prince_charming
09-27 05:25 PM
Prince ,
Any updates on Denaial notice?
Please post or PM me . I m waiting to hear from my attorney.
You are runnig out of time it seems, last week itself you said it is around 14 days.
Ram
My attorney called them and requested the copy of Denial notice as well as asked them for faxing it.
Still not received anything.
Not sure what to do except waiting.
Irony is that all notice reaches on time except denial notice. Seems like they are trying to eliminate backlog by doing some tricks
Any updates on Denaial notice?
Please post or PM me . I m waiting to hear from my attorney.
You are runnig out of time it seems, last week itself you said it is around 14 days.
Ram
My attorney called them and requested the copy of Denial notice as well as asked them for faxing it.
Still not received anything.
Not sure what to do except waiting.
Irony is that all notice reaches on time except denial notice. Seems like they are trying to eliminate backlog by doing some tricks
wallpaper Cole+sprouse+and+debby+ryan They are , never,celebrities question Onfeb
raju123
05-31 02:49 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22481 reported as follow:
Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in Senate Bill
1. Decimation of Employment-Based Immigration System: � Eliminates first, second, and third employment-based immigration categories. � �Merit-based" point system completely disconnects employment-based immigration from employers, who have only a negligible role in new system and are unable to sponsor specific employees for permanent residence. � No provisions for multinational managers, extraordinary ability aliens, outstanding professors or researchers. � No labor market test required to protect native-born workers. 2. Lack of Path to Permanent Status for Future Flow Essential and Highly Skilled Workers: � New Y temporary worker program would create a constantly churning workforce, as it provides only a two-year nonimmigrant visa and requires workers to leave the U.S. for one year before being eligible to renew their work visa for a subsequent 2-year period. Maximum 6 years in Y status. � Carve-out of 10,000 green cards per year for "essential" Y workers, but no bridge to allow essential and highly skilled but non-degreed workers a path to eventual permanent lawful status. 3. Lack of Adequate Numbers of Future Green Cards for Employment-Based Immigrants: � Totally inadequate immigrant visa numbers (approximately 140,000 new green cards per year until the family backlogs are cleared over an 8 year period). � Future legal immigration program (after 8 years of family backlog clearance) limited to 380,000 �point system� visas, guaranteeing that new backlogs will grow immediately, and that undocumented immigration will continue. � Totally inadequate carve-outs for essential workers. 4. Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed. 5. Decimation of H-1B Program: � Adds new restrictions prohibiting employers from obtaining H-1B workers where formal degrees do not exactly correlate to proposed positions.
� Eliminates dual intent for both H-1B and L non-immigrants. This would interfere with companies� ability to recruit someone from a U.S. university and seek a green card for them while employing them on an H-1B. � Overregulates legitimate H-1B employers by subjecting all H-1B employers to burdensome rules currently applied to �willful violators� and H-1B dependent employers. � Huge increase in H-1B fees (from current $1500 to new $5000 by Sanders amendment) o Will force companies to move projects and U.S. jobs to overseas facilities, and will make it all but impossible for many businesses to stay competitive. o Will inflict disproportionate pain on small firms and American innovators. o Additional fees for filing, premium processing, recruitment and training, antifraud, compliance and other legal and administrative costs can amount to $9,000 just to secure initial H-1B approval. o H-1B employers already contribute more than $127.5 million per year to U.S. job training and scholarships through existing fees. This training and scholarship fund would go up to over $200 million per year even if the H-1B cap were only raised to 115,000, as currently proposed. o Scholarship and training fees U.S. companies now pay for each H-1B professional hired are approaching $2 billion since 1999. o These fees have funded more than 40,000 scholarships for U.S. students in math and science through the National Science Foundation, hands-on science programs for 80,000 middle and high school students and 3,700 teachers, and training for more than 55,000 U.S. workers and professionals. o U.S. businesses pay over $91 billion a year in state and local taxes directed toward public education. o Increased H-1B fees are nothing more than a tax on innovation that will end up driving U.S. jobs overseas by making it more difficult to hire the highly educated talent America needs. � American professionals in "computer and mathematical" occupations are at virtual full employment, with a low annual unemployment rate of 2.4 percent in 2006. Cutting off the supply of H-1B talent will only hurt American competitiveness. � The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of 100,000 jobs a year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and 2014, the highest of all white collar professional categories. Note Re: Possible Amendments:
