gsc999
07-11 07:14 PM
nfinity & syzygy, please check your PM.
wallpaper Cameron Diaz shows her buff
GCard_Dream
06-25 01:00 PM
I have done this successfully couple of times and don't see any problem with it. It does save money and picture quality is great, if you have the proper setup at home.
Would taking a picture using a digital camera at home and print them out ourselves help....not trying to be greedy but trying to get good quality pictures compared to crappy CVS/Walgreens/Costco/etc. picutres....what do u think guys?
Would taking a picture using a digital camera at home and print them out ourselves help....not trying to be greedy but trying to get good quality pictures compared to crappy CVS/Walgreens/Costco/etc. picutres....what do u think guys?
wandmaker
07-23 07:44 AM
All,
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
(1) you first will have to apply for 140 with porting request until it is approved the PD is not yours (2) apply for 485, if the PD is current. NSC folks did the right by returning your application because concurrent filing is not possible, if the 140 has porting request.
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
Here is my situation -
Previous Employer -
EB3,PD-Jan'04,I-140 cleared. Switched in June 2007 and wasn't able to file I-485 in July 2007
New Employer -
EB2, PD-Dec'-07, I-140 (Feb'08 - pending)
Question -
Based on Jun'08 Visa bulletin the dates for EB2-India were at Apr'04. Filed for I-140/485 based on my old priority date for EB3 labor (Jan'04). Explaining USCIS for PD transfer.
Well, folks at NSC did not understand the PD transfer concept and send my application back. Unclear as to what do now. I guess need to wait until the dates for EB2-India reach Dec'07 such that I can file.
Any "Creative" thoughts on how to approach USCIS moving forward.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Aamchimumbai
(1) you first will have to apply for 140 with porting request until it is approved the PD is not yours (2) apply for 485, if the PD is current. NSC folks did the right by returning your application because concurrent filing is not possible, if the 140 has porting request.
2011 house cameron diaz cosmo cover 2011. cameron diaz cosmopolitan cover 2011.
Dhundhun
07-10 06:30 PM
On I-797 from Y it doesn't have I-94 number on it anywhere. since its through consular processing.
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
more...
spdy_mn
08-02 01:49 PM
Yes, you are correct. They just need copies at the time of application, they can ask for originals if needed later if there is an interview. But yes, still I got my orginials in courier.
Alrighty, submit the copies and have the originals in hand. That works, thanks
Alrighty, submit the copies and have the originals in hand. That works, thanks
chanduv23
09-25 10:44 AM
We should send this to all lawmakers - post it on IV and post it on blogs - print and distribute
more...
jnayar2006
03-27 05:40 PM
nsnriv,
The idea of the IV forums is to discuss our agenda, and activities.
Individual cases and problems are best discussed on forums like Immigration Portal. You are sure to find help and advice there.
Good luck,
Berkeleybee
Berkeleybee, I am not sure I totally agree with you - having a forum where people can come in and ask questions related to the core problems is a great way to increase readership and to promote the necessary esprit de corps. The members-only forums - now those, I agree - mainly ideas, activities etc. (Personally, I find it very difficult to stay tuned to 3 or 4 different immigration web sites/forums).
vnsriniv, to answer your question - to the best of my knowledge, you will have to wait till the dates become current - the current processing dates of the service centers don't mean much - there are several cases of 485 approvals of petitions with PDs > cut-off dates based on other posts on this board.
The idea of the IV forums is to discuss our agenda, and activities.
Individual cases and problems are best discussed on forums like Immigration Portal. You are sure to find help and advice there.
Good luck,
Berkeleybee
Berkeleybee, I am not sure I totally agree with you - having a forum where people can come in and ask questions related to the core problems is a great way to increase readership and to promote the necessary esprit de corps. The members-only forums - now those, I agree - mainly ideas, activities etc. (Personally, I find it very difficult to stay tuned to 3 or 4 different immigration web sites/forums).
vnsriniv, to answer your question - to the best of my knowledge, you will have to wait till the dates become current - the current processing dates of the service centers don't mean much - there are several cases of 485 approvals of petitions with PDs > cut-off dates based on other posts on this board.
2010 cameron diaz cosmopolitan
Berkeleybee
04-10 01:49 PM
To Berkeleybee, i have recently noticed that you always ask the people directly or indirectly whether they know more than you. While It may be true that you guys know more than us, because u spend hours upon hours making it your business to know, but that does not mean you would want to curb free speech. We are grateful to each and every IV core member for their extrodinary efforts, but do not admonish us because somebody wishes to express their ideas. Who knows if people propose 100 theories there might be 1 out there that even you guys have not thought about.
Personally if i were a member of the core team, i would not even bother to respond back to the threads where the so called theory holds no water. There are enough people in this forum to speculate for you :-).
CCC,
Wonderful to hear from a contributing member and thanks for the warm words.
IV has no interest in curbing free speech. All we ask is that new members go through forum posts and resource docs to see what IV has said on a given subject, and also realize that we have done our homework. How about asking us if we have considered an issue rather than telling us what to do (without much research) -- which is the tone that some new member posts take.
As for not responding to theories -- well they just take on a life of their own if we don't respond. :) IV has no intention of letting its forums become a chaotic space with misinformation and assorted half-baked theories. :)
best,
Berkeleybee
Personally if i were a member of the core team, i would not even bother to respond back to the threads where the so called theory holds no water. There are enough people in this forum to speculate for you :-).
CCC,
Wonderful to hear from a contributing member and thanks for the warm words.
IV has no interest in curbing free speech. All we ask is that new members go through forum posts and resource docs to see what IV has said on a given subject, and also realize that we have done our homework. How about asking us if we have considered an issue rather than telling us what to do (without much research) -- which is the tone that some new member posts take.
As for not responding to theories -- well they just take on a life of their own if we don't respond. :) IV has no intention of letting its forums become a chaotic space with misinformation and assorted half-baked theories. :)
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
calaway42
10-04 01:18 AM
roger that :)
hair As far as the Cosmopolitan
snathan
09-01 12:55 AM
Hi,
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
I couldnt understand this...Your company is Indian and have office in US. They want you to work for Indian/US company but they want you to move to spain when they dont have any office.
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
I couldnt understand this...Your company is Indian and have office in US. They want you to work for Indian/US company but they want you to move to spain when they dont have any office.
more...
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.
hot hair Cameron Diaz Cosmopolitan US cameron diaz cosmopolitan cover. cameron
manderson
07-17 10:43 AM
if u want to change emplpyer you can transfer H1 via premium process to another employer in 2 weeks. you only need paystubs to prove that you were employed for the last 4 yrs.
as per GC even if you can get your new employer to file it but can't get paperwork from old employer, u'r desparate and wanna file now: u can try substituting ther labor, 140 and experience letter with following (but please know that it might be rejected by USCIS):
- copies of previous labor and 140 can by usually obtained by filing a Freeedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request through your own (trusted) lawyer. but it will take a couple of months -- in the meantime u could try filing through own lawyer with printouts of approved cases statuses (from USCIS website) along with 797 notices (receipt notice with LIN/ WAC number). hope that USCIS will send an RFE for actual paperwork
- substitute experince letter with 2 affidavits of experience from 2 co-workers and paystubs
Disclaimer: Please know that I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong. Please ask an immigration lawyer for advice.
as per GC even if you can get your new employer to file it but can't get paperwork from old employer, u'r desparate and wanna file now: u can try substituting ther labor, 140 and experience letter with following (but please know that it might be rejected by USCIS):
- copies of previous labor and 140 can by usually obtained by filing a Freeedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request through your own (trusted) lawyer. but it will take a couple of months -- in the meantime u could try filing through own lawyer with printouts of approved cases statuses (from USCIS website) along with 797 notices (receipt notice with LIN/ WAC number). hope that USCIS will send an RFE for actual paperwork
- substitute experince letter with 2 affidavits of experience from 2 co-workers and paystubs
Disclaimer: Please know that I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong. Please ask an immigration lawyer for advice.
more...
house cover 2011. Cameron Diaz
coolmanasip
06-04 11:21 AM
I think the vote is at the end of this week......may be on Thursday or Friday......
Manasi
Manasi
tattoo Cameron Diaz for Cosmopolitan
kish006
11-06 11:47 AM
Anyone who filed in July still waiting for a receipt / rejection notice?
I filed on July 2nd - haven't heard anything yet.
Hi,
did u gout ur receipt notice. I am still wating on my receipt. I called USCIS yesterday still not there in the system.
Please let me know if u got ur receipt number.
any one else who are wating on receipt number who filed I-485 on july 2nd.
I filed on July 2nd - haven't heard anything yet.
Hi,
did u gout ur receipt notice. I am still wating on my receipt. I called USCIS yesterday still not there in the system.
Please let me know if u got ur receipt number.
any one else who are wating on receipt number who filed I-485 on july 2nd.
more...
pictures hairstyles cameron diaz cosmo cover girl cameron diaz cosmo 2011.
samrat_bhargava_vihari
01-21 11:39 PM
Kirshana_2001,
Did you verified with Attorney? If they offer you permanent employment I think they should file your I-140, then only they can transfer H1. In that case if you get I-140 approval then move to the permanent employment else stick with your company. ( Think of EB2 and Priority date transfer also).
Best of Luck...
Did you verified with Attorney? If they offer you permanent employment I think they should file your I-140, then only they can transfer H1. In that case if you get I-140 approval then move to the permanent employment else stick with your company. ( Think of EB2 and Priority date transfer also).
Best of Luck...
dresses Pictures of Cameron Diaz in
sai
07-09 11:37 PM
I am in the same boat..
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
If we have a gap between the expiry and new EAD card,
we should not work thats for sure,
but wont have any issues of going out of status during the gap?
more...
makeup 2010 Cameron Diaz Covers
liorsal
01-13 05:36 PM
does anyone know if uscis need a law to pass in the congress to change the law on the i-485, or thy can decide to change it?
girlfriend cameron diaz cosmopolitan
NikNikon
July 27th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Ajp, your too hard on yourself, I think your version turned out great. Gary, how about a psd version for the nikon users, although I may be wasting my time since you've several nice results from those who have posted.
hairstyles Cameron Diaz Cosmopolitan US
Bharam
06-06 09:19 AM
Fellow IVians,
Contributed $200 for the cause.
Wish you all the best
Contributed $200 for the cause.
Wish you all the best
needlotsofluck
08-01 09:56 PM
Old filing fee and form if filed by 8/17
No negative side other than a few days delay for them to match it up against your I-485
I called USCIS #1800-375-5283 option:1,2,2,6,2,2,1 and informed me to use the new forms and should be mailed to new mailing addresses. As per new forms, I have to file I-765 and I-131 on two different locations. I am now confused?
No negative side other than a few days delay for them to match it up against your I-485
I called USCIS #1800-375-5283 option:1,2,2,6,2,2,1 and informed me to use the new forms and should be mailed to new mailing addresses. As per new forms, I have to file I-765 and I-131 on two different locations. I am now confused?
shukla77
11-14 09:15 PM
:)Wow.. That sounds like a plan..:D:D:D.. What about contacting Lalu...
[QUOTE=kumarc123;195464]Hello all IV members,
Lastly i feel, we should contact some high profile politicians in India, so they can put a question or make some time of arrangement for Indians who are stuck over here, we all know unites states is interested in nuclear deal, if some type of provision is put in there to help Indians in this country
QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kumarc123;195464]Hello all IV members,
Lastly i feel, we should contact some high profile politicians in India, so they can put a question or make some time of arrangement for Indians who are stuck over here, we all know unites states is interested in nuclear deal, if some type of provision is put in there to help Indians in this country
QUOTE]
