eb3_nepa
03-24 03:20 PM
I had called NumbersUSA once. They will take the Absolute worst case scenario and project it as an everyday happening. The guy had mentioned to me that EB3 ppl promote chain migration and some get upto 80 (Yes 80) family members here. I tried arguing that it is TOTALLY impossible to bring more than five (i mean common u, ur wife and 3 kids = 5). You cant get ur parents etc., until you are a Citizen, but he wud not listen.
These guys are out to prove that immigration is a bad thing, and they will do their damndest to prove that point. They will not skew the facts, but they will present it in such a way that it looks a LOT worse than it actually is.
These guys are out to prove that immigration is a bad thing, and they will do their damndest to prove that point. They will not skew the facts, but they will present it in such a way that it looks a LOT worse than it actually is.
wallpaper 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan SE
help43
09-10 10:56 PM
Thanks for your replies and help
Which consulate i need to go if i want to go for stamping.......
http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/i797a-i797b-i797c-difference/
According to above link they are saying i need to go to india for stamping ........
please advise me on this.........
Which consulate i need to go if i want to go for stamping.......
http://www.happyschoolsblog.com/i797a-i797b-i797c-difference/
According to above link they are saying i need to go to india for stamping ........
please advise me on this.........
cooler
12-16 10:01 AM
This must be a "NJ" thing. I had mine renewed a few months back and all I showed was the 2 year EAD. No questions were asked.
I would suggest taking the I-485 receipt and the printout of the case from USCIS website showing the application as pending. If need be, talk to the supervisor to get this sorted out.
I would suggest taking the I-485 receipt and the printout of the case from USCIS website showing the application as pending. If need be, talk to the supervisor to get this sorted out.
2011 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan EX
nviren
10-26 04:05 PM
I did not see lot of approvals coming out from Nebraska this week.
Wondering why they are so silent?
Have they changed their focus?
Any ideas?
Wondering why they are so silent?
Have they changed their focus?
Any ideas?
more...
asiehouston
09-05 09:19 PM
I finally got my AP, 15 days after my EAD (100 days total) . I was happy to open the packet, until this......
THEY SENT ME MY AP WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S PICTURE!!!!!!!
Everything else is Correct (address, DOB, A# etc...)
GURUS, please advise what should I do...... I am so pissed!!!!! Thankfully my EAD has the correct pic.... I had done an E-file....June 7th and my previous AP expires Sept 20
THEY SENT ME MY AP WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S PICTURE!!!!!!!
Everything else is Correct (address, DOB, A# etc...)
GURUS, please advise what should I do...... I am so pissed!!!!! Thankfully my EAD has the correct pic.... I had done an E-file....June 7th and my previous AP expires Sept 20
doctor
01-26 04:10 PM
Thank you so much for your responses so far, it is a good starting point for us.
[QUOTE=ryan;2280334]Please, don't take this wrong way. I assume you moved to the US to seek the positives this land has to offer your children, whilst holding on to certain cultures / values from your hometown. Hence, I don't understand why ..QUOTE]
Ryan, As I mentioned it is not about us (parents). We either ignore it or dont come across it openly. I have been out of india for long time now but never had to consider this before. It is different for children and playgrounds, it is not about missing india. Maybe you dont have small children or if you do please let me know the different cities you have lived so far and I will appreciate it.
Thanks
[QUOTE=ryan;2280334]Please, don't take this wrong way. I assume you moved to the US to seek the positives this land has to offer your children, whilst holding on to certain cultures / values from your hometown. Hence, I don't understand why ..QUOTE]
Ryan, As I mentioned it is not about us (parents). We either ignore it or dont come across it openly. I have been out of india for long time now but never had to consider this before. It is different for children and playgrounds, it is not about missing india. Maybe you dont have small children or if you do please let me know the different cities you have lived so far and I will appreciate it.
Thanks
more...
ChalapathiChitturi
11-01 04:22 AM
When I filed my 485, I gave My company address in all the applications. My company is in Washington State.
But I am actually working in California from past 7 years. The only place that I specified my current california address is in G325 (485 supporting document).
Also I move within california after filing 485.
Because I gave my company address in all the 485 applications, I did not even change my address in any of the applications. I only filed AR11 online for the address change. Advantage with online is, you will get a confirmation number.
That is what my company recomended me.
I got my EAD and all other receipts to the company address.
Waiting for AP and FP mails.
I also heard from my company that, my company will receive the finger print notice but the appointment office will be in california.
Hope this helps you.
But I am actually working in California from past 7 years. The only place that I specified my current california address is in G325 (485 supporting document).
Also I move within california after filing 485.
Because I gave my company address in all the 485 applications, I did not even change my address in any of the applications. I only filed AR11 online for the address change. Advantage with online is, you will get a confirmation number.
That is what my company recomended me.
I got my EAD and all other receipts to the company address.
Waiting for AP and FP mails.
I also heard from my company that, my company will receive the finger print notice but the appointment office will be in california.
Hope this helps you.
2010 Used DODGE CARAVAN SXT 2004
jeffrey930
10-02 01:30 AM
found out today my EAD status finally changed to card production i'm so happy...i hope everyone get theres EAD soon, i know the wait is a pain in the @##... How many days you guys think before i get my card on hand? thanks for any reply..
EB3------NEBRASKA ( LIN-***-*** *****)
RD: I-485,I-765,I-140------July 27,2007
ND: September 4,2007
FP:October 11,2007
AED: Card Production Ordered---- October 1, 2007
EB3------NEBRASKA ( LIN-***-*** *****)
RD: I-485,I-765,I-140------July 27,2007
ND: September 4,2007
FP:October 11,2007
AED: Card Production Ordered---- October 1, 2007
more...
kumar1
07-31 01:59 PM
Both same employer
What will happen if everything is same but employers are different? Please shed some light.
What will happen if everything is same but employers are different? Please shed some light.
hair 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
vandanaverdia
09-11 02:56 PM
FYI
"Competing against fast-growing technology companies in India offering jobs with handsome pay raises and quick promotions, Microsoft has to work harder these days to attract and retain the best and brightest Indian engineering talent."
http://www.canada.com/topics/technol...d08f52&k=30524
Please join the WA state chapter....
"Competing against fast-growing technology companies in India offering jobs with handsome pay raises and quick promotions, Microsoft has to work harder these days to attract and retain the best and brightest Indian engineering talent."
http://www.canada.com/topics/technol...d08f52&k=30524
Please join the WA state chapter....
more...
thomachan72
08-12 10:56 AM
I dont understand why your lawyer did not notice this and question you before sending everything out. However, there are thousands of applications that they are dealing with and hopefully yours will go through. By the way did you send in all the original documents or notarized photocopies? Those who send in affidavits+non-availability certificates, did you send in originals or notarized copies?
hot 2010 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
smarth
07-10 10:41 PM
EB3-I is still 'U'....any prediction for EB3-I in October'09 Visa bulletin?:(
more...
house 2004 Dodge Caravan
mariner5555
02-08 09:05 AM
my first EAD expires on aug 16 2008. should I file for new one 180 days before or is it 120 before expiry.
is it better to efile for the above extension or by mail. I guess a lawyer is not needed for the above - am I right ? Thanks in advance !
is it better to efile for the above extension or by mail. I guess a lawyer is not needed for the above - am I right ? Thanks in advance !
tattoo 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
jthomas
10-12 11:19 AM
i filed for i-485, i-765 on July 11th. no receipt yet
more...
pictures Used 2004 DODGE GRAND CARAVAN
geesee
07-13 09:38 AM
These should be called "Payed Services". What do you think ?
I highly oppose calling those "Payed Services", but I am ok with "Paid Services" ;)
I highly oppose calling those "Payed Services", but I am ok with "Paid Services" ;)
dresses 2004 Dodge Caravan SE Fort
Rb_newsletter
02-09 03:28 PM
These are blood sucking leeches playing with our emotions, just for the sake of few clicks on to their page.
The article is Dated Feb 11, 2010 and glorifying a half-hearted attempt in Dec 2009. GRRReattt:mad:
How does this 'Blog Feeds' work? Is there a way to filter these kind of dupicate/old news?
The article is Dated Feb 11, 2010 and glorifying a half-hearted attempt in Dec 2009. GRRReattt:mad:
How does this 'Blog Feeds' work? Is there a way to filter these kind of dupicate/old news?
more...
makeup 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
booz
03-25 09:30 AM
Dear Mr. Chidanand Rajghatta,
This is in refernce to TOI's article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1463861.cms
If you want to print that Laloo Prasad cow was sick and was taken to hospital as the headline news,, fine with me.
But please don't write about immigration issues when u guys don't research properly.
We have come here through legal immigration channels and we hope that our GC's or H1b gets cleared soon.
Most of us would have stayed back if the Mandal comission / V.P. Singh wouldn't have spoiled our lives.
This is in refernce to TOI's article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1463861.cms
If you want to print that Laloo Prasad cow was sick and was taken to hospital as the headline news,, fine with me.
But please don't write about immigration issues when u guys don't research properly.
We have come here through legal immigration channels and we hope that our GC's or H1b gets cleared soon.
Most of us would have stayed back if the Mandal comission / V.P. Singh wouldn't have spoiled our lives.
girlfriend 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
ski_dude12
12-16 04:23 PM
With EAD, I got mine renewed for 3 years in NY:cool::cool::cool:
hairstyles 2004 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT
mnq1979
05-21 03:02 PM
I know answer for his RFE and i don't know answer for my RFE? Is that a problem?
Well i dont think thats true that it is must that i have to send the AC21. Like i can always get the employment letter from my employer who sponsered me for my green card. All i was asking was that IF I DO GET THE EVL RFE (I HOPE NOT) then in that instance what i am suppose to do? Get a letter from my current employer or the employer who sponsored me for green card?
Well i dont think thats true that it is must that i have to send the AC21. Like i can always get the employment letter from my employer who sponsered me for my green card. All i was asking was that IF I DO GET THE EVL RFE (I HOPE NOT) then in that instance what i am suppose to do? Get a letter from my current employer or the employer who sponsored me for green card?
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hebron
04-03 12:31 PM
Hi Bobby,
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused now. Maybe its just me.
Couple of questions, if you don't mind.
1. Did you go on your vaction after getting your 3 year extension based on your approved I-140?
2. Did you apply for 3 year H1-b extension even though your passport was not renewed?
3. Did you renew your passport before you travelled on your vacation? I am asking this just to know which passport had your visa stamp?
4. Did UCSIS approve your H!-b extension for 3 years and does the I-94 on your I-797 indicate that the new H1-b is valid for 3 years?
Thanks
I returned to the US last year after a vacation and while my current visa's expiration date is July 2007 the customs official would only stamp my I-94 & authorize entry until May 2007 when my passport expires. My lawyer has applied for our extension using copies of my passport which is expiring soon but she advised that USCIS would need a copy of the new passport with new expiry date before approving my extension. The lawyer says your passport has to have an expiry date after the date of expiration of your visa extension. I will get a new I-94 with my visa extension btw this extension is the 3 year extension as our I-140 is approved but we have not filed for adj. of status yet. PD 5/03 EB3 ROW
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused now. Maybe its just me.
Couple of questions, if you don't mind.
1. Did you go on your vaction after getting your 3 year extension based on your approved I-140?
2. Did you apply for 3 year H1-b extension even though your passport was not renewed?
3. Did you renew your passport before you travelled on your vacation? I am asking this just to know which passport had your visa stamp?
4. Did UCSIS approve your H!-b extension for 3 years and does the I-94 on your I-797 indicate that the new H1-b is valid for 3 years?
Thanks
I returned to the US last year after a vacation and while my current visa's expiration date is July 2007 the customs official would only stamp my I-94 & authorize entry until May 2007 when my passport expires. My lawyer has applied for our extension using copies of my passport which is expiring soon but she advised that USCIS would need a copy of the new passport with new expiry date before approving my extension. The lawyer says your passport has to have an expiry date after the date of expiration of your visa extension. I will get a new I-94 with my visa extension btw this extension is the 3 year extension as our I-140 is approved but we have not filed for adj. of status yet. PD 5/03 EB3 ROW
No comments:
Post a Comment