maristella61
04-19 05:20 PM
this will be approval notice of your H1-B or H1-B extension. Ask your lawyer again what letter he is talking about.
He is talking about the original first letter of approval , not an extension
He is talking about the original first letter of approval , not an extension
abc1125
06-13 03:31 AM
for the case mentioned in this thread, will the priority date be the date of filing of Labor cert or the 140 approval date after the candidate moves to a new employer after 140 approval? could someone please clarify this for me. will greatly appreciate it.
willwin
07-03 11:23 AM
EB-3-I is stuck in 01...not likely to move till Oct and then in OCT08..it will move by couple three months for the next 12 months till OCT 09..What are the option for EB-3 stuck here..from 01, 02, 03 ....
1) Convert to EB-2 ?.
2) wait for legislation from Logfren to pass
3) wait another 3 years...already in the Queue from 01..
If I choose to convert to EB-2..I have to put in a PERM and then I-140..what is the time line for getting my LC thro PERM and then my I-140 in EB2 cleared?? based on the current processing times..
Do I wait to see if Logfren's legislation goes thro ..if doesnt go with the conversion to EB-2...???
Please help me decide...
thanks
What you could possibly see at end-of-tunnel are:
Lofgren bill passing before election and recaptured numbers becoming available from 10/2008. All categories may become current and remain current for 6 months to a year.
OR
EB3 ROW becoming current atleast by end of next fiscal year (by 09/2009, so that EB3 I would start progressing at a faster rate.
OR
you (and everyone in EB3 I) would be asking the same question even after 3-4 years.
Oh well, Happy July 4th!!
1) Convert to EB-2 ?.
2) wait for legislation from Logfren to pass
3) wait another 3 years...already in the Queue from 01..
If I choose to convert to EB-2..I have to put in a PERM and then I-140..what is the time line for getting my LC thro PERM and then my I-140 in EB2 cleared?? based on the current processing times..
Do I wait to see if Logfren's legislation goes thro ..if doesnt go with the conversion to EB-2...???
Please help me decide...
thanks
What you could possibly see at end-of-tunnel are:
Lofgren bill passing before election and recaptured numbers becoming available from 10/2008. All categories may become current and remain current for 6 months to a year.
OR
EB3 ROW becoming current atleast by end of next fiscal year (by 09/2009, so that EB3 I would start progressing at a faster rate.
OR
you (and everyone in EB3 I) would be asking the same question even after 3-4 years.
Oh well, Happy July 4th!!
casinoroyale
08-22 12:01 PM
I have my own doubts about this matter, same as you. But doesn't your I-797 remains valid till its expiry date? Is there any such rule that if its un-used it will become void or should be cancelled after 6 months?
In another context, I was told by one of the attornies that when i am with company-A and say its I-797 is valid for 3 years. I work for A for 1 year. Leave A and join B and work there for 1 year. Then leave B and come back to A, then I don't need another I-797 application, i can reuse previously approved still valid I-797 with A.
I am not 100% sure on this reply ....
As soon as you use EAD, your H1B status is voided. I have read that if you have worked less then 6 months on EAD then there are chances that you could get back on the same H1.
Now, once 6 months (180) days have passed, your unused H1 is supposed to get cancelled.
You may want to check with some good attorney though.
Sorry, not much help.
Good luck.
GCCovet
In another context, I was told by one of the attornies that when i am with company-A and say its I-797 is valid for 3 years. I work for A for 1 year. Leave A and join B and work there for 1 year. Then leave B and come back to A, then I don't need another I-797 application, i can reuse previously approved still valid I-797 with A.
I am not 100% sure on this reply ....
As soon as you use EAD, your H1B status is voided. I have read that if you have worked less then 6 months on EAD then there are chances that you could get back on the same H1.
Now, once 6 months (180) days have passed, your unused H1 is supposed to get cancelled.
You may want to check with some good attorney though.
Sorry, not much help.
Good luck.
GCCovet
more...
WaitingYaar
06-27 01:03 PM
I-140 approval with 6/06 as PD for EB2. But the notice says that the information submitted with the petition shows that the individual may not be be eligible to file for AOS at this time. Additional information about eligibility may be obtained from local INS office?? Is this how the approval should state
sertasheep
07-05 05:39 PM
ask them to quote the section of the law which makes it not legal for L1 visa holders not to participate in 401K. I am very curious to know.
more...
gman
06-19 04:00 PM
As previously stated you have to maintain H1 status for the the spouse to be on H4. If you change status to AP/EAD then your spouse will be out of status. I am in the same position as you are. My PD recently became current and my wife filed last month I-485, AP, EAD. You can change jobs but new company has to sponsor/transfer your H1.
alien2006
11-17 11:52 AM
I had a similar problem when I applied for my OPT, not once but twice. The one year EAD had a wrong date, the issue date and expiry date was the same. The second time, they didn't give me the correct start date, so I sent it again. No filing fees since it was their mistake.
You souldn't have anything to worry about.
You souldn't have anything to worry about.
more...
kpchal2
07-11 04:36 PM
can you please tell me when you applied for the cards and when they approved the cards.
waitingmygc
04-19 12:44 PM
@waitingmygc - What you are saying is plain garbage. The OP has all the more reasons to worry if his employer is a consulting company. These firms send their consultants to various client locations, but don't file for LCAs each time.
@OP - It is very strange to see USCIS is going back to see if any LCA violation occurred at this stage of your application. You will need a good attorney on your side. Good luck!
sledge_hammer,
I like people like you for criticizing the post without any reason.
If you could have read the post carefully, it has been mentioned that if anyone has all the proper LCA and his/her employer is consulting company then no need to worry.
I know lot of my friends got GC last year through consulting companies and worked in past where client location different than employer location. Moreover, couple of them got same RFE and they responded it by mentioning client location they worked for their employer (IT consulting company) and keeping all the previous LCA ready in case. I hope it will help those in same situation.
@OP - It is very strange to see USCIS is going back to see if any LCA violation occurred at this stage of your application. You will need a good attorney on your side. Good luck!
sledge_hammer,
I like people like you for criticizing the post without any reason.
If you could have read the post carefully, it has been mentioned that if anyone has all the proper LCA and his/her employer is consulting company then no need to worry.
I know lot of my friends got GC last year through consulting companies and worked in past where client location different than employer location. Moreover, couple of them got same RFE and they responded it by mentioning client location they worked for their employer (IT consulting company) and keeping all the previous LCA ready in case. I hope it will help those in same situation.
more...
wizkid732
08-25 10:44 AM
Thanks for the reply, the wait is painful. Itls like a detention without trial :-)
when he contacted senator and inturn they contacted USCIS, Senator got same reply as urs . his is also 2005 EB2 I PD. He is just waiting too.
i wonder what that extensed security review means. looks like never ending. hope no one gets stuck in it.
when he contacted senator and inturn they contacted USCIS, Senator got same reply as urs . his is also 2005 EB2 I PD. He is just waiting too.
i wonder what that extensed security review means. looks like never ending. hope no one gets stuck in it.
jonty_11
07-24 12:19 PM
what abt ppl who are already contributing members...?
Poll doesnt cover them
Poll doesnt cover them
more...
blacktongue
01-20 02:56 PM
How many Information Technology people?
How many from China?
How many from China?
peer123
06-11 07:01 PM
Change the title fool.. lot of ppl are waiting for this.. they might think it's OUT
Be friendly.... Be Free... encourage people with positive words..
Be friendly.... Be Free... encourage people with positive words..
more...
gc_chahiye
09-24 04:10 PM
Message for USCIS:
PERPETUAL EAD AND AP - STOP STEALING OUR MONEY AND CREATING MORE WORK FOR YOURSELF
they are not stealing your money. The current situation can be explained on the basis of existing laws. Need to be careful about our messaging.
The very fact that all fixes we are asking for are legislative changes implies that the current situation has less to do with USCIS and more with old arcane laws. There are a lot of things USCIS can be accused of, but not 'stealing money'
PERPETUAL EAD AND AP - STOP STEALING OUR MONEY AND CREATING MORE WORK FOR YOURSELF
they are not stealing your money. The current situation can be explained on the basis of existing laws. Need to be careful about our messaging.
The very fact that all fixes we are asking for are legislative changes implies that the current situation has less to do with USCIS and more with old arcane laws. There are a lot of things USCIS can be accused of, but not 'stealing money'
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
more...
sankap
07-20 02:36 PM
Yes, we've been using our marriage affidavit all along--including for getting PR and citizenship of country X.
hey, so you got h4 by just producing marriage affidavit and not marriage certificate?
hey, so you got h4 by just producing marriage affidavit and not marriage certificate?
sk.aggarwal
03-16 06:01 AM
When you get insurance from employer, you pay with pretax money. With online policy you will have to pay with taxed money. Unless it is atleast 30% cheaper than one offerd by employer, I will not go with it. You may be able to get tax deduction later, but it has limits
sin94
03-08 08:50 PM
Sorry folks did not get to update this discussion as things have dramatically changed in past couple of months
On January 15th the online status Changed to "Approval Notice sent", :D We waited a week and my company and lawyers received each a copy of the approval notices.
No idea what was the catalyst behind the U-turn from the USCIS (please note we still have not received the RFE response from USCIS) weather it was the Lawyers letters,1-800 calls, infopass visit or AILA intervention.
Call it the luck / divine intervention I am so lucky this step being cleared now just have to wait for the final 485 stage to clear
I just hope others do not go through the same harrowing story as mine.
That said USCIS was and is a big black hole :mad:, any information requested is swallowed and no response will be provided, just hope for the best and be patient
On January 15th the online status Changed to "Approval Notice sent", :D We waited a week and my company and lawyers received each a copy of the approval notices.
No idea what was the catalyst behind the U-turn from the USCIS (please note we still have not received the RFE response from USCIS) weather it was the Lawyers letters,1-800 calls, infopass visit or AILA intervention.
Call it the luck / divine intervention I am so lucky this step being cleared now just have to wait for the final 485 stage to clear
I just hope others do not go through the same harrowing story as mine.
That said USCIS was and is a big black hole :mad:, any information requested is swallowed and no response will be provided, just hope for the best and be patient
tinuverma
10-23 07:37 PM
yeah.....Tuscon...sorry
I live in OKC...so Tulsa comes by default.
I live in OKC...so Tulsa comes by default.
aries
08-07 07:35 PM
I came back on Sunday after landing with a expired visa but valid H1B till 2010
My family had valid visa till sept 07
So we donot need a valid stamped visa to come back. ? We can come back if we have H1 papers.Thanks for the respose.
My family had valid visa till sept 07
So we donot need a valid stamped visa to come back. ? We can come back if we have H1 papers.Thanks for the respose.