SertTurk
07-19 05:10 PM
Yes, we have to go to Turkey for cosular processing since I accepted illegal employment and paid taxes for one year when we first came here.
wallpaper nicki minaj toes pic. nicki
GCard_Dream
08-20 06:49 PM
I received my "Approval Notice Sent" email on Aug 13th and actually received the notice on 16th. However, never received any "Card Production Ordered" email. From your post, it looks like you received the card production email before the "Approval Notice Sent" email. I am just wondering why I didn't receive any card production ordered email.
I would imagine that once the 485 is approved, card production is automatically ordered. Any input guys?
The Story Thus far:
Though I am not an immi guru ( I never knew what was LUD till I started checking this site), but check this site for regular updates, so wanted to share news with others who eagerly waiting for approvals in Aug.
I -485 RD: 08/11/07 LUD: 08/03/09 AD: 08/03/09 - Self
I-485 RD: 08/11/07 LUD: 08/03/09 AD: 08/03/09 - spouse
Aug 3: Card Production Ordered email received
Aug 6: Approval Notice Sent email received
Aug 7: Approval Notice Sent received in mail
AP RD: 08/09/07 LUD: 01/02/08 AD: 01/02/08 - Self
AP RD: 08/09/07 LUD: 01/03/08 AD: 01/04/08 - spouse
PD: 03/13/03
I-140 2 (EB2) AD: 05/06/09
EB2 - India / MI / NSC
I would imagine that once the 485 is approved, card production is automatically ordered. Any input guys?
The Story Thus far:
Though I am not an immi guru ( I never knew what was LUD till I started checking this site), but check this site for regular updates, so wanted to share news with others who eagerly waiting for approvals in Aug.
I -485 RD: 08/11/07 LUD: 08/03/09 AD: 08/03/09 - Self
I-485 RD: 08/11/07 LUD: 08/03/09 AD: 08/03/09 - spouse
Aug 3: Card Production Ordered email received
Aug 6: Approval Notice Sent email received
Aug 7: Approval Notice Sent received in mail
AP RD: 08/09/07 LUD: 01/02/08 AD: 01/02/08 - Self
AP RD: 08/09/07 LUD: 01/03/08 AD: 01/04/08 - spouse
PD: 03/13/03
I-140 2 (EB2) AD: 05/06/09
EB2 - India / MI / NSC
gc_check
05-01 10:19 PM
Well, It is good that you believe there is even a slim chance that Dec '06 will become current !!! I do not think so at least this FY '11. Sorry for my pessimistic outlook !!! But that is the case.
If your 485 is approved, while your Spouse on H4 is out of country, who has not yet filed 485 and do not have AP, will not be able to travel as the non-immigration visa is void once your become a LPR. You might have to do a Consular process or file following-to-join you which could take significant time. It is better, she return immediately on H4 once you know your date will be current for following month in Visa Bulletin as Dept. of state at least release this data couple weeks ahead, Else you might end freeing a visa number to some one on line after you in EB2 category or for an EB3 person upgrading to EB2 :)
For immigration issues, my suggestion will always be to get counsel from an attorney then forum as each case is different.
If your 485 is approved, while your Spouse on H4 is out of country, who has not yet filed 485 and do not have AP, will not be able to travel as the non-immigration visa is void once your become a LPR. You might have to do a Consular process or file following-to-join you which could take significant time. It is better, she return immediately on H4 once you know your date will be current for following month in Visa Bulletin as Dept. of state at least release this data couple weeks ahead, Else you might end freeing a visa number to some one on line after you in EB2 category or for an EB3 person upgrading to EB2 :)
For immigration issues, my suggestion will always be to get counsel from an attorney then forum as each case is different.
2011 nicki minaj toes pic.
hxu191
02-11 10:04 AM
Yes, you can Travel as long as the H1 Visa Stamping in Un-Expired,
My scneario was i worked for employer A,
Had H1 visa stamping Upto Oct 2006.
Changed employer and H1B transfer with Extension.
Traveled to India returned, While returning Showed the New 797 to the Officer and Got the I-94 for the new date. No problem.
Please carry just in case your new employer employement verification letter and latest paystub. Most of the time it is not necessary but just in case.
Hi Jerrome, my situation is similar to yours, changed employer, but I have no new I-94 on my new I-797. I don't understand why no freash I-94 for me. In this case, do you see any problem to re-enter the US with previous H1-b visa stamp (un-expired) and new I-797?
Thanks.
My scneario was i worked for employer A,
Had H1 visa stamping Upto Oct 2006.
Changed employer and H1B transfer with Extension.
Traveled to India returned, While returning Showed the New 797 to the Officer and Got the I-94 for the new date. No problem.
Please carry just in case your new employer employement verification letter and latest paystub. Most of the time it is not necessary but just in case.
Hi Jerrome, my situation is similar to yours, changed employer, but I have no new I-94 on my new I-797. I don't understand why no freash I-94 for me. In this case, do you see any problem to re-enter the US with previous H1-b visa stamp (un-expired) and new I-797?
Thanks.
more...
apahilaj
09-12 03:28 PM
Does anyone know what time it may take for FP notices to arrive for guys whose cases were Xfered to CSC?
BTW, does that make any difference if the 485 case has been transferred from another center to TSC? majority of guys who've got the FP notice are straight filters at TSC.
BTW, does that make any difference if the 485 case has been transferred from another center to TSC? majority of guys who've got the FP notice are straight filters at TSC.
techbuyer77
06-12 03:45 PM
Please help!
I just filed i-485. My pD is Jan 2004
i-140 has been previoulsy approved.
Now my original employer agreed to give me evl, but with the way the economy is going they are not doing well.
I have another employer which I am working now with.
How likely is to get an approval (or an rfe for paystubs?) before 180 days.
I am eb3 row
Thanks, I am very depressed it took too long I guess and the economy changed and now the whole future of my family is pending
I just filed i-485. My pD is Jan 2004
i-140 has been previoulsy approved.
Now my original employer agreed to give me evl, but with the way the economy is going they are not doing well.
I have another employer which I am working now with.
How likely is to get an approval (or an rfe for paystubs?) before 180 days.
I am eb3 row
Thanks, I am very depressed it took too long I guess and the economy changed and now the whole future of my family is pending
more...
singhv_1980
01-31 10:41 PM
If you are planning to interview at Delhi, then check out the policies of the Delhi Consulate here: http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/applyinghlopq.html
As of last Sept, there was no requirement to drop off the application a week before the interview, however, Mumbai did have that requirement.
By the way, did you investigate the delays due to PIMS? Any update on how one can request the information about the approved H-1B sent to the consulsate?
Thanks for the info.
I tried getting some info on PIMS here in US..but cudnt get any. All I have is through couple of forums including IV. I cudnt make any pattern based on approval date or service center for I-797. All I have is hope.
May god bless us all.
As of last Sept, there was no requirement to drop off the application a week before the interview, however, Mumbai did have that requirement.
By the way, did you investigate the delays due to PIMS? Any update on how one can request the information about the approved H-1B sent to the consulsate?
Thanks for the info.
I tried getting some info on PIMS here in US..but cudnt get any. All I have is through couple of forums including IV. I cudnt make any pattern based on approval date or service center for I-797. All I have is hope.
May god bless us all.
2010 Nicki Minaj and Giuseppe
bsbawa10
09-10 12:32 PM
I think members have written tons of pages on forums, spent days not hours predicting the actions of USCIS. But we need to understand that nothing and nobody can predict three things.
1. Earthquakes
2. Shooting stars and
3. USCIS
1. Earthquakes
2. Shooting stars and
3. USCIS
more...
needhelp!
11-07 05:07 PM
bump..
hair Nicki Minaj, the first female
jq45
06-15 10:49 AM
I just called the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283 to get clarification.
The representative I talked to checked with her supervisor, and her response was the following:
- The OMB number at the top is something related to the medical board and has nothing to do with the USCIS. The expiry date is irrelevant to the USCIS. The USCIS only cares about the revision date at the bottom (09/16/05).
In other words, the form that is currently on the USCIS web site is acceptable now and in the future (past 6/30/07) until whenever the USCIS changes which revision of the I-693 will be considered acceptable.
Thank you to everyone for their quick responses!
The representative I talked to checked with her supervisor, and her response was the following:
- The OMB number at the top is something related to the medical board and has nothing to do with the USCIS. The expiry date is irrelevant to the USCIS. The USCIS only cares about the revision date at the bottom (09/16/05).
In other words, the form that is currently on the USCIS web site is acceptable now and in the future (past 6/30/07) until whenever the USCIS changes which revision of the I-693 will be considered acceptable.
Thank you to everyone for their quick responses!
more...
optimystic
09-29 08:43 PM
USCIS has updated the processing dates pages of all the four service centers on September 28. Now the pages say that these dates are valid as of July 31, 2008 only.
If I remember well the processing dates information was more up-to-date earlier.
So looks like CIS has backtracked from their earlier published dates. They are telling us that they simply cannot tell what the current processing dates are. All they can tell us is that what applications they were processing on July 31.
What can we deduce from this? Is it good? Is it bad? Or no relevance?
It could be good as CIS might be processing July 2007 485 applications as of today? Or may be not.
Simply more confusion, as if as it is we were not confused enough.
Its hard to gauge what they are trying to do here by mentioning that the processing dates are accurate only as of July 31, 2008. But just attempting to make a few guesses. I might be totally wrong though
- May be they are trying to cover up their silly, non-backable acts of swinging Processing Dates back and forth as a pendulum. And hence keep the web posting data perpetually at a older date, so that if some official corners them they can say "Oh, forget the web data, it is out of date. Here's the more updated *internal* info" . But at the same time to the general public , they can point to "Go look at the web data, I can't open a service request for you based on where the processing dates are at" and thus avoid all accountability and head aches of opening service requests etc.
- May be they are going to fast forward the dates now that the PDs are retrogressed and people can't file service requests left and right based on processing dates outside normal processing times.
If I remember well the processing dates information was more up-to-date earlier.
So looks like CIS has backtracked from their earlier published dates. They are telling us that they simply cannot tell what the current processing dates are. All they can tell us is that what applications they were processing on July 31.
What can we deduce from this? Is it good? Is it bad? Or no relevance?
It could be good as CIS might be processing July 2007 485 applications as of today? Or may be not.
Simply more confusion, as if as it is we were not confused enough.
Its hard to gauge what they are trying to do here by mentioning that the processing dates are accurate only as of July 31, 2008. But just attempting to make a few guesses. I might be totally wrong though
- May be they are trying to cover up their silly, non-backable acts of swinging Processing Dates back and forth as a pendulum. And hence keep the web posting data perpetually at a older date, so that if some official corners them they can say "Oh, forget the web data, it is out of date. Here's the more updated *internal* info" . But at the same time to the general public , they can point to "Go look at the web data, I can't open a service request for you based on where the processing dates are at" and thus avoid all accountability and head aches of opening service requests etc.
- May be they are going to fast forward the dates now that the PDs are retrogressed and people can't file service requests left and right based on processing dates outside normal processing times.
hot Camel Toe Nicki Minaj
akred
05-26 07:27 PM
I'm puzzled that there has been a slow reaction to the Bernie Sander's killer amendment that was disguised as a scholarship fund which has always been there and has benefited many Americans and the National Science Foundation. None of the faxes have been amended neither have the emails, we're asking for good things which are only likely to benefit a few but leave many others in peril. We need to find a way to cushion the effect of this amendment and at the same time highlight that the H1 program is not what it has been vilified to be.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
1. Any H1B issues affect employers more than the employees, so employers will make an issue out of any onerous requirement.
2. Any H1B fee is to be paid by the employer and is viewed as a tax and cost of doing business by the employer. Like any tax, it will mean cutbacks in other areas possibly existing charitable contributions to education or some such non essential cost.
I would expect Compete America and employers to speak up if they feel they would be affected by any H1B taxes.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
1. Any H1B issues affect employers more than the employees, so employers will make an issue out of any onerous requirement.
2. Any H1B fee is to be paid by the employer and is viewed as a tax and cost of doing business by the employer. Like any tax, it will mean cutbacks in other areas possibly existing charitable contributions to education or some such non essential cost.
I would expect Compete America and employers to speak up if they feel they would be affected by any H1B taxes.
more...
house nicki minaj toes pic.
LC2002
04-14 11:09 AM
Congratulations!
Thanks
Thanks
tattoo Nicki Minaj
waitingonlc
02-13 03:50 PM
Immigration plan looms in Congress
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
more...
pictures Nicki Minaj In Alexander Wang
MannyD
09-07 07:34 PM
This poll should also collect the year of PD and whether they have any dependents.
OK, sorry I missed that critical data! Depending upon response to this, I will create one with "year" later. Thanks
OK, sorry I missed that critical data! Depending upon response to this, I will create one with "year" later. Thanks
dresses Nicki Minaj was seen entering
prabasiodia
08-09 08:02 AM
^^^^
What could be more pitiful than bumping your own thread? But keeping the health factor of weekday public in mind, I am willing to disgrace myself.
What could be more pitiful than bumping your own thread? But keeping the health factor of weekday public in mind, I am willing to disgrace myself.
more...
makeup nicki minaj toes pic. hip-hop
mmrao2007
09-08 04:49 PM
When you guys submit EB2 I140 application form, make sure you put appropriate A# from your EAD card on it. That way your application will go to same folder that your I485 file is in. When time is right USCIS will process all applications together and automatically port EB3 date to your EB2 I140. They should approve I485 and new I140 together, at least that's what has happened in my case.
If you already have second I140 approved, you need to communicate with USCIS with a covering letter with a colored paper and big bold letters on top, explaining the case and related case numbers. Please confirm with attorney.
If you already have second I140 approved, you need to communicate with USCIS with a covering letter with a colored paper and big bold letters on top, explaining the case and related case numbers. Please confirm with attorney.
girlfriend Nicki Minaj | 2010 MTV Video
nepaliboy
08-06 07:16 PM
i saw lud on i-140 in 7-13-08 and lud on i-485 on 7-22-08 but my PD is not current .
i am Row pd 2005 september.
i am Row pd 2005 september.
hairstyles Nicki Minaj: The Billboard
IneedAllGreen
09-21 02:31 PM
Your story looks similar to mine. Before I go for my side of story let me tell you that going for premium is always good idea. I got my new I-140 (EB3) got approved within 2 weeks after we applied for my third green card process. Now with your labor and approve I-140 and remaining H1B visa you can go to new employer. I think you have plenty of time to go to new employer and transfer remaining time in your H1B. In between you can ask current employer not to revoke I-140 once it processed. This way you can later transfer dates from current GC process to new one. I think you are quite secure at this point of time to move to new employer. Just take in confidence with current employer for not to invoke I-140 until you transfer your date.
On my side of the story I did same thing (as explained above) in 2006 because of lay off . I had almost 1 year of time remaining on my H1B and had already crossed 6 years limit on H1B.). I did transferred my remaining H1B time to new employer (where I am right now) and started my GC process (2nd green card. I did not complete labor process or I-140 at my earlier employer so could not get transferred date). I got my labor approved for 2nd GC within few days of filling in late 2006 so my attorney filed for my H1B extension in 2007 for one more year based on my new labor. I don't know you call it luck that I got my extension of H1B for 1 more year based on new labor. As of now we have filed for 3rd GC for me because my I-140 got denied based on my education (A year ago we have appealed for the same)
In short what you can do is to go for premium proc for I-140 and transfer remaining H1 to new employer and try filling extension of H1 at new employer after it expires. Its little risky but like you said you might get laid off sooner or later. As always above information is from my experience but attorney can give you right advice. I did pay $200 to Murthy for advice on what to do while I was in your kind of situation in 2006.
Good luck.
My six year term of H-1B ends on 15th Nov 2011. My present employer is filling my I-140 ( as I am paying all the expenses) and the lawyer tells me that she will be able to file in 30 days in EB-2 ctaegory. However , now my job does not look very secure and I am afraid I might be laid off while my I-140 is pending. Thats why I am considering filing under premium processing by paying money out of my pocket.
My reasoning behind this is:
1) If laid off, with an approved I-140, I can apply for 3 year extension on a new H-1B with another employer and then work towards capturing my PD when time permits.
I realize I might have to go to H-4 to avoid getting out of satus while I am looking for new employer. Can anyone please guide if I have my bases covered or if there is a flaw in my reasoning. Should I go for premium processing or not.
Thanks
On my side of the story I did same thing (as explained above) in 2006 because of lay off . I had almost 1 year of time remaining on my H1B and had already crossed 6 years limit on H1B.). I did transferred my remaining H1B time to new employer (where I am right now) and started my GC process (2nd green card. I did not complete labor process or I-140 at my earlier employer so could not get transferred date). I got my labor approved for 2nd GC within few days of filling in late 2006 so my attorney filed for my H1B extension in 2007 for one more year based on my new labor. I don't know you call it luck that I got my extension of H1B for 1 more year based on new labor. As of now we have filed for 3rd GC for me because my I-140 got denied based on my education (A year ago we have appealed for the same)
In short what you can do is to go for premium proc for I-140 and transfer remaining H1 to new employer and try filling extension of H1 at new employer after it expires. Its little risky but like you said you might get laid off sooner or later. As always above information is from my experience but attorney can give you right advice. I did pay $200 to Murthy for advice on what to do while I was in your kind of situation in 2006.
Good luck.
My six year term of H-1B ends on 15th Nov 2011. My present employer is filling my I-140 ( as I am paying all the expenses) and the lawyer tells me that she will be able to file in 30 days in EB-2 ctaegory. However , now my job does not look very secure and I am afraid I might be laid off while my I-140 is pending. Thats why I am considering filing under premium processing by paying money out of my pocket.
My reasoning behind this is:
1) If laid off, with an approved I-140, I can apply for 3 year extension on a new H-1B with another employer and then work towards capturing my PD when time permits.
I realize I might have to go to H-4 to avoid getting out of satus while I am looking for new employer. Can anyone please guide if I have my bases covered or if there is a flaw in my reasoning. Should I go for premium processing or not.
Thanks
honeyB
01-23 02:23 PM
Hi,
How can we findout whether we got soft luds or not?
How can we findout whether we got soft luds or not?
Desertfox
11-11 07:27 PM
Ok, this applies to applicants who filed I-485 after 2007 fee increase, and those guys can renew their AP without any fee. From your profile its evident that you filed your I-485 before the fee increase and hence you are eligible for e-filing, and you will have to pay the required fee for your AP.
If you have not downloaded the I-131 instructions already, get it from here - http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-131instr.pdf
BTW, I e-filed for AP multiple times for myself and spouse and got it approved each time without any RFE. I just followed the instructions in the above document. I hope this helps.:)
I just read the instructions for E-filing of AP. This is what it says -
Who is Not Eligible to e-File This Form:
You are not eligible to electronically file this form if:
You have a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence Status or Adjust Status currently at a USCIS office and you are eligible to file the I-131 for no additional fee.
Does that mean that only if your 485 application is @ a local office. My 485 is @ NBC, Biometrics is next week. I was told by my attorney that my application will then be transferred to local office for a interview. Don't know when though. Am i still eligible to E-file. Would appreciate any advice.
Thanks !
If you have not downloaded the I-131 instructions already, get it from here - http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-131instr.pdf
BTW, I e-filed for AP multiple times for myself and spouse and got it approved each time without any RFE. I just followed the instructions in the above document. I hope this helps.:)
I just read the instructions for E-filing of AP. This is what it says -
Who is Not Eligible to e-File This Form:
You are not eligible to electronically file this form if:
You have a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence Status or Adjust Status currently at a USCIS office and you are eligible to file the I-131 for no additional fee.
Does that mean that only if your 485 application is @ a local office. My 485 is @ NBC, Biometrics is next week. I was told by my attorney that my application will then be transferred to local office for a interview. Don't know when though. Am i still eligible to E-file. Would appreciate any advice.
Thanks !
No comments:
Post a Comment