GCwaitforever
08-16 11:25 AM
I checked UK Embassy web site this weekend. Apparently they ask for original certificates while taking application for HSMP. That is a sticking point with me. Also could someone suggest a good site to look for UK jobs? What are the pros and cons? Any ideas on the life style in UK? What is the impact of latest terror plots on life etc ...
I will post the Embassy links directly when I get home. You should be able to do it yourself without having to go through a middleman. I guess workpermit.com is a middleman.
I will post the Embassy links directly when I get home. You should be able to do it yourself without having to go through a middleman. I guess workpermit.com is a middleman.
wallpaper Connect with Avril Lavigne
rb_248
01-31 12:21 PM
Who is United Nations? From your views, it seems like United Nations is a pretty strong asset. Please post more information.
qualified_trash
11-30 12:11 PM
I have Labor (PERM) and I140 approved from my current employer.
can I apply trasfer and extension with new employer.
Advice is highly appreciated.
you can!!
BUT, your new employer has to do your PERM and I140 all over again. you can retain your old PD though!!
can I apply trasfer and extension with new employer.
Advice is highly appreciated.
you can!!
BUT, your new employer has to do your PERM and I140 all over again. you can retain your old PD though!!
2011 Avril Lavigne #39;Goodbye
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
more...
karl65
11-17 12:37 AM
yes thats true .... but I guess only pig is not enough ... we need the whole animal kingdon fly before ....:D
Well...at least most of the Animal kingdom can fly.....the problem is if USCIS knows it!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D
Well...at least most of the Animal kingdom can fly.....the problem is if USCIS knows it!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D
haider420
06-12 07:54 AM
hello,
were u able to find more information on applying for H1B through non-profit? can you send me the links? thanks.
were u able to find more information on applying for H1B through non-profit? can you send me the links? thanks.
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 Goodbye Lullaby [FanMade Album
Steve Mitchell
October 19th, 2003, 11:44 PM
Great shot Don....I like that image a lot.
more...
ksrk
12-10 04:36 PM
Just EB1 through EB3 adds to 149579.
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
Wonder how this tallies with numbers discussed especially during Aug and Sept. 2008...
hair avril lavigne goodbye lullaby
chintals
09-03 01:10 PM
Could make sure that you have had a soft LUD on your portfolio is what made you to call CIS ?
Yes.. i called because i have SLUD on 09/01/09 and my case was assigned to officer on 07/08/09 and PD is current in Aug and Sep.
Yes.. i called because i have SLUD on 09/01/09 and my case was assigned to officer on 07/08/09 and PD is current in Aug and Sep.
more...
santb1975
02-14 12:22 AM
We really need it
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
I volunteer. I will be in Los Angeles this Sunday. See you there.
Cheers!
g
hot Avril Lavigne - Goodbye
jr8rdt
11-13 04:21 PM
ok. let's say I-140 approved and pass 180 days. the person is working using ac21 and ead with a new company. the person is travelling using AP , the old company withdraw I-140, will he be able to come back in the us ?
once the person is working for the new company can he send the offer letter to avoid problem with 485. kinda of preemption - proactive approach or does the person needs to wait until ins request?
once the person is working for the new company can he send the offer letter to avoid problem with 485. kinda of preemption - proactive approach or does the person needs to wait until ins request?
more...
house lavigne site Avril
anindya1234
07-17 10:08 PM
I-140 was from TSC; I filed on July 2..but the employment letter was addressed to NSC. Will that be a problem?
tattoo avril lavigne goodbye lullaby
reddymjm
02-22 10:24 PM
in this dream land my friend.
more...
pictures avril lavigne goodbye lullaby
desi3933
06-25 03:44 PM
You guys are great. Guys like you are making this world better place to live. I wish you both good luck.
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D
I decided to apply I485 as future employment. My attorney charged complete GC fees when I got I140 approval. So now I have to pay only application fees but not any attorney charges. Do you guys know info about following?
I485 applicatio fee:
I-131 applicatio fee:
I765 applicatio fee:
Once again thanks for your advice.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D
dresses Avril Lavigne - Goodbye
WaitingYaar
09-21 06:50 PM
The dates for filing shown in processing dates released on 9/19 do not concur with this information.
more...
makeup Singer Avril Lavigne#39;s new
r2i2009
09-20 09:30 PM
Confused ...i think GC stands for Great Confusion
Came in 2001....PD 2003......EB3
Will I ever get my GC? What is it anyway?
Came in 2001....PD 2003......EB3
Will I ever get my GC? What is it anyway?
girlfriend Avril Lavigne – What The Hell
pappu
08-15 11:24 AM
See this and if it helps you courtesy Murthy.com (http://murthy.com/news/n_tscnsc.html)
Second I-140 Allowed without Revocation of Earlier I-140 Petition
The TSC confirmed that, in some cases it is possible for the employer to file two or more I-140 petitions for the same beneficiary, based on a single labor certification, in multiple EB categories. If the job requirements are proper for EB2, the case could be filed in either category. Thus, multiple I-140s could be filed in some cases. If the first was filed in EB3, there would be no need to withdraw it in order to file in EB2. The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition.
This could be quite helpful in situations where the I-140 petition is incorrectly filed in the wrong, lower category. We do hear about such instances from time to time. It seems that if the I-140 was filed in EB3, but the case would meet EB2, the TSC would permit the re-filing of the I-140 petition without revocation of the earlier EB3 filing.
08/15/2006: Multiple I-140 Petitions: Uniform Policy in Negative Fashion?
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
Second I-140 Allowed without Revocation of Earlier I-140 Petition
The TSC confirmed that, in some cases it is possible for the employer to file two or more I-140 petitions for the same beneficiary, based on a single labor certification, in multiple EB categories. If the job requirements are proper for EB2, the case could be filed in either category. Thus, multiple I-140s could be filed in some cases. If the first was filed in EB3, there would be no need to withdraw it in order to file in EB2. The TSC recommended submitting copies of the approved I-140 with the later-filed I-140 petition.
This could be quite helpful in situations where the I-140 petition is incorrectly filed in the wrong, lower category. We do hear about such instances from time to time. It seems that if the I-140 was filed in EB3, but the case would meet EB2, the TSC would permit the re-filing of the I-140 petition without revocation of the earlier EB3 filing.
08/15/2006: Multiple I-140 Petitions: Uniform Policy in Negative Fashion?
* We reported on August 3, 2006 USCIS lack of uniform policy on multiple petitions on a single EB-2 labor certification application. It appears that the disease has spread to the TSC adopting a similar negative policy of denying EB-3 petition when EB-2 and EB-3 petitions are filed concurrently using single certified EB-2 labor certification application on the ground that "original" of the certified application was not available for the EB-3 I-140 petition since the original had to accompany the EB-2 I-140 petition. Obviously this is a deviation from the traditional INS/USCIS policy in a negative way and we hope that the USCIS leaders are not turning around from the liberal policies under Yates-Divine era to the narrow-restrictive policies.
hairstyles Avril Lavigne Goodbye Lullaby
nfinity
03-17 10:55 PM
Can someone who has added his/her spouse please provide with a list of documents required to file spouse i-485 after primary has been filed? Can we collect a list? There seem to be a lot of people in this situation.
Here is what I think is required
I-485 - Adjustment
G-325A - Biographic Info
I-134 - Affidavit of support
I-765 - EAD
I-131 - Advance Parole
I-693 - Medical Exam
What else is required? Please add to the list. Also, has anyone done this on their own?
TIA
Here is what I think is required
I-485 - Adjustment
G-325A - Biographic Info
I-134 - Affidavit of support
I-765 - EAD
I-131 - Advance Parole
I-693 - Medical Exam
What else is required? Please add to the list. Also, has anyone done this on their own?
TIA
jkays94
05-31 05:12 PM
FAIR and NumbersUSA have been designated as Anti-Immigrant groups by the SPLC, you might want to read more about them and their agenda here. (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=175)
mbartosik
11-19 12:14 PM
For Nebraska:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
For Texas:
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=TSC
Summary for I485:
Nebraska has processed most applications that it has had for 7 months (filed on or before April 14 2007).
Texas has processed most applications that it has had for 6 months.
Since 6 months is the target, Texas can be considered to be caught up, and Nebraska will likely have caught up next month.
For I485 that makes the visa bulletin the main issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment