franklin
06-19 05:05 PM
Start worrying about LC approval notice and start working about AOS.
Aaj kal nav jawanoku, ye kya ho raha hi?
What?!
Aaj kal nav jawanoku, ye kya ho raha hi?
What?!
wallpaper Anthony Lawton Tattoos oni
amitjoey
08-06 02:01 PM
Honorable Senator Specter
Did you know that during the immigration debates, the most shrill voices against �immigration reform� (legitimizing illegal immigrants) was by legal immigrants who are living here in the US, and waiting for green cards, while their spouses are not allowed to work (half a million at the most recent count). Others who were against the reforms were immigrants who came here legally after waiting years, and are now green card holders. Democrats and liberal Republican senators have shown no empathy for legal immigrants and US citizens in their zeal for legalizing illegal immigrants through "immigration reform". I was not surprised to see just a single statement in your article, at the far end (probably as an afterthought) about green cards for legal skilled immigrants. Over 350,000 legal immigrants (99%) of who have nothing to do with crime are stuck in FBI name checks, and are unable to naturalize. Another 500,000 highly skilled legal immigrants (Doctors, Engineers etc) most of whom studied in the US, are stuck in retrogression (from countries such as India, China, Philippines etc). These legal immigrants are not even on your radar, even as Senators such as yourself, Ms. Diane Feinstein and others loose no opportunity to try to provide amnesty for the 12 million people who crossed over the border with scant regard for US law. You want to reward these people ahead of any �reform� for legal skilled workers. So much for President Bush�s statement about �putting these undocumented workers at the back of the line�. I don't think the American citizens will ever buy this lopsided reform. Genuine Border control is being held up as bait, for legalizing 12 million people. Please attend to border control and solve legacy problems of legal skilled immigrants already in the US, before doing anything on legalizing �undocumented workers�. Why is this so hard for our honorable congressmen and women to understand?
Lastly neither USCIS nor the FBI is able to timely service the legal immigrants already here, how do you propose to process the illegal immigrants without causing huge delays for those who played by the rules?
On the money, perfectly described. good choice of words.
Did you know that during the immigration debates, the most shrill voices against �immigration reform� (legitimizing illegal immigrants) was by legal immigrants who are living here in the US, and waiting for green cards, while their spouses are not allowed to work (half a million at the most recent count). Others who were against the reforms were immigrants who came here legally after waiting years, and are now green card holders. Democrats and liberal Republican senators have shown no empathy for legal immigrants and US citizens in their zeal for legalizing illegal immigrants through "immigration reform". I was not surprised to see just a single statement in your article, at the far end (probably as an afterthought) about green cards for legal skilled immigrants. Over 350,000 legal immigrants (99%) of who have nothing to do with crime are stuck in FBI name checks, and are unable to naturalize. Another 500,000 highly skilled legal immigrants (Doctors, Engineers etc) most of whom studied in the US, are stuck in retrogression (from countries such as India, China, Philippines etc). These legal immigrants are not even on your radar, even as Senators such as yourself, Ms. Diane Feinstein and others loose no opportunity to try to provide amnesty for the 12 million people who crossed over the border with scant regard for US law. You want to reward these people ahead of any �reform� for legal skilled workers. So much for President Bush�s statement about �putting these undocumented workers at the back of the line�. I don't think the American citizens will ever buy this lopsided reform. Genuine Border control is being held up as bait, for legalizing 12 million people. Please attend to border control and solve legacy problems of legal skilled immigrants already in the US, before doing anything on legalizing �undocumented workers�. Why is this so hard for our honorable congressmen and women to understand?
Lastly neither USCIS nor the FBI is able to timely service the legal immigrants already here, how do you propose to process the illegal immigrants without causing huge delays for those who played by the rules?
On the money, perfectly described. good choice of words.
p.guptapost
06-04 10:20 AM
Can we get the status of EAD application without receipt numbers?
pl. let me know. Thanks.
pl. let me know. Thanks.
2011 Josh Hibbard - Oni mask
nozerd
02-24 12:20 PM
pitha,
they dont need tuition waiver. they pay in state anyway. Only drawback is they cant get on campus job and cant get OPT.
