BharatPremi
07-17 10:29 PM
DIGG THIS PLEASE:
http://digg.com/politics/Government_Does_U_Turn_on_Green_Cards
http://digg.com/politics/Government_Does_U_Turn_on_Green_Cards
wallpaper hot valentine quotes friends
meridiani.planum
12-18 11:54 PM
Confucious had said, when it comes to 485 and AC-21, be smart and patiently wait for the time to pass before you transform from your pre 180 days avatar (http://www.forparentsbyparents.com/images/cute_baby_2006/cute_baby_nov06_ruby_400.jpg) to your post 180 days avatar (http://www.niten.org.br/artigossensei/cafecomsensei/mai2007/killbill.jpg).
:D:D:D
:D:D:D
EndlessWait
05-24 12:51 PM
we need to be on front page of CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc. if we want to make a difference.
By the way , i did send several emails to CNN. But looks like we are gonna have to wait till someone covers us in media.
By the way , i did send several emails to CNN. But looks like we are gonna have to wait till someone covers us in media.
2011 valentine friendship quotes.
zzsbzz
07-14 02:30 PM
FWIW, a big technology company's lawyer are sending almost 1100 applications.
Yes. I'm not sure if you're talking about the same big technology company but one decided to go ahead with filing applications for all it's eligible employees on Thursday.
Yes. I'm not sure if you're talking about the same big technology company but one decided to go ahead with filing applications for all it's eligible employees on Thursday.
more...
cbpds
09-15 02:07 PM
he is enjoying two types of freedom now :P
Enjoy the freedom!
Enjoy the freedom!
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.
more...
qasleuth
03-31 12:35 PM
If you do not want to wait for your employer to give you details about the report, you can order one for yourself using a service like Personal record search (includes criminal reports) from www.choicetrust.com.
If I were you, I would not wait around for details from the employer but spend the $25 and get all the info I can and dispute whatever is incorrect.
If I were you, I would not wait around for details from the employer but spend the $25 and get all the info I can and dispute whatever is incorrect.
2010 valentine friendship quotes
fromnaija
10-05 12:49 PM
On the flip side, I know people who have gotten selected in DV the very first time. Like you said, that's why it's called a lottery. Anything can happen.
Does anyone know if it makes any difference if you file early or late? I know it's supposed be completely random but does anyone have any theory on how you might have a better chance? My take is that if you file too early (first few days) and if (with a big if) there is a bug in system then your application might get lost. So let the bugs be fixed in first few days and then file.
This is my strategy. I play my entry in the early weeks and play my wife's entry towards the end.
Does anyone know if it makes any difference if you file early or late? I know it's supposed be completely random but does anyone have any theory on how you might have a better chance? My take is that if you file too early (first few days) and if (with a big if) there is a bug in system then your application might get lost. So let the bugs be fixed in first few days and then file.
This is my strategy. I play my entry in the early weeks and play my wife's entry towards the end.
more...
yabadaba
06-29 02:22 AM
Yabadaba,
I am in a similar situation with no new stamp or I-94 while last entry into the US from Canada at a land border crossing. This is the date/place that I had mentioned in my I-485.
See
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=158111
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=145094&page=1&pp=15&highlight=canada
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=165295
There is a mighty good probabilty that we will get an RFE to
establish proof of inspection of entry into the US
So...start getting together any proofs for that:D that said it is fairly easy to take care RFE
for u - u need to put in the last time u got a stamp when u left/entered the country. my case was different, I had gotten a visa stamp from toronto. that should be sufficient proof for uscis
I am in a similar situation with no new stamp or I-94 while last entry into the US from Canada at a land border crossing. This is the date/place that I had mentioned in my I-485.
See
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=158111
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=145094&page=1&pp=15&highlight=canada
http://boards.immigration.com/showthread.php?t=165295
There is a mighty good probabilty that we will get an RFE to
establish proof of inspection of entry into the US
So...start getting together any proofs for that:D that said it is fairly easy to take care RFE
for u - u need to put in the last time u got a stamp when u left/entered the country. my case was different, I had gotten a visa stamp from toronto. that should be sufficient proof for uscis
hair valentine friendship quotes.
vin13
03-11 09:14 AM
My AP was mailed by USCIS in January and I never received it. Called USCIS customer service, they said I need to apply again by paying $305 again. Called up USPS and they cannot find it, USPS said they will be sending me apology letter.
Did any one lost AP in mail, did any of you refile again.
I had a similar situation. The website showed that the case was approved. After waiting for few weeks had my lawyer contact USCIS. They said to wait another week and if it does not arrive then they will issue a duplicate one. The very next day, the lawyer fedexed me the AP papers saying they arrived. Now, i am not sure if the mail was not opened at the lawyer's office or truely it arrived the very next day.
I think the best for you would be to schedule a Infopass and go there with your information. If they feel like helping you, they can have you fill the application form right there and issue the AP in a day or two.
Take a couple of your passport photos just in case they want you to fill the application again. It is a very short application. So it takes less than 10 minutes to fill it. They may not charge you any money. Just take your 485 receipt notice, I-140 approval notce, previous AP approvals if any, current EAD with you.
Did any one lost AP in mail, did any of you refile again.
I had a similar situation. The website showed that the case was approved. After waiting for few weeks had my lawyer contact USCIS. They said to wait another week and if it does not arrive then they will issue a duplicate one. The very next day, the lawyer fedexed me the AP papers saying they arrived. Now, i am not sure if the mail was not opened at the lawyer's office or truely it arrived the very next day.
I think the best for you would be to schedule a Infopass and go there with your information. If they feel like helping you, they can have you fill the application form right there and issue the AP in a day or two.
Take a couple of your passport photos just in case they want you to fill the application again. It is a very short application. So it takes less than 10 minutes to fill it. They may not charge you any money. Just take your 485 receipt notice, I-140 approval notce, previous AP approvals if any, current EAD with you.
more...
Green.Tech
08-18 02:51 PM
If you google, there are so many other cheaper providers as well (but their quality may be cheaper as well). For example, check this: WatchIndia - Indian TV online with live Indian TV Channels (http://www.watchindia.tv/). Anyone has any experience using watchindia?
hot Valentines
ubetman
08-05 10:31 AM
Thanks Tampacoolie...I don't know how I have to persuade my lawyer/representative...guess have to deal with him carefully and politely...they think that we are the lawyers and we know everything..ofcourse may be ...sometimes esp at this point, we have to notify...if we miss this opportunity, no way to appeal also..and u never know when PDs will be current again....
Anyhow thanks guyz for ur suggestions...
Anyhow thanks guyz for ur suggestions...
more...
house Valentines Day Quotes:
Winner
04-21 12:28 PM
If I485 is denied for wrong reason (due to USCIS error), I understand that the applicant and attorney can file a MTR, but during the time till the case is reopened again, is it legal for the employee to work on EAD?
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
tattoo valentine friendship quotes.
venky_handsy
09-10 10:31 PM
your employer while applying the h1b , they did not applied for change of status to h1b. they just applied for h1b only. so you did not got the i-94.
so until you out of the country and get it stamped h1b and re-enter you h1b will not be activated.
since you have your f1 valid until december...you can go for stamping before that date or you can also amend h1b for change of status thru your employer also.
hope this helps
so until you out of the country and get it stamped h1b and re-enter you h1b will not be activated.
since you have your f1 valid until december...you can go for stamping before that date or you can also amend h1b for change of status thru your employer also.
hope this helps
more...
pictures valentine quotes and sayings.
GCWhru
05-28 01:35 PM
Greatly apprecite if anyone can give their inputs...
I have PD with dec 2006 and 140 approved. Filed 485 in July 2007. For october 2008 I will be done with 4 years of H1b. I am single and I may not get married untill later 2009 due to some family responsibalities. I am kind of concered about 485 getting approval by then which might jeoperdise my spouse visa later. Based on the present processing speed, mine might take minmum 2 years. But bit concerend what if USCICS make a mistake in processing 485 in terms of picking 485 from a later date and approving it?
So my query is...
1. If I now withdraw my 485 and later change company. SHould I again get a new labor and i140 approved with new company to file for 485.( Here I understand I can port my PD.).
Any inputs will be greatly apprecited....
I think you are fine having a Dec 2006 priority date, you can take a risk, probability of getting approval is less than 1%.
One of my friend with Sep 2003 PD, getting married on August and he is taking risk and praying God that his GC should not get approved before his marriage.
I have PD with dec 2006 and 140 approved. Filed 485 in July 2007. For october 2008 I will be done with 4 years of H1b. I am single and I may not get married untill later 2009 due to some family responsibalities. I am kind of concered about 485 getting approval by then which might jeoperdise my spouse visa later. Based on the present processing speed, mine might take minmum 2 years. But bit concerend what if USCICS make a mistake in processing 485 in terms of picking 485 from a later date and approving it?
So my query is...
1. If I now withdraw my 485 and later change company. SHould I again get a new labor and i140 approved with new company to file for 485.( Here I understand I can port my PD.).
Any inputs will be greatly apprecited....
I think you are fine having a Dec 2006 priority date, you can take a risk, probability of getting approval is less than 1%.
One of my friend with Sep 2003 PD, getting married on August and he is taking risk and praying God that his GC should not get approved before his marriage.
dresses friendship quotes. quotes
GCWhru
05-28 01:35 PM
Greatly apprecite if anyone can give their inputs...
I have PD with dec 2006 and 140 approved. Filed 485 in July 2007. For october 2008 I will be done with 4 years of H1b. I am single and I may not get married untill later 2009 due to some family responsibalities. I am kind of concered about 485 getting approval by then which might jeoperdise my spouse visa later. Based on the present processing speed, mine might take minmum 2 years. But bit concerend what if USCICS make a mistake in processing 485 in terms of picking 485 from a later date and approving it?
So my query is...
1. If I now withdraw my 485 and later change company. SHould I again get a new labor and i140 approved with new company to file for 485.( Here I understand I can port my PD.).
Any inputs will be greatly apprecited....
I think you are fine having a Dec 2006 priority date, you can take a risk, probability of getting approval is less than 1%.
One of my friend with Sep 2003 PD, getting married on August and he is taking risk and praying God that his GC should not get approved before his marriage.
I have PD with dec 2006 and 140 approved. Filed 485 in July 2007. For october 2008 I will be done with 4 years of H1b. I am single and I may not get married untill later 2009 due to some family responsibalities. I am kind of concered about 485 getting approval by then which might jeoperdise my spouse visa later. Based on the present processing speed, mine might take minmum 2 years. But bit concerend what if USCICS make a mistake in processing 485 in terms of picking 485 from a later date and approving it?
So my query is...
1. If I now withdraw my 485 and later change company. SHould I again get a new labor and i140 approved with new company to file for 485.( Here I understand I can port my PD.).
Any inputs will be greatly apprecited....
I think you are fine having a Dec 2006 priority date, you can take a risk, probability of getting approval is less than 1%.
One of my friend with Sep 2003 PD, getting married on August and he is taking risk and praying God that his GC should not get approved before his marriage.
more...
makeup valentines friendship quotes
potatoeater
05-10 02:14 PM
I think I ran across this problem myself earlier.
You are using firefox, aren't you? VFS site does not work with firefox. It works well only with IE. So use IE. Simple.
Hi all,
I have been trying to get an appointment from Hyderabad consulate, AP, India for the past two days on 27th or 28th of May 2009.
When I check the availability, the website shows that 27 thru 29th of May are available for appointments. But after I create and save the application it doesn't take me to the page where I can select the appointment dates. We sent an email to VFS customer support but till now we did not receive any reply.We are two H1bs(myself and my husband) and two H4s(kids).
Did anyone get an appointment successfully ?
The entire process of H1b revalidation itself is a tormenting procedure. On the top of it VFS website is really annoying.Sorry for venting my frustration.
Can anyone please help me out and guide me through the process.
Thanks in advance
Amul
You are using firefox, aren't you? VFS site does not work with firefox. It works well only with IE. So use IE. Simple.
Hi all,
I have been trying to get an appointment from Hyderabad consulate, AP, India for the past two days on 27th or 28th of May 2009.
When I check the availability, the website shows that 27 thru 29th of May are available for appointments. But after I create and save the application it doesn't take me to the page where I can select the appointment dates. We sent an email to VFS customer support but till now we did not receive any reply.We are two H1bs(myself and my husband) and two H4s(kids).
Did anyone get an appointment successfully ?
The entire process of H1b revalidation itself is a tormenting procedure. On the top of it VFS website is really annoying.Sorry for venting my frustration.
Can anyone please help me out and guide me through the process.
Thanks in advance
Amul
girlfriend miss you friend quotes. i love
bluekayal
10-23 12:34 PM
comments?
^^^^^^^ bump ^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^ bump ^^^^^^^^
hairstyles valentine friendship poems
pappu
12-16 01:25 PM
There is a possible solution to this. I do not wish to post it as everyone may try to misuse that route and thus block the avenue for deserving people. If you have been denied, you can contact IV.
Widget
06-05 11:33 AM
Take my word, your case will be approved soon. I had the same wording when my I-140 application was transferred fro CSC to TSC and I received the approval notice in one month. Relax.
My I-140 case status (NSE) used to say 150-180 days, now no more time line words in the status. Just they say they will notify you when decision is made, I thought that was because I 140 premium is coming soon, they changed the wording.
My I-140 case status (NSE) used to say 150-180 days, now no more time line words in the status. Just they say they will notify you when decision is made, I thought that was because I 140 premium is coming soon, they changed the wording.
rb_248
01-13 02:21 PM
you are a selfish person. you do not care about the rest of the iv community.
these provisions are suited for your own benefit. please do not distract the forum with ideas suited to benefit you. let's stick behind the iv strategy.
Let us somehow try and push SKIL bill. It almost got to the floor last time.
these provisions are suited for your own benefit. please do not distract the forum with ideas suited to benefit you. let's stick behind the iv strategy.
Let us somehow try and push SKIL bill. It almost got to the floor last time.
No comments:
Post a Comment