japs19
01-22 11:18 AM
Red my other posts where I wrote my experience as I was asked the same question. But here's the answers to your questions in nut shell.
If you have a valid H-1 visa then just stick to it and don't us AP unless you have to.
If CBP officer don't ask, you don't tell, but if s/he does, be HONEST and tell them that you don't. It will really stir the pot but politely tell them that GC on Employment Base is for future employment and that has been my understanding and in good faith my intentions are to go and work for that employer.
They can really harass you for hours like they did me for 6 hrs and then was told to go downtown office. BTW just on a positive note, my AP has been stamped and I am good to go.
There is no law that defines that you have to be working for the original petitioner while your application is being processed but just ethically it's a much better situation if you are employed by the same employer. CBP offficer's argument was that "what's the guarantee that you will go and work for that employer after approval of your GC? or what is the guarantee that they will have that position open for all these years as it may take a very long time?" I told them with a chuckle on my face that if it hadn't taken USCIS 3-4 years to process that application, that wouldn't be the question but they are still processing my file...I mean how many people you gave an offer letter who you want to start after 4 years as a CBP officer?" He gave me a rude smile and walked away to secondary check section.
Anyways....long story short, be honest, have patience and don't show desperation to enter the country.
Good luck...
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
If you have a valid H-1 visa then just stick to it and don't us AP unless you have to.
If CBP officer don't ask, you don't tell, but if s/he does, be HONEST and tell them that you don't. It will really stir the pot but politely tell them that GC on Employment Base is for future employment and that has been my understanding and in good faith my intentions are to go and work for that employer.
They can really harass you for hours like they did me for 6 hrs and then was told to go downtown office. BTW just on a positive note, my AP has been stamped and I am good to go.
There is no law that defines that you have to be working for the original petitioner while your application is being processed but just ethically it's a much better situation if you are employed by the same employer. CBP offficer's argument was that "what's the guarantee that you will go and work for that employer after approval of your GC? or what is the guarantee that they will have that position open for all these years as it may take a very long time?" I told them with a chuckle on my face that if it hadn't taken USCIS 3-4 years to process that application, that wouldn't be the question but they are still processing my file...I mean how many people you gave an offer letter who you want to start after 4 years as a CBP officer?" He gave me a rude smile and walked away to secondary check section.
Anyways....long story short, be honest, have patience and don't show desperation to enter the country.
Good luck...
Looks like Immigration Officers at Port of Entry are asking the AP entry individuals if they are still working from the GC sponsoring company.
I am planning to travel on AP and is not working anymore for the GC sponsoring company.
1. What would be the reaction of the Immigration Officer if he finds out that I am NOT working from the sponsoring company?
2. What documents should I carry to ensure the I will be allowed to re-enter to US on AP with my current non-GC sponsoring company offer letter, pay-stubs etc?
PLease advise
wallpaper cherry blossom tree tattoo on
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
Gray_xx
05-28 10:32 AM
whatta ? I see such mess first time in my life
2011 cherry tree tattoo side.
chintals
09-03 01:33 PM
How did you do that? can you please provide info?
The phone number to call and would they need any information from me?
1) Call 800 and convince the person to escalate to 2nd level and speak to IIO
2) Call 800 and choose cases were seperated option which will go to respective service center and talk to IO.
Some folks are helpful and some are not.. It all depends how you approach and how you can convince.. good luck. Other option is go to Infopass.
The phone number to call and would they need any information from me?
1) Call 800 and convince the person to escalate to 2nd level and speak to IIO
2) Call 800 and choose cases were seperated option which will go to respective service center and talk to IO.
Some folks are helpful and some are not.. It all depends how you approach and how you can convince.. good luck. Other option is go to Infopass.
more...
sroyc
12-11 04:24 AM
From what I understand, the annual quota is 140K. The extra 23K was the spillover from last year's FB quota and was distributed in the following order - EB1->EB2->EB3.
Perhaps unfairly, they do not have the same quotas for the spillover visas.
Does anybody know why EB3 Total number (45,650) doesn't translate into 28% of annual quota (163,037). Does it mean EB3 didn't get their fair share (forget about per country limit)? This is insane.
Perhaps unfairly, they do not have the same quotas for the spillover visas.
Does anybody know why EB3 Total number (45,650) doesn't translate into 28% of annual quota (163,037). Does it mean EB3 didn't get their fair share (forget about per country limit)? This is insane.
kminkeller
03-09 03:54 PM
Thanks Radhagd:
Is it necessary to do consular processing. PD for EB2 for my country is current. Also, can we premium process my LABOR and I140 now a days?
Thanks.
Is it necessary to do consular processing. PD for EB2 for my country is current. Also, can we premium process my LABOR and I140 now a days?
Thanks.
more...
leoindiano
07-09 02:03 PM
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=22772
Here's what uscis said...
Here's what uscis said...
2010 cherry tree tattoo side.
GCWhru
08-20 11:41 AM
We are also in the same situation. Mine got approved on Aug 11th but no LUD on spouse's case.
We had a Infopass appointment today, very nice IO informed us that NC and BC are cleared and case is still pending at TSC.
He asked me to call 1800 and open a status inquiry (SR), but I requested him to open one for me, since I have/had very tough time with 1800. He was kind enough to open a SR and gave me the reference number too. He also informed me that I will be receiving a mail from USCIS within 30 days explaining the status of the case.
We had a Infopass appointment today, very nice IO informed us that NC and BC are cleared and case is still pending at TSC.
He asked me to call 1800 and open a status inquiry (SR), but I requested him to open one for me, since I have/had very tough time with 1800. He was kind enough to open a SR and gave me the reference number too. He also informed me that I will be receiving a mail from USCIS within 30 days explaining the status of the case.
more...
ananth_ramkrishnan
10-14 10:51 AM
I went for visa stamping in aug 2008 to mumbai consulate and was wearing a t-shirt and trousers. I did not have any problems and the person reviewing was cool and asked very simple questions and did not care for my dress.
hair The cherry tree is among the
NKR
05-01 11:54 AM
Consult an attorney and see if you can re-open your old case or port that date onto a new case. You don�t want to start your GC process all over again. It is a pain for someone from retrogressed country.
more...
mmanurker
04-13 11:48 AM
I am not 100% sure but when you are on H1B should'nt you be working from where your LCA was approved for? In OP's case, its remote work but outside USA, in that case I am not sure
1. if the LCA filed will any longer be valid and that might cause issues with labor dept
2. what happens when USCIS finds out that you left the country and physically not present in USA and still running payroll in USA plus also the LCA is no longer valid, this might be an issue when your renewal comes up.
3.how your payroll can be run when you are not in the country?what are the tax implications? you need to have a physical address in US to file taxes, is'nt it? without an address in the specified location and specific state, you will be considered as non-resident.
when you file taxes as non-resident but a resident of a different country, then you will have to understand the tax treaties between the USA and the resident country and file taxes accordingly.
You might want to talk to an immigration attorney as well as someone who specializes in taxes(not just CPA, but an attorney who understands tax laws). I dont think this can be as simple as others mentioned. this is just my opinion and I could be wrong. talk to legal experts.
1. if the LCA filed will any longer be valid and that might cause issues with labor dept
2. what happens when USCIS finds out that you left the country and physically not present in USA and still running payroll in USA plus also the LCA is no longer valid, this might be an issue when your renewal comes up.
3.how your payroll can be run when you are not in the country?what are the tax implications? you need to have a physical address in US to file taxes, is'nt it? without an address in the specified location and specific state, you will be considered as non-resident.
when you file taxes as non-resident but a resident of a different country, then you will have to understand the tax treaties between the USA and the resident country and file taxes accordingly.
You might want to talk to an immigration attorney as well as someone who specializes in taxes(not just CPA, but an attorney who understands tax laws). I dont think this can be as simple as others mentioned. this is just my opinion and I could be wrong. talk to legal experts.
hot cherry tree tattoos. cherry
sh2005
08-13 10:43 AM
Yes, i opened a new thread so that everybody can see that CIS does mostly work on cases according to 485 Receipt Date. Otherwise i can't justify my EAD approval. I filed 485 and AP on June 18th and got RNs 2 weeks later. But EAD was filed later on July 12th. I got the receipt number for EAD from the back of my cashed check but never got actual Receipt Notice. Today i got the email that card production has been ordered.
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
How about the processing date that was shown for your service center? I applied my I-485, EAD and AP in May (got my RN in may as well). The processing time for EAD and AP is shown to be March 26, 2007 for NSC. But, I recently got my EAD approved and an RFE for AP. So, is the website for processing time not updated as accurately as it made to be seen or somehow some applications (like mine and yours) bypass the FIFO?
On a separate note, I got an email that an RFE has been issued for my EAD, but I already got the EAD card in hand, before the RFE was issued!!!
So if they have to approve an EAD filed in mid July, they must have gone with the 485 Receipt date. There is an LUD for our APs too for this Sunday. I'm happy that they are processing the cases in somewhat FIFO order. I was expecting EAD only 3-4months later since i filed it along with the July flood of applications.
Dec2002 EB3 India.
How about the processing date that was shown for your service center? I applied my I-485, EAD and AP in May (got my RN in may as well). The processing time for EAD and AP is shown to be March 26, 2007 for NSC. But, I recently got my EAD approved and an RFE for AP. So, is the website for processing time not updated as accurately as it made to be seen or somehow some applications (like mine and yours) bypass the FIFO?
On a separate note, I got an email that an RFE has been issued for my EAD, but I already got the EAD card in hand, before the RFE was issued!!!
more...
house cherry blossom tree tattoo
vinzak
04-13 09:27 AM
What exactly is the question?
tattoo tree tattoos on side. cherry
rbalaji5
03-19 12:52 PM
Friends,
I heard that,
Priority date is used only for filing the I-485. Once we filed the I-485, GC is provided based on the Receipt date of I-485 if the Visas are available after review
Is it True ?.
I heard that,
Priority date is used only for filing the I-485. Once we filed the I-485, GC is provided based on the Receipt date of I-485 if the Visas are available after review
Is it True ?.
more...
pictures Still, it#39;s a good tattoo,
piperwarrior
08-14 02:44 PM
How did you come up with $745? I-485 application fees were $325 + $70 fee for biometrics. That makes it $395 per application or $790 for two applications. Maybe your lawyer gave you incorrect advice about the fees??
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
dresses japanese cherry tree tattoo.
eb3_nepa
08-25 12:01 PM
Best thing to do in this case is, simply use your AP. No H1b stamping is needed. You can still remain on an H1B even if you use the AP for travelling.
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
more...
makeup cherry blossom tree tattoo
h1vegas
10-07 12:30 PM
I got same audit in september as well
the guy came in to my desk and took pictures and i was asked to show my pay stubs
then they went to my hr and asked all questions
on being asked he said its the normal procedure
so no big deal , pls make sure if they coem to your office you should atleast have a copy of your paystubs
the guy came in to my desk and took pictures and i was asked to show my pay stubs
then they went to my hr and asked all questions
on being asked he said its the normal procedure
so no big deal , pls make sure if they coem to your office you should atleast have a copy of your paystubs
girlfriend cherry blossom tattoo
amitjoey
01-26 11:18 AM
Congrajulations! to all the toppers.
hairstyles dresses cherry tree tattoo side. cherry blossom tree tattoos. pictures
ashkam
04-21 02:21 PM
Yes, you can move to H4 and then to H1-B as long as that H1-B is filed within 12 months. Otherwise, your application will be subject to 65K cap limit
There's no such strings attached. You can convert from H4 to H1B whenever you want without the quota applying to you, as long as you
1.> Haven't spent a year outside the US, or
2.> Have your I-140 approved, in which case (1) won't apply.
There's no such strings attached. You can convert from H4 to H1B whenever you want without the quota applying to you, as long as you
1.> Haven't spent a year outside the US, or
2.> Have your I-140 approved, in which case (1) won't apply.
snathan
06-20 09:45 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
vinayskadam
11-23 08:49 PM
@sameer2730 :
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
So when you made the mistake "Country Of Citizenship" on your EAD eFile, how did you get that corrected? Did you send in a "Request For Correction" along with your supporting documentation to USCIS? Did they send you an RFE or did they accept your docs and approved your EAD?
Sent the request for correction with my supporting documents.
-- I have done the same mistake, so can you please tell what exactly you did. I mean did you call the helpline and is there any format in which we need to "Request for correction".
And once you sent the "Request for Correction", was it ok. Or is there any problem with the correction.
Please help me with your advice. I am completely in dilemma as to what needs to done..
Thanks in advance..
Vinay
No comments:
Post a Comment