Cantwell Amendment (#1249) One amendment that has been �filed,� but is not currently �pending� is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment � whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package. Nevertheless,
it is important to let senators know that this amendment is strongly supported by businesses. The Cantwell amendment would set up a parallel and complementary employer-sponsored merit-based program. This �employer-sponsored� stream would let companies determine the skill sets that they need and would like to sponsor for a green card and this employer-sponsored merit based system would provide 140,000 visas separate and in addition to those currently in the bill. This amendment would protect U.S. workers by applying labor market tests to employer sponsorship of foreign workers. In addition to dealing with employment-based green cards, this amendment also addresses some of the �grand bargain�s� changes to the H-1B program by striking the presumption of �immigrant intent� and restoring the �degree equivalency� provision. Furthermore, the amendment, while maintaining the provisions to strengthen H-1B enforcement in the bill, would eliminate overregulation of legitimate H-1B employers by striking provisions that would require every employer comply with burdensome rules that currently apply only to �willful violators� and to employers with excessive numbers of H-1B employees.
Durbin-Grassley Amendment (#1231) There will also possibly be a vote on a Durbin-Grassley amendment. The amendment would strike provisions in the bill that allow the Secretary of Labor to determine whether or not there is a shortage of U.S. workers in the occupation and area of intended employment for which a Y nonimmigrant is sought. This amendment would require employers to follow extensive hiring and recruitment procedures even in areas where there labor shortages as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
Top 5 Concerns Regarding Employment-Based Immigration in Senate Bill
1. Decimation of Employment-Based Immigration System: � Eliminates first, second, and third employment-based immigration categories. � �Merit-based" point system completely disconnects employment-based immigration from employers, who have only a negligible role in new system and are unable to sponsor specific employees for permanent residence. � No provisions for multinational managers, extraordinary ability aliens, outstanding professors or researchers. � No labor market test required to protect native-born workers. 2. Lack of Path to Permanent Status for Future Flow Essential and Highly Skilled Workers: � New Y temporary worker program would create a constantly churning workforce, as it provides only a two-year nonimmigrant visa and requires workers to leave the U.S. for one year before being eligible to renew their work visa for a subsequent 2-year period. Maximum 6 years in Y status. � Carve-out of 10,000 green cards per year for "essential" Y workers, but no bridge to allow essential and highly skilled but non-degreed workers a path to eventual permanent lawful status. 3. Lack of Adequate Numbers of Future Green Cards for Employment-Based Immigrants: � Totally inadequate immigrant visa numbers (approximately 140,000 new green cards per year until the family backlogs are cleared over an 8 year period). � Future legal immigration program (after 8 years of family backlog clearance) limited to 380,000 �point system� visas, guaranteeing that new backlogs will grow immediately, and that undocumented immigration will continue. � Totally inadequate carve-outs for essential workers. 4. Gaps in Green Card Availability � Immigrant visa petitions filed after May 15, 2007 on the basis of the current employment-based preference system will be rejected. � During the period between May 15, 2007 and the date the new merit based system is up and running (likely October 1, 2008), no new employment-based green card applications can be filed. 5. Decimation of H-1B Program: � Adds new restrictions prohibiting employers from obtaining H-1B workers where formal degrees do not exactly correlate to proposed positions.
� Eliminates dual intent for both H-1B and L non-immigrants. This would interfere with companies� ability to recruit someone from a U.S. university and seek a green card for them while employing them on an H-1B. � Overregulates legitimate H-1B employers by subjecting all H-1B employers to burdensome rules currently applied to �willful violators� and H-1B dependent employers. � Huge increase in H-1B fees (from current $1500 to new $5000 by Sanders amendment) o Will force companies to move projects and U.S. jobs to overseas facilities, and will make it all but impossible for many businesses to stay competitive. o Will inflict disproportionate pain on small firms and American innovators. o Additional fees for filing, premium processing, recruitment and training, antifraud, compliance and other legal and administrative costs can amount to $9,000 just to secure initial H-1B approval. o H-1B employers already contribute more than $127.5 million per year to U.S. job training and scholarships through existing fees. This training and scholarship fund would go up to over $200 million per year even if the H-1B cap were only raised to 115,000, as currently proposed. o Scholarship and training fees U.S. companies now pay for each H-1B professional hired are approaching $2 billion since 1999. o These fees have funded more than 40,000 scholarships for U.S. students in math and science through the National Science Foundation, hands-on science programs for 80,000 middle and high school students and 3,700 teachers, and training for more than 55,000 U.S. workers and professionals. o U.S. businesses pay over $91 billion a year in state and local taxes directed toward public education. o Increased H-1B fees are nothing more than a tax on innovation that will end up driving U.S. jobs overseas by making it more difficult to hire the highly educated talent America needs. � American professionals in "computer and mathematical" occupations are at virtual full employment, with a low annual unemployment rate of 2.4 percent in 2006. Cutting off the supply of H-1B talent will only hurt American competitiveness. � The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects growth of 100,000 jobs a year in computer and math science occupations between 2004 and 2014, the highest of all white collar professional categories. Note Re: Possible Amendments:
Cantwell Amendment (#1249) One amendment that has been �filed,� but is not currently �pending� is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment � whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package. Nevertheless,
it is important to let senators know that this amendment is strongly supported by businesses. The Cantwell amendment would set up a parallel and complementary employer-sponsored merit-based program. This �employer-sponsored� stream would let companies determine the skill sets that they need and would like to sponsor for a green card and this employer-sponsored merit based system would provide 140,000 visas separate and in addition to those currently in the bill. This amendment would protect U.S. workers by applying labor market tests to employer sponsorship of foreign workers. In addition to dealing with employment-based green cards, this amendment also addresses some of the �grand bargain�s� changes to the H-1B program by striking the presumption of �immigrant intent� and restoring the �degree equivalency� provision. Furthermore, the amendment, while maintaining the provisions to strengthen H-1B enforcement in the bill, would eliminate overregulation of legitimate H-1B employers by striking provisions that would require every employer comply with burdensome rules that currently apply only to �willful violators� and to employers with excessive numbers of H-1B employees.
Durbin-Grassley Amendment (#1231) There will also possibly be a vote on a Durbin-Grassley amendment. The amendment would strike provisions in the bill that allow the Secretary of Labor to determine whether or not there is a shortage of U.S. workers in the occupation and area of intended employment for which a Y nonimmigrant is sought. This amendment would require employers to follow extensive hiring and recruitment procedures even in areas where there labor shortages as determined by the Secretary of Labor.
buehler
06-19 03:44 PM
One change I noticed.
Now people can continue in the old system if the I-140 was approved or pending before the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the the bill being enacted. So if the bill is passed right away, you need to have filed your I-140 before Oct 1 2007.
Now people can continue in the old system if the I-140 was approved or pending before the first day of the fiscal year subsequent to the the bill being enacted. So if the bill is passed right away, you need to have filed your I-140 before Oct 1 2007.
2011 debby-ryan-cole-sprouse-couple
gcbeku
06-11 02:46 PM
This is not just "frostrated" but silly socialist thinking too. What has "joining hands" or "new comers with fake experiences" got to do with porting.
If you can port, then just DO IT and spare yourself the pain.... why wait for "en masse transfer to EB2 by porting" or talk about "ethical reasons" and then lament after the fact ???
:confused:
I hate to say this and I hope I am wrong. All of us EB3 folks need to start speaking up or else our fate is sealed. I do not see any hopes of CIR passing. There is always going to be some political backlash due to the AMNESTY factor.
From what I have seen, most employers are now filing only in EB2 category. They know that filing in EB3 will see their applicants backlogged so severly that there is no hope in seeing their applications approved. So, even those with less than 5 years of experience create resumes that show 5 years to qualify for EB2. Imagine the flood of applicants in EB2 that will pour in when the dates move forward beyond July 2007. There will be a new backlog of EB2 numbers that we have to wait behind. When are we going to get our turn?
With nearly 10 years of experience and a master's degree, I am still languishing behind all these new comers who come here with fake experiences to qualify for EB2.
We EB3 folks need to speak up, and have the spill over given to the oldest filed applications IRRESPECTIVE of category. The spillover rules from what I know were defined at a later stage and not as per the original law. If we cannot get CIR passed nor a piecemeal regulation, at least let us get the spillover changed.
Or, let us en masse transfer to EB2 by porting, thereby making us all eligible for GC ahead of those that are coming in through the back door. I see them as no different from the undocumented immigrants. Breaking the ethical law at the expense of those of us who followed the law. Our positions did not require a Master's degree and I dont see why a programming position today still requires such. I also dont see why our experience today should not count towards qualifying for EB2.
I dont care what or how many reds the EB2 folks give, but the fact of the matter is that we EB3 must join hands.
If you can port, then just DO IT and spare yourself the pain.... why wait for "en masse transfer to EB2 by porting" or talk about "ethical reasons" and then lament after the fact ???
:confused:
I hate to say this and I hope I am wrong. All of us EB3 folks need to start speaking up or else our fate is sealed. I do not see any hopes of CIR passing. There is always going to be some political backlash due to the AMNESTY factor.
From what I have seen, most employers are now filing only in EB2 category. They know that filing in EB3 will see their applicants backlogged so severly that there is no hope in seeing their applications approved. So, even those with less than 5 years of experience create resumes that show 5 years to qualify for EB2. Imagine the flood of applicants in EB2 that will pour in when the dates move forward beyond July 2007. There will be a new backlog of EB2 numbers that we have to wait behind. When are we going to get our turn?
With nearly 10 years of experience and a master's degree, I am still languishing behind all these new comers who come here with fake experiences to qualify for EB2.
We EB3 folks need to speak up, and have the spill over given to the oldest filed applications IRRESPECTIVE of category. The spillover rules from what I know were defined at a later stage and not as per the original law. If we cannot get CIR passed nor a piecemeal regulation, at least let us get the spillover changed.
Or, let us en masse transfer to EB2 by porting, thereby making us all eligible for GC ahead of those that are coming in through the back door. I see them as no different from the undocumented immigrants. Breaking the ethical law at the expense of those of us who followed the law. Our positions did not require a Master's degree and I dont see why a programming position today still requires such. I also dont see why our experience today should not count towards qualifying for EB2.
I dont care what or how many reds the EB2 folks give, but the fact of the matter is that we EB3 must join hands.
more...
Hinglish
03-21 03:03 PM
Dude...read your post properly...u are making a statement...u r not saying it is what USCIS thinks...
And nobody is insecure over here..it's just people like u who have made this forum a place of hatred between people of different countries....
Didn't u learn on day 1 of ur job?...read a few times before u post/mail to anyone....u have no right to use words EB3 and unskilled together...
If u think USCIS thinks that way....pls mention it so...Get a life
FYI...I AM INDIAN
OOOPs you are an Indian.... and how does that affect this discussion?
My mistake .... I thought you were a normal person discussing immigration related matters on an immigration forum and hence have the ability to discern, understand and have some background on immigration law, USCIS
And nobody is insecure over here..it's just people like u who have made this forum a place of hatred between people of different countries....
Didn't u learn on day 1 of ur job?...read a few times before u post/mail to anyone....u have no right to use words EB3 and unskilled together...
If u think USCIS thinks that way....pls mention it so...Get a life
FYI...I AM INDIAN
OOOPs you are an Indian.... and how does that affect this discussion?
My mistake .... I thought you were a normal person discussing immigration related matters on an immigration forum and hence have the ability to discern, understand and have some background on immigration law, USCIS
boreal
07-01 05:45 PM
I loved Fragomen. Very responsive and are working over weekends to expedite applications..
I highly recommend them.
I second this. Fragomen is excellent, working over the weekends too..couldnt believe my ears this morning when they called me and asked me to come over to sign the completed applications for me and my wife. I kinda resigned myself to the fact that these big firms will take a while to process these applications and wasnt expecting anything from them atleast till the third week of July.
Just amazing firm...
I highly recommend them.
I second this. Fragomen is excellent, working over the weekends too..couldnt believe my ears this morning when they called me and asked me to come over to sign the completed applications for me and my wife. I kinda resigned myself to the fact that these big firms will take a while to process these applications and wasnt expecting anything from them atleast till the third week of July.
Just amazing firm...
more...
unseenguy
06-01 09:31 PM
yes, i do understand that. I still donot understand why fly into a "thunderstorm"!
underestimation + overconfidence. We will get through these 10 mins kind of thing.
underestimation + overconfidence. We will get through these 10 mins kind of thing.
2010 Dylan and cole sprouse amp; debby
nixstor
03-20 06:41 PM
Mr. Gotcher posts this today.
Controversy over calculation of "fall across" visa numbers (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4610)
Long to short, Mr. Gotcher thinks the explanation of Apr. VB is an error.
I will just quote the last two paragraphs. If you are interested with this topic, you can follow the link to see detail.
************************************************
This is where the controversy arises. Do these provision require the Visa Office to let unused visa number from higher preference categories �fall down� into lower preference categories before being made available to single state quotas, or can they move unused numbers from a worldwide preference category over to single state quotas while there is still demand in the lower worldwide categories?
The Visa Office interpretation is that if there are unused numbers within a specific worldwide category, those numbers may be made available to single state quotas even if lower worldwide preference categories have visa cutoff dates because they are oversubscribed. I believe that this is an error.
The visa office's interpretation is correct and if you read 202 (a) (5) it clearly says that the country limits should be ignored for unused visa numbers.
Remember that these numbers are first categorized and then assigned to applicants on a per country basis. In other words, a visa number if it is EB2, should be assigned to EB2 (no matter what) before it goes to EB3. If it is EB1 visa number and for it to become a EB2 visa number, there should not be any need for that number in EB1 category.
One reasoning why this was difficult to see is because CIS has essentially wasted so many numbers that people are unable to tell where the movement is coming from.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories. In 202 (a)
(5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
B T W Ron G is very selective in deciding who/what should (be) post(ed) on his forum. This is his third thought about how we ended up here.
Controversy over calculation of "fall across" visa numbers (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4610)
Long to short, Mr. Gotcher thinks the explanation of Apr. VB is an error.
I will just quote the last two paragraphs. If you are interested with this topic, you can follow the link to see detail.
************************************************
This is where the controversy arises. Do these provision require the Visa Office to let unused visa number from higher preference categories �fall down� into lower preference categories before being made available to single state quotas, or can they move unused numbers from a worldwide preference category over to single state quotas while there is still demand in the lower worldwide categories?
The Visa Office interpretation is that if there are unused numbers within a specific worldwide category, those numbers may be made available to single state quotas even if lower worldwide preference categories have visa cutoff dates because they are oversubscribed. I believe that this is an error.
The visa office's interpretation is correct and if you read 202 (a) (5) it clearly says that the country limits should be ignored for unused visa numbers.
Remember that these numbers are first categorized and then assigned to applicants on a per country basis. In other words, a visa number if it is EB2, should be assigned to EB2 (no matter what) before it goes to EB3. If it is EB1 visa number and for it to become a EB2 visa number, there should not be any need for that number in EB1 category.
One reasoning why this was difficult to see is because CIS has essentially wasted so many numbers that people are unable to tell where the movement is coming from.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories. In 202 (a)
(5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
B T W Ron G is very selective in deciding who/what should (be) post(ed) on his forum. This is his third thought about how we ended up here.
more...
santb1975
04-27 02:02 PM
Thanks for your contribution
Thanks for your very clear directions... Just made a one time contribution of US$50.00 through PayPal and the receipt number is as follows.....
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #3UM47167F79761703)
Thanks !!!
Thanks for your very clear directions... Just made a one time contribution of US$50.00 through PayPal and the receipt number is as follows.....
Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #3UM47167F79761703)
Thanks !!!
hair Brenda Song, Debby Ryan,
mohican
03-16 06:47 PM
WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS--URGENT HELP!!!
My MTR was reconsidered--what a relief. Here is the response:
"Service motion to reopen or reconsider:
In the case at hand, the I-485 was denied because the underlying I-140 was revoked. However, the applicant is eligible for portability consideration under Ac21. Therefore, the applicant should have been notified of this eligibility before any final adverse action was taken on his I485. Pursuant to Part 103.5, Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, the denied I-140 petition referenced above has been reopened/reconsidered."
My attorney says that what this means is that only my I140 that was revoked is now open and they have yet to make a decision on I485.
My question to fellow members of this forum:
1. Has any of you recived similar response to your MTR filing against wrongful I485 denial
2. Please note that my case is slightly peculiar in that the I140 was revoked and aproved labor certification was substitued--if some one was in similar situation, please respond with specifics?
My MTR was recieved my TSC on Feb 9th, i received receipt notice on Feb 16th and final approval was made on March 10th and the letter arrived on March 16th. I am glad and thankful that they understood the urgency of my situation. Now the hunt starts for NEXT STEPS?
My MTR was reconsidered--what a relief. Here is the response:
"Service motion to reopen or reconsider:
In the case at hand, the I-485 was denied because the underlying I-140 was revoked. However, the applicant is eligible for portability consideration under Ac21. Therefore, the applicant should have been notified of this eligibility before any final adverse action was taken on his I485. Pursuant to Part 103.5, Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, the denied I-140 petition referenced above has been reopened/reconsidered."
My attorney says that what this means is that only my I140 that was revoked is now open and they have yet to make a decision on I485.
My question to fellow members of this forum:
1. Has any of you recived similar response to your MTR filing against wrongful I485 denial
2. Please note that my case is slightly peculiar in that the I140 was revoked and aproved labor certification was substitued--if some one was in similar situation, please respond with specifics?
My MTR was recieved my TSC on Feb 9th, i received receipt notice on Feb 16th and final approval was made on March 10th and the letter arrived on March 16th. I am glad and thankful that they understood the urgency of my situation. Now the hunt starts for NEXT STEPS?
more...
bugmenot
06-26 02:15 PM
thats true , another cloture vote needed to end the debate(prbly by thurs) b4 the final vote comes up
hot Cole Sprouse and Debby Ryan
willgetgc2005
03-17 11:44 AM
Frists Bill talks about advanced degree. So if u are in EB3 with an engineering degree from say India/China, does it cover such EB3 candidates ? Is his bill beneficial to only EB2 and above ?????!!!!!
someone please explain.
someone please explain.
more...
house cole sprouse. Debby Ryan
meridiani.planum
06-27 02:35 AM
Few min back I just got the "Card production ordered" email - Took a total of 28 days
NSC or TSC?
NSC or TSC?
tattoo Cole Sprouse and Dylan Sprouse
ashutrip
06-14 08:56 AM
can somebody please tell me how long does it take to labor clear under PERM...Mine was applied on March 21st 2007?
& where can I Find A Sample of Non-Availibility of Birth certficate from the Muncipality
& where can I Find A Sample of Non-Availibility of Birth certficate from the Muncipality
more...
pictures cole sprouse goin bananas 02
saileshdude
03-21 12:56 AM
Great!
With this info, your attorney can easily demonstrate that you were authorized to work for "Employer 2" at all times since last entry in the USA until date of filing for I-485.
There is nothing to worry about, IMHO.
Good Luck.
Thats what people need to understand that if u are doing AOS from H1 then you have to make sure that 1) Either you continue to use H1 with the proper employer or 2) If you decide to use EAD that you update the I-9 form properly with respective employers. You cannot involve into unauthorized work like say your h1 expired with current employer and you did not update your I-9 form to use EAD and say 4 months down the road you put in the new I-9 form with EAD info. Those 4 months of work would be considered unauthorized and yes it will impact your I-485.
