sameer2730
11-15 12:52 PM
You can travel back to USA from CANADA or MEXICO if you have a expired I-94 and a h1B which is valid while you are travelling (Its called Automatic Revalidation) if you are returning within 30 days and have not left the above mentioned countries during that period . I did it. Please do not give over your I-94 at the border or airport if asked. Let them you are returning in 30 days. However make sure you have copies of all your previous H1b and spouses H4b if any. My wife had converted from H4 to H1 3 years ago but has changed a job since. The customs officer at the border wanted to see her previous H1b.
Also you can take an appointment in BAHAMAS. I know a lot of people who got stamps from there. I think but am not sure , you do not need a visitor VISA to bahamas if you are a candian permanant resident.
About the Automatic Visa revalidation mentioned in the first paragragh its very clear and well known law. So 99.99% nothing will go wrong. Just try to travel by road (I have heard airport customs officers are not that familiar). Also travel along a busy border like Rainbow bridge . They know the law more in such places.
Also you can take an appointment in BAHAMAS. I know a lot of people who got stamps from there. I think but am not sure , you do not need a visitor VISA to bahamas if you are a candian permanant resident.
About the Automatic Visa revalidation mentioned in the first paragragh its very clear and well known law. So 99.99% nothing will go wrong. Just try to travel by road (I have heard airport customs officers are not that familiar). Also travel along a busy border like Rainbow bridge . They know the law more in such places.
wallpaper 1920#39;s The corset was tosses
jk333
07-17 07:15 PM
is it official that we can file till August 17th? i didn't see that in august bulletin. please let me know as you know how important is that..... Well its timing...
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletinUpdate17Jul07.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/VisaBulletinUpdate17Jul07.pdf
abracadabra102
07-29 05:58 PM
By now its almost evident that the CR's for retrogression, per country limit. and STEM related degrees are actually are not going anywhere. Understandably it was CHC (Congressional Hispanic Caucus) and republican leadership that blocked the road to legal immigration relief.
Its almost beyond my analytical power to find out why CHC blocked our way? CHC treated us as hostages to get their demands. They were successful with their threat that either it will be amnesty to illegals or absolutely nothing.
So this though struck my mind: what is our stand as far as illegal immigration is concerned. Even though we may not support/recommend further illegal immigration, what is our stand on granting amnesty to illegals already living in this country.
So do we:
1. Completely oppose amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
2. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
3. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, as long as they do not stand ahead of legal immigrants in the queue.
4. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, if CHC and other similar organizations support us for our much sought immigration reforms.
5. Only support Guest Worker Program type of thing, which allows people to enter on work visas and further backlog the employment based GC queues.
Is it going to help us if we shake hands with CHC and other similar organizations, if they support us? I mean if we can't defeat them why don't we join forces with them to get what we want. Please remember that legal immigration reform bills always try to piggy back on CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reforms) type of bills where illegal immigration/amnesty is focal point of discussion, rather than other way around.
I do not think we need to speak for or against illegal immigrants. We should try to gain some mileage out of our legal status and try to convince law makers to place us ahead of illegal immigrants in the GC queue, if and when US chooses to legalize them.
Its almost beyond my analytical power to find out why CHC blocked our way? CHC treated us as hostages to get their demands. They were successful with their threat that either it will be amnesty to illegals or absolutely nothing.
So this though struck my mind: what is our stand as far as illegal immigration is concerned. Even though we may not support/recommend further illegal immigration, what is our stand on granting amnesty to illegals already living in this country.
So do we:
1. Completely oppose amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
2. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA
3. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, as long as they do not stand ahead of legal immigrants in the queue.
4. Support amnesty to illegals immigrants currently living in USA, if CHC and other similar organizations support us for our much sought immigration reforms.
5. Only support Guest Worker Program type of thing, which allows people to enter on work visas and further backlog the employment based GC queues.
