parablergh
09-02 04:13 PM
The officer is incorrect. The H-1B visa stamp only allows for reentry into the U.S. from abroad, it does not control your status. You can either go back and explain that the I-94 card attached to the approval notice isn't the most recent, and therefore isn't your current expiration or follow one of the other options presented above.
gcformeornot
02-11 11:38 AM
applied for H1, was it COS? Did you get new I-94 when your H1 was approved. If yes then you are in H1 status after H1 is approved. Obvisously they denied L1B.
Also if above is true and you are not working for H1 employer then you are probably out of status......
Also if above is true and you are not working for H1 employer then you are probably out of status......
god_bless_you
04-06 02:11 PM
Thanks god_bless_you for you response. So it appears that I either have to have a valid H1 or EAD on hand in order to work.
If you are extending the H1B, however, there is a grace period of 200 some day where you can work without a valid H1B while the H1B extension is pending. Isn't there a grace period if you are changing from H1B to EAD? From what you are saying, there isn't.
I am sure on that.. Please check with a Immigration attorney!
If you are extending the H1B, however, there is a grace period of 200 some day where you can work without a valid H1B while the H1B extension is pending. Isn't there a grace period if you are changing from H1B to EAD? From what you are saying, there isn't.
I am sure on that.. Please check with a Immigration attorney!
kaisersose
07-11 06:16 PM
I am seriouly looking out for a job as currently on bench from last one month and my employer doesn't pay the bench salary. Currently I am on EAD with my GC sponsering employer. I would appreciate if any of you pls. reply this post. My question is,
If I joined a new employer using EAD-AC21 (as 11 month passed of my I-485) which is very small employer (currently have about 35 employees only), would it cause a problem in my GC process approval? I mean, do you think USCIS may create any RFC as I have join the very small employer, may ask any financial document to declare? Can you pls. tell me what are the potential problems my come in this situation?
Pls. help, your reply will be highly appreciable?
The Yates memorandum is very clear on this. It is not necessary for CIS to issue an Ability to pay RFE for the new employer. However, if they suspect fraud or some other problem, then they can always investigate. Having only 32 employees is obviously not a reason to start an investigation.
Short answer - No potential problems.
If I joined a new employer using EAD-AC21 (as 11 month passed of my I-485) which is very small employer (currently have about 35 employees only), would it cause a problem in my GC process approval? I mean, do you think USCIS may create any RFC as I have join the very small employer, may ask any financial document to declare? Can you pls. tell me what are the potential problems my come in this situation?
Pls. help, your reply will be highly appreciable?
The Yates memorandum is very clear on this. It is not necessary for CIS to issue an Ability to pay RFE for the new employer. However, if they suspect fraud or some other problem, then they can always investigate. Having only 32 employees is obviously not a reason to start an investigation.
Short answer - No potential problems.
more...
rajpatelemail
11-07 07:05 PM
Another group with help of IV, to suck the blood by sponsoring H1s...
Believe me , at least 80% of this so called enterpreneurs will end up like present H1/desi employers/blood sucking companies
Of course 20% will be real good with clean intentions.
I bet...As i saw so many people in the same manner.
My close friends got GC and now sucking people with H1s , after just registering LLC with state secretary by paying 100$ reg fees and filing few H1s with INS
Believe me , at least 80% of this so called enterpreneurs will end up like present H1/desi employers/blood sucking companies
Of course 20% will be real good with clean intentions.
I bet...As i saw so many people in the same manner.
My close friends got GC and now sucking people with H1s , after just registering LLC with state secretary by paying 100$ reg fees and filing few H1s with INS
rjgleason
August 8th, 2005, 11:11 AM
How aboutr a beautiful field of flowing grasses, perhaps with some stationary objects, like rocks, or a barn, etc. Great technique and a great shot!
more...
miththoo
08-22 05:08 PM
Does it invalidate the old I-140 if the PD is recaptured for the new I-140 ? I mean what happens to the old I-140 ? May we still use it in future if for some reason the new I-140 does not work out ?
somegchuh
10-26 12:18 PM
My wife went for H4 visa stamping in New Delhi embassy yesterday. The visa officer asked her a couple of questions, then asked for my I797 approval notice. He kept the passport and the approval notice and said they will mail the passport with visa.
Do they mail the I797 back with passport? I need the original approval notice for travel and my documentation. Has anyone been through this? Is there a way to follow up with the embassy to get it back? If they lose the document that will be a serious problem.
Do they mail the I797 back with passport? I need the original approval notice for travel and my documentation. Has anyone been through this? Is there a way to follow up with the embassy to get it back? If they lose the document that will be a serious problem.
more...
akhilmahajan
04-23 07:55 AM
I am sure this question must have been answered before, but as i could not find anything with reference to it, so i thought of posting it here.
I just received a copy of the labor from my company. Is there a way to find out, whether the labor was cleared for EB-2 or not.
I am novice in this area.
If there are any other ways to find out, can anyone shed some light on it.
Thanks.
I just received a copy of the labor from my company. Is there a way to find out, whether the labor was cleared for EB-2 or not.
I am novice in this area.
If there are any other ways to find out, can anyone shed some light on it.
Thanks.
gonecrazyonh4
01-29 12:06 PM
Agreement Reached to Re-evaluate Rule Requiring Federal Contractors to Use E-Verify
Yesterday, the U.S. government agreed to delay until May 21, 2009, implementation of a new rule requiring federal contractors to use the federal government�s E-Verify employment eligibility system.
SHRM and other associations requested this extension after the president�s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued a memorandum to all agencies stating that agencies should consider extending the effective dates of all regulations that were published in the Federal Register but that have not yet taken effect.
While SHRM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, HR Policy Association, and the American Council on International Personnel still have a lawsuit pending against the government challenging the legality of the federal contractor mandate, this agreement suspends court proceedings in order to allow the Obama Administration an opportunity to review the rule.
Yesterday, the U.S. government agreed to delay until May 21, 2009, implementation of a new rule requiring federal contractors to use the federal government�s E-Verify employment eligibility system.
SHRM and other associations requested this extension after the president�s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued a memorandum to all agencies stating that agencies should consider extending the effective dates of all regulations that were published in the Federal Register but that have not yet taken effect.
While SHRM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, HR Policy Association, and the American Council on International Personnel still have a lawsuit pending against the government challenging the legality of the federal contractor mandate, this agreement suspends court proceedings in order to allow the Obama Administration an opportunity to review the rule.
more...
Mik3
03-07 10:29 PM
I vote that mIkedave drives to a Sony of America headquarters and gives them that because that is darn good!
mayhemt
07-03 11:04 AM
You guys still dont get it..do you??
Why would they ban non-immigrants from investing when there is ZERO loss for the country?
Its upto each individual to evaluate their priorities and go ahead and move their investments. I have already done it as I am just an alien waiting for permanent residency and I do not want my money stuck in any of the investment vehicles in a foreign land making it difficult for me to take it along with me when the day comes to leave the country.
Well for the why part...Its absurd, I understand. But then why is there country limit? Why is H4 not same as L2? There are absurdities and depends on the perspective you look from.
Why would they ban?? If they have compelling point like "To protect Americans assets against speculation and to preserve capital within the country".
I also see that it is individual's prerogative, however the point here is to show some numbers we (L1, H1, EADs) are responsible for & hopefully, grease the wheels towards smoother status adjustments.
Why would they ban non-immigrants from investing when there is ZERO loss for the country?
Its upto each individual to evaluate their priorities and go ahead and move their investments. I have already done it as I am just an alien waiting for permanent residency and I do not want my money stuck in any of the investment vehicles in a foreign land making it difficult for me to take it along with me when the day comes to leave the country.
Well for the why part...Its absurd, I understand. But then why is there country limit? Why is H4 not same as L2? There are absurdities and depends on the perspective you look from.
Why would they ban?? If they have compelling point like "To protect Americans assets against speculation and to preserve capital within the country".