With this info, your attorney can easily demonstrate that you were authorized to work for "Employer 2" at all times since last entry in the USA until date of filing for I-485.
There is nothing to worry about, IMHO.
Good Luck.
Thats what people need to understand that if u are doing AOS from H1 then you have to make sure that 1) Either you continue to use H1 with the proper employer or 2) If you decide to use EAD that you update the I-9 form properly with respective employers. You cannot involve into unauthorized work like say your h1 expired with current employer and you did not update your I-9 form to use EAD and say 4 months down the road you put in the new I-9 form with EAD info. Those 4 months of work would be considered unauthorized and yes it will impact your I-485.
dresses debby ryan cole sprouse dylan
snathan
05-14 09:05 AM
Thanks for doing this.
I was interviewed by a reporter from the LA Times yesterday, so expect more articles to follow.
Do you have any contact details for this person. I dont mind for any interview in this regard. I fully support you on this...
I was interviewed by a reporter from the LA Times yesterday, so expect more articles to follow.
Do you have any contact details for this person. I dont mind for any interview in this regard. I fully support you on this...
more...
makeup Debby Ryan, Cole Sprouse,
needhelp!
02-25 05:14 PM
~ 3309 LETTERS SO FAR ~
girlfriend Debby Ryan, Dylan Sprouse,
gconmymind
05-01 01:27 PM
Paypal Transaction Id -614386125E319484D - $50.
I am pledging $50 at 15K now. I think we are running slow. :confused:
I am pledging $50 at 15K now. I think we are running slow. :confused:
hairstyles Ourcole sprouse pickett, cole largest adventure a young free debby says in
starscream
05-31 03:56 PM
Here is the link to page 6918 of the congressional record for what happened on May 24. Look at SA 1249 and it shows that the amendment has been "ordered to lie on the table". Also page 6918 and 6919 has the details of the amendment.
The link to page 6918 and 6919 are -
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6918&position=all
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6919&position=all
Ok - checked up the Congressional reciord the S. AMDT 1249 has status " lie on table" that means it has been killed. I guess that is bad news. But then again why does AILA say
One amendment that has been “filed,” but is not currently “pending” is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment – whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package.
Is there some procedure that can undo "lie on the table"
The link to page 6918 and 6919 are -
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6918&position=all
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S6919&position=all
Ok - checked up the Congressional reciord the S. AMDT 1249 has status " lie on table" that means it has been killed. I guess that is bad news. But then again why does AILA say
One amendment that has been “filed,” but is not currently “pending” is the Cantwell amendment which is very important to business immigration interests. We do not know at this time what will happen with this amendment – whether it will come to the floor for debate or be negotiated through unanimous consent into the final package.
Is there some procedure that can undo "lie on the table"
bestin
10-13 09:33 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^;)
Confirmed - 14
cagedcactus
walking_dude
vs116
amitga
swamy
oldschool
Alien
Curious_Techie
nogc_noproblem
bestin
new_horizon
lakewalker
GCcomesoon
chintu25
Confirmed - 14
cagedcactus
walking_dude
vs116
amitga
swamy
oldschool
Alien
Curious_Techie
nogc_noproblem
bestin
new_horizon
lakewalker
GCcomesoon
chintu25
Macaca
09-20 11:52 AM
People in neighbouring states of DC did not make it , you think they will make it all the way to west coast! very doubtful!!
I had lawmaker apointment (in Rayburn building across the street from where the rally ended) after the rally. There were 10 Indians giggling at me. At first I thought they attended the rally. I was walking in their direction when their looks got weird and I realized they did not attend the rally!
I had lawmaker apointment (in Rayburn building across the street from where the rally ended) after the rally. There were 10 Indians giggling at me. At first I thought they attended the rally. I was walking in their direction when their looks got weird and I realized they did not attend the rally!
No comments:
Post a Comment