Is it going to help us if we shake hands with CHC and other similar organizations, if they support us? I mean if we can't defeat them why don't we join forces with them to get what we want. Please remember that legal immigration reform bills always try to piggy back on CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reforms) type of bills where illegal immigration/amnesty is focal point of discussion, rather than other way around.
I do not think we need to speak for or against illegal immigrants. We should try to gain some mileage out of our legal status and try to convince law makers to place us ahead of illegal immigrants in the GC queue, if and when US chooses to legalize them.
2011 the 1920s flapper hat an
HV000
08-10 12:44 AM
It is too early to tell if it definitely refers to us, but it is more likely that this IS referring to EB and naturalization background checks. Reasoning is like this - Background checks are required by Department of State (DOS) for issuing Visas. Department of homeland security (DHS) under which USCIS comes is responsible for those within the US. Now background checks are not conducted for issuing H1B visa etc. They are only for EB/N-400. So it is more likely they are referring us. Secondly, just two months back USCIS announced that it is going through Ombudsman's report and would be preparing a response. Last month FBI's miller came out and suggested they are happy with main file checks (which take less than 2 days to come back automatically) and USCIS is insisting of doing reference file checks and they would be keen to work with USCIS to find ways of reducing backlog processing times. Some options included they way background checks are done, and also borrowing workers from USCIS for FBI's NNC unit. Finally, when the fee increase was announced USCIS mentioned some of the money would go to reduce processing times and FBI asked for increasing the name check fee from $2 to $9 which means now that the fees increase has been implemented more resources to reduce time may be implemented.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
Very good points. We should know more about this tomorrow. Hopefully they are referring to FB/EB IMMIGRATION.
With scores of cases against USCIS and thousands of letters to congressmen and president and articles in NYT and WS Times, finally they may have realized that it is time they attended to the background check delays issue.
Very good points. We should know more about this tomorrow. Hopefully they are referring to FB/EB IMMIGRATION.
more...
purgan
02-18 12:02 AM
Actually I had suggested a phone/fax campaign to Durbins office. The Anti-immigration/protectionist organizations such as Programmers Guild have targeted this senator for a reason.....but no one is getting our point of view across to him.
I don't think he's anti-immigrant, but the fact is no one from our community has reached out to him in an organized manner.
I suggest we start a phone/fax and flower compaign....
I don't think he's anti-immigrant, but the fact is no one from our community has reached out to him in an organized manner.
I suggest we start a phone/fax and flower compaign....
kondur_007
10-30 04:06 PM
In my case - which is little different than you since I'm actually transferring my job to a different subsidiary of the same employer with employer's blessing - attorney advised to file AC21 even though I had just received my GC. It sounds counter-intuitive but his logic behind it was as follows: USCIS will surely reject AC21 letter stating the candidate has already received GC. You can then keep this response in your file and use it to defend your case if there is any problem down the road (for example, during your citizenship processing) since you had informed USCIS and they themselves said it's not necessary. In case they do not reject your AC21 request you will still be fine since it means you invoked AC21 even though you got your GC so it should still be okay to switch before 6 months.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
As always this is one attorney's personal opinion/strategy so please consult your own attorney before doing anything.
Thank you very much for sharing this information, this is a very good point; I never thought about it.
more...
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
2010 1920s flapper makeup.
Steve Mitchell
October 27th, 2003, 10:14 AM
I like the second shot quite a bit. I think that would look fantastic in a large nice frame.
more...
pappu
03-05 10:56 AM
I am an IT consultant
What is the probable Approval date for this application?
My details:
EB2-labor 09/2006.
I-140 SRC078XXXXXXX(Texas)
Reciept: 02/27/2007
Notice: 07/31/2007
Priority:09/01/2006
section: Member of professional w/adv degree or of exceptional ability . Sec203(b)(2)
I-485:# SRC08-008-53-XXX(Texas:2008:eight day from 09/01/2008)
Recieved:08/14/2007
Notice :09/11/2007
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of imigrant petition.
Finger Printing:12/20/2007
Could you please add that in your profile as well
What is the probable Approval date for this application?
My details:
EB2-labor 09/2006.
I-140 SRC078XXXXXXX(Texas)
Reciept: 02/27/2007
Notice: 07/31/2007
Priority:09/01/2006
section: Member of professional w/adv degree or of exceptional ability . Sec203(b)(2)
I-485:# SRC08-008-53-XXX(Texas:2008:eight day from 09/01/2008)
Recieved:08/14/2007
Notice :09/11/2007
Section: Adjustment as direct beneficiary of imigrant petition.
Finger Printing:12/20/2007
Could you please add that in your profile as well
hair 1920s flapper makeup.
paisa
07-04 03:42 PM
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
Your LC is approved for your location. If your location changes you need a LC for that location. This is what I had found out a few years back. Things might have changed since then. Other thing my friend told me about this. So I am not sure what the actual rule is. better to confirm from lawyer
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
Your LC is approved for your location. If your location changes you need a LC for that location. This is what I had found out a few years back. Things might have changed since then. Other thing my friend told me about this. So I am not sure what the actual rule is. better to confirm from lawyer
more...
softcrowd
02-17 09:46 AM
"U" does not mean quota is done for FY 08...it may be "U" becoz for those categoreis, quarterly quota exhausted....USCIS normally does not grab the entire FY's quota at one time...they do it quarterly basis.
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
Even i think definitely before Oct itself, EB2 India moves ahead.
hot 1920#39;s Flappers challenging
Higcoptimist
05-15 09:05 PM
Hi,
Well, Bush has delivered his address on the immigration subject. Unless I am missing something, not a word was said about the Legal Immigration or the H1Bs. All the focus was on the illegal immigrants and the border enforcement.
Does that mean that the Legal ones like us are in the backburner? Would the Senate and the house focus only on the illegals and give them the path to citizenship, leaving those who played by the rules, in the lurch? What kind of justice is this in the "Land of Justice"?
I hope the senators and the representatives are sensible and leave the provisions for the EBs in the proposed bill, alone.
Hoping for the best.
Higcoptimist
Well, Bush has delivered his address on the immigration subject. Unless I am missing something, not a word was said about the Legal Immigration or the H1Bs. All the focus was on the illegal immigrants and the border enforcement.
Does that mean that the Legal ones like us are in the backburner? Would the Senate and the house focus only on the illegals and give them the path to citizenship, leaving those who played by the rules, in the lurch? What kind of justice is this in the "Land of Justice"?
I hope the senators and the representatives are sensible and leave the provisions for the EBs in the proposed bill, alone.
Hoping for the best.
Higcoptimist
more...
house time doing 1920s makeup
honge_kamyaab
11-16 09:11 AM
Power of internet, thanks for all the input.
That is right my previous I-94 has expired and I should get the latest I-94 as part of new I-797. My US multiple visa expired last August.
My question is thoroughly answered that I could use the "Automatic revalidation rule" to come back into US using my I-94 and I-797.
One more question to the folks who became Canadian PRs. When I exit out
of US can they force me to give up I-94 as I am landing as Canadian PR. In others words,
can they override "Automatic revalidation rule" in this case.
Part of me says they are two different teams one working for US to track I-94
and the other looking for Canadian PR so they can never rationalize this. If they talk then that could be an issue. Isn't that right?
That is right my previous I-94 has expired and I should get the latest I-94 as part of new I-797. My US multiple visa expired last August.
My question is thoroughly answered that I could use the "Automatic revalidation rule" to come back into US using my I-94 and I-797.
One more question to the folks who became Canadian PRs. When I exit out
of US can they force me to give up I-94 as I am landing as Canadian PR. In others words,
can they override "Automatic revalidation rule" in this case.
Part of me says they are two different teams one working for US to track I-94
and the other looking for Canadian PR so they can never rationalize this. If they talk then that could be an issue. Isn't that right?
tattoo 1920s flapper makeup.
onthelines
03-24 01:02 PM
I listened to it at the end. Great job Mark...
more...
pictures hot 1920s flapper makeup.
rpat1968
09-03 11:42 AM
Still Waiting... Frustrated after seeing so many out of turn approvals for later PD's.
PD : 08 July 04 ND : 08/09/2009
Last LUD : 04/14/09 (Aftter Replying to EVL RFE for Primary and Marriage Cerificate for Spouse).
Be Patient, i do fee that all whose pd is before jan 2005 EB2 India will get their GC.
Hang on there, you will get it, more than likely by EOD today.
PD : 08 July 04 ND : 08/09/2009
Last LUD : 04/14/09 (Aftter Replying to EVL RFE for Primary and Marriage Cerificate for Spouse).
Be Patient, i do fee that all whose pd is before jan 2005 EB2 India will get their GC.
Hang on there, you will get it, more than likely by EOD today.
dresses 1920s flapper makeup.
lost_in_migration
11-08 02:05 PM
Why are number of I-485 less than number of I-130
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
more...
makeup the Roaring 1920#39;s Flapper
nashdel
08-07 11:09 PM
Mine approved August 2nd, Wife`s pending. May be this is one of the administrative fixes from USCIS! As primary on EAD I would have to Work in same job classification, can not stay here for long without work or open a new business. But spouse on EAD can do either one of those per my knowledge. They can allot visa number to another primary. I do not think this is the reasoning from USCIS and there has to be some other reason though such as security check. I wonder if it is smart for them to allot visa numbers to primary and secondary in 2:1 ratio. Will ease problems for lot of people.
girlfriend 1920s flapper makeup. twenties
sledge_hammer
02-07 04:07 PM
Take the poll people ...
Thanks!
Thanks!
hairstyles 15 Sep 2009 Posted by Sharon
vxg
09-03 01:43 PM
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
Will add companionship i am at TSC with an EAC receipt no and still waiting wherein i see that they are approving cases with Dec 04 priority while folks with Jul 04 are still waiting. The RD and ND is useless too as i am seeing aprovals for folks who mailed there apps after me one guy posted on IV that he filed I-485 in 2008 with Dec 04 PD and got approval. This seems like last year where they completely ignored 2004 folks and approved 2005 and 2006 cases. I do not have much hope this month either.
Will add companionship i am at TSC with an EAC receipt no and still waiting wherein i see that they are approving cases with Dec 04 priority while folks with Jul 04 are still waiting. The RD and ND is useless too as i am seeing aprovals for folks who mailed there apps after me one guy posted on IV that he filed I-485 in 2008 with Dec 04 PD and got approval. This seems like last year where they completely ignored 2004 folks and approved 2005 and 2006 cases. I do not have much hope this month either.
ilikekilo
07-21 10:43 AM
I still can't imagine Sen Hillary Clinton did not support legal immigrations..hmm, may be when we send it to Obama, he can take it up with his opponent to get her support too.. who knows, it is all a tricky issue
seahawks - obama did not even vote...smart...
seahawks - obama did not even vote...smart...
hoolahoous
03-18 10:51 AM
i am switching job using ac21. my current employer trusts immigration attorneys. and as expected attorneys suggested (since they get paid) that company should withdraws both H1 and I-140 after I leave. I know I am safe, however USCIS will definitly send me an RFE at time of processing my application and I will have to answer that. So I am trying to put my side to them saying that if it is optional, they should not.
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
So my question is, does the Law say that an employer has to withdraw all (or some) immigration petitions after employee leaves ? I was trying to search but I couldn't find anywhere where it said that it is mandated.
Also as far I could tell from forum posts, there is no set form which needs to be filled by employeers to withdraw the application. That would seem to suggest that it is not mandated.
On flip side, if it is mandated, then why most of the employers do not withdraw the application ?
No comments:
Post a Comment