I also see that it is individual's prerogative, however the point here is to show some numbers we (L1, H1, EADs) are responsible for & hopefully, grease the wheels towards smoother status adjustments.
more...
JeffDG
01-31 02:00 PM
Don't worry about the text of the bill, it's purely a placeholder for something to be introduced as an amendment later.
The text of the bill has two section: Sec 1: Title, Sec 2: Sense of the Senate, neither of which carry any force of law.
The text of the bill has two section: Sec 1: Title, Sec 2: Sense of the Senate, neither of which carry any force of law.
gcformeornot
08-10 05:19 PM
Guys,
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
character.
I am happy to share with you all that I applied my 485 on 1 week of June and it got approved today.
My PD was dec 2005. eb3. India.
Thought i would share with you all.:)
character.
more...
india.day
09-04 01:01 PM
You must be right ... I was not anticipating this turn of events whatsoever as I knew what the current PD is in the September Visa Bulletin but maybe they assign me a visa number when they got my application in June.... who knows...
FP for me and my wife was done Aug 30th and LUD on 485 shows 31 Aug, but the description under there has not changed. So what does that mean
PD EB3 Aug 2002
FP Done: Aug 30 ,2007
EAD :15 Aug 2007
LUD 485 : 31Aug 2007
FP for me and my wife was done Aug 30th and LUD on 485 shows 31 Aug, but the description under there has not changed. So what does that mean
PD EB3 Aug 2002
FP Done: Aug 30 ,2007
EAD :15 Aug 2007
LUD 485 : 31Aug 2007
yabadaba
06-22 11:32 AM
new memo from uscis
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
Oh law quote:
"During the lead period from 06/21/2007 to 07/29/2007, people can make a direct filing or in old ways. Accordingly, the July 2007 EB I-140 and I-485 filers using the July Visa Bulletin can make direct filing to eather Texas Service Center or Nebraska Service Center depending on where their place of intended employment is located."
Bulletin quote:
"USCIS will accept Forms I-129F, I-131, I-140, I-360, I-485, I-765 and I-907 filed with the new “Direct Filing” location in advance of the July 30, 2007 effective date, that are otherwise properly filed."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
Oh law quote:
"During the lead period from 06/21/2007 to 07/29/2007, people can make a direct filing or in old ways. Accordingly, the July 2007 EB I-140 and I-485 filers using the July Visa Bulletin can make direct filing to eather Texas Service Center or Nebraska Service Center depending on where their place of intended employment is located."
Bulletin quote:
"USCIS will accept Forms I-129F, I-131, I-140, I-360, I-485, I-765 and I-907 filed with the new “Direct Filing” location in advance of the July 30, 2007 effective date, that are otherwise properly filed."
more...
beemboy
11-16 06:12 PM
That is exactly what the senate has been doing. And the House too.
Nice one riva2005. :D :D
Nice one riva2005. :D :D
aadimanav
11-02 10:22 AM
I think since in their case there is not Labor Certification process so their PD is the day they file I-140.
Internet - In either case, it helps EB3 for the next yr as these 61,000 nurses are removed from EB3 quota.
Also I am wondering whether nurses also have PD or something like that. If most of them have PD > 2006 then they will not be able to use EB3 visas as it is retrogressed and stuck at 2001/2002.
Internet - In either case, it helps EB3 for the next yr as these 61,000 nurses are removed from EB3 quota.
Also I am wondering whether nurses also have PD or something like that. If most of them have PD > 2006 then they will not be able to use EB3 visas as it is retrogressed and stuck at 2001/2002.
ufo2002
05-11 07:43 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that Roberto guy in the program an illegal who used 245i to get his GC? Sounds like he got his GC long before this retrogression hit, so did he skip LCA phase and went straight into 140/485?
newlife2
09-19 10:41 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
akhilmahajan
04-30 10:24 AM
I will like to start this thread.
I140
filed March 2nd, 2007
Receipt date : March 8th, 2007
Thanks.
I140
filed March 2nd, 2007
Receipt date : March 8th, 2007
Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment