission stamps or other endorsements;
• Copies of any and all Employment Authorization documents issued to you by this Service.
Please provide verification of your F-l nonimmigrant status in the form of letters and transcripts from any and all colleges/universities that you have attended. The letter(s) from the educational institutions should identify your inclusive dates of attendance, if you maintained full-time student status, along with a point of contact and phone numbers for verification purposes.
Photocopies of these documents must be clear and readable. It may be necessary to use a color copier to ensure quality copies.
willIWill, can you please post the exact wording on your RFE regarding that point?
Chi_shark,
Here is the second point 'verbatim':
2. Please submit proof of your continuous employment authorization/maintaining status in the U.S. from 10/1/07 to the present. Such evidence may include copies of:
• Copies of both sides of your Form 1-94 Arrival/Entry Document;
• Copies of both sides of your Form I-20A-B/I-D (F-l students and dependants);
• Copies of both sides of your Form IAP-66;
• Copies of any Form 1-797 approval notice/notice of action;
• Copies of the pages in your passport which show U.S. visas. Immigration admission stamps or other endorsements;
• Copies of any and all Employment Authorization documents issued to you by this Service.
Please provide verification of your F-l nonimmigrant status in the form of letters and transcripts from any and all colleges/universities that you have attended. The letter(s) from the educational institutions should identify your inclusive dates of attendance, if you maintained full-time student status, along with a point of contact and phone numbers for verification purposes.
Photocopies of these documents must be clear and readable. It may be necessary to use a color copier to ensure quality copies.
more...
travellertvr
03-22 03:15 PM
smuggymba,
Old I-94 expiration date was January 3, 2010, and new I-94 started from October 18, 2010.
Old I-94 expiration date was January 3, 2010, and new I-94 started from October 18, 2010.
hot Justin bieber baby hes got
rajenk
08-12 12:46 PM
Thank you all for your response.
The reason for my opening a new thread is to get attention from other members to get my question answered. I did not want to bury my question in to those lengthy threads, and the chance of getting such question answered is highly improbable. OK now to my additional questions on this subject.
Questions:
1. Did you guys receive all the receipts (yours and dependents) together in a single postal mail?
2. If that is the case then in my situation should I safely assume my wife's application was rejected?
Please respond I have only 5 days to re-submit a new application for my wife. If I miss it then our whole GC dream will become a nightmare:(
My PD is 11/30/05 EB3
Thanks
Raj
The reason for my opening a new thread is to get attention from other members to get my question answered. I did not want to bury my question in to those lengthy threads, and the chance of getting such question answered is highly improbable. OK now to my additional questions on this subject.
Questions:
1. Did you guys receive all the receipts (yours and dependents) together in a single postal mail?
2. If that is the case then in my situation should I safely assume my wife's application was rejected?
Please respond I have only 5 days to re-submit a new application for my wife. If I miss it then our whole GC dream will become a nightmare:(
My PD is 11/30/05 EB3
Thanks
Raj
more...
house Baby music lyrics minus one
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
tattoo justin bieber baby lyrics
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
more...
pictures Artist : Justin Bieber ft.
Apollon
06-30 06:57 PM
I realize the PERM position requirement must match EB2 track requirement, it must be what you said. However, what I'm questioning is (lets assume we're not talking about Masters degree at all, only BA+5 alternative) - does it make a difference *for position requirement*, not EB2, if part of the "+5" in the position requirement came before the bachelors degree was completed? Can this job requirement be without restriction all of the "+5" comes after graduation, and still qualify for EB2, where all "+5" must come after degree requirements have been satisfied?
I'll give an example, to avoid misunderstandings:
lets say a person completed BA or B.Sc. in March 2004. Lets say this person has worked in the same filed for 2 years before March 2004. Lets say after March 2004 until TODAY, when the PERM application is filed this person has continuously worked in the field for 5.5 more years, but when he was hired for his current position 1 year ago he had only 4.5 years post graduate experience.
What we have here is 6.5 years work experience until the person was hired, but only 4.5 years total post graduate experience until hiring date.
The Question is: Can the sponsor claim job requirement is BA+5, even though at the time when this person was hired post graduate experience was 4.5 years and total 6.5 years?
I'll give an example, to avoid misunderstandings:
lets say a person completed BA or B.Sc. in March 2004. Lets say this person has worked in the same filed for 2 years before March 2004. Lets say after March 2004 until TODAY, when the PERM application is filed this person has continuously worked in the field for 5.5 more years, but when he was hired for his current position 1 year ago he had only 4.5 years post graduate experience.
What we have here is 6.5 years work experience until the person was hired, but only 4.5 years total post graduate experience until hiring date.
The Question is: Can the sponsor claim job requirement is BA+5, even though at the time when this person was hired post graduate experience was 4.5 years and total 6.5 years?
dresses Justin Bieber Videos: Justin
adusumilli
09-27 09:34 AM
from tracitt data it looks like NSC is going by Notice Date than recipt date. looks like NSC is processing aug 13- aug 15 ND cases now.
more...
makeup Baby+lyrics+justin+ieber
lost_in_migration
05-14 09:09 PM
Done.. Its in the thread EB2-General Poll. I would have liked to keep just one thread but only allows 10 options at the max. Hope ppl don't vote at both places :)
Can you create one for EB2, please? Thanks!
Can you create one for EB2, please? Thanks!
girlfriend Baby music lyrics minus one
nozerd
02-24 12:20 PM
pitha,
they dont need tuition waiver. they pay in state anyway. Only drawback is they cant get on campus job and cant get OPT.
Advantage is they can go part time and take less coursework (dont have to take min 9 credit hrs). They can even take a semester off without worrying about status.
they dont need tuition waiver. they pay in state anyway. Only drawback is they cant get on campus job and cant get OPT.
Advantage is they can go part time and take less coursework (dont have to take min 9 credit hrs). They can even take a semester off without worrying about status.
hairstyles Justin Bieber - Pray Lyrics :
jonty_11
08-15 12:47 PM
Thre is a lot of hurt on these forums related to substituted labor..so help will be slow to come.
ksvreg
02-24 08:17 PM
I have been full-time with big company for the past 9 years. Stuck with EB3. I need a serious input from you guys about joining in a new company and applying EB2. I probably get new employment with a small firm of size 100-150 employees. I have MS from USA in 2005. Is it good idea to join in new company or is it a worth waiting for EB3 dates. My PD is in 2003. What if you are in my situation? Please advise. Thanks.
joydiptac
05-26 01:50 PM
This is not a good advice...USCIS may have the file as active, and may approve EAD...If and when USCIS starts working on the application and issues RFE, etc., ...they may decide that the application was abandoned. If the poster worked on the EAD based on the abandoned GC application, then it is likely that USCIS will consider her to be out-of-status from the time she had no basis for EAD, which may mean a long illegal presence, triggering 10 years or permanent ban, etc.
Thanks Saikat, for pointing out some potential pitfalls.
I am sure USCIS has its own checks and balances to determine the validity of an application, and whether it is abandoned. But I do not believe in being proactive and raising flags to jeopardize what may be totally legit.
One more thing that slipped my mind is you can always check online status to see if your application is active or rejected. :)
Here are a few tidbits of law (information) I am aware of. I am not a lawyer so please seek help or search online for the validity of my statements :
1. During AOS (adjustment of Status, I485 pending) you do not accrue Illegal presence period. However, if you were on a Non Immigrant visa and that has expired you will be in illegal status until you went out and came back using AP - but that is usually OK. Unless there is an unrelated issue that flags your case you are safe. But mind you - still no Illegal presence is accrued. This is the law.
2. While on AOS it is OK to go out of the country for short periods of time (I don't think this is very well defined hence a gray area). In case you do not have any other non immigrant visa you need to have applied for AP before leaving the country otherwise you are considered to have abandoned your I485 application.
Example: My boss from one of my previous companies was on AOS was working from B'lore in the same company for more than or close to a year. He came back on his L1A visa. He had a long talk with Immigration and explained that our company had sent him abroad for all this while, which was true. He came back in, within a few months got his GC this tells me that his I485 was not considered to be abandoned. Well it is a different story that he did not stay after that as being a truly global manager, he was sent to France and then to India within 6 months.
HTH
Thanks Saikat, for pointing out some potential pitfalls.
I am sure USCIS has its own checks and balances to determine the validity of an application, and whether it is abandoned. But I do not believe in being proactive and raising flags to jeopardize what may be totally legit.
One more thing that slipped my mind is you can always check online status to see if your application is active or rejected. :)
Here are a few tidbits of law (information) I am aware of. I am not a lawyer so please seek help or search online for the validity of my statements :
1. During AOS (adjustment of Status, I485 pending) you do not accrue Illegal presence period. However, if you were on a Non Immigrant visa and that has expired you will be in illegal status until you went out and came back using AP - but that is usually OK. Unless there is an unrelated issue that flags your case you are safe. But mind you - still no Illegal presence is accrued. This is the law.
2. While on AOS it is OK to go out of the country for short periods of time (I don't think this is very well defined hence a gray area). In case you do not have any other non immigrant visa you need to have applied for AP before leaving the country otherwise you are considered to have abandoned your I485 application.
Example: My boss from one of my previous companies was on AOS was working from B'lore in the same company for more than or close to a year. He came back on his L1A visa. He had a long talk with Immigration and explained that our company had sent him abroad for all this while, which was true. He came back in, within a few months got his GC this tells me that his I485 was not considered to be abandoned. Well it is a different story that he did not stay after that as being a truly global manager, he was sent to France and then to India within 6 months.
HTH
No comments:
Post a Comment