Advantage is they can go part time and take less coursework (dont have to take min 9 credit hrs). They can even take a semester off without worrying about status.
they dont need tuition waiver. they pay in state anyway. Only drawback is they cant get on campus job and cant get OPT.
Advantage is they can go part time and take less coursework (dont have to take min 9 credit hrs). They can even take a semester off without worrying about status.
more...
sounakc
07-29 01:09 PM
why dallas why not chicago lock box
indyanguy
11-14 10:16 AM
Well, are you sure I would need to work for this "future employer" for 6 months?
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
Yes, you can. With EAD you can even become CEO of any company but for EVL, you can submit offer letter from future-employer but remember once you get green card, you need to work for this "future-employer" for 6 months.
Hope this helps.
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
Yes, you can. With EAD you can even become CEO of any company but for EVL, you can submit offer letter from future-employer but remember once you get green card, you need to work for this "future-employer" for 6 months.
Hope this helps.
more...
reddy77
04-13 02:36 PM
So did you answer the RFE ? ....
Thanks Guys ..... Nah, I am still waiting for that, will update you once I got it ....
Thanks Guys ..... Nah, I am still waiting for that, will update you once I got it ....
2010 oni tattoos. gun tattoos
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
gc4arun
06-23 08:35 AM
Could you please provide your input on this . Thank You.
Port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140, keep copies of old labor + 140 and new approved labor and a cover letter should specify that the beneficiary for both is the same ie YOU and you are not doing labor subsititution. I have been successful porting my pd from 03- the only difference was that my job classification was the same and salary for 2nd job was more
A
Port 2003 PD at the time of filing 2nd I-140, keep copies of old labor + 140 and new approved labor and a cover letter should specify that the beneficiary for both is the same ie YOU and you are not doing labor subsititution. I have been successful porting my pd from 03- the only difference was that my job classification was the same and salary for 2nd job was more
A
hair Japanese tattooing takes
abracadabra
01-16 04:44 PM
According to my attorney it is always best to be on H1 if the new employer is willing to do and invoke AC 21
more...
GKBest
10-18 10:51 PM
July 3rd filer....LIN# (though I-140 approved at TSC)
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
Receipt Date: July 3
Notice Date: October 11
EAD Card: Waiting
No FP notice yet
I-140 approved: TSC
Originating Issuer of I-485 and I-765 : NSC
hot Name Tattoo Flash
pbuckeye
06-25 02:45 PM
If you can get the email from the client mentioning that they can't give a letter, then I feel that could be enough reason for MTR (but check with an attorney). Have you explored about filing again in premium with new or more documents (see below)?
Could you confirm if you already submitted:
1. MSA/SOW/PO (all or any of these). Does the SOW/PO have your name on it?
2. Contact info of your supervisor at client site. I think this is very important.
Was the denial solely based on the client letter?
Could you confirm if you already submitted:
1. MSA/SOW/PO (all or any of these). Does the SOW/PO have your name on it?
2. Contact info of your supervisor at client site. I think this is very important.
Was the denial solely based on the client letter?
more...
house ONI TATTOO GALLERY in salt
Dhundhun
06-02 12:44 AM
good point... is the employer supposed to share the labor information with us?
Yes. One need to know, how LCA for GC was filed for at least two things:
-- Job Profile
-- Salary
Employer should let employee know it.
The reason they employers to hide is that if known, an employee may leave easily.
Yes. One need to know, how LCA for GC was filed for at least two things:
-- Job Profile
-- Salary
Employer should let employee know it.
The reason they employers to hide is that if known, an employee may leave easily.
tattoo Justin Brown Tattoo
krustycat
03-09 07:26 PM
I have a quick question on salary issue with 485. My EB2 I-140 states that my yearly salary 87k per annum. It got approved last year. I realized that my w-2 only reflects 64k for last year. I did not work for 2 months because of some personal reason. Is this less salary going to affect my 485 application? I thougt, GC is for future jobs so its okay. Can somebody please clarify this ?
You will be fine if you company can prove 'ability to pay' (the financial capability to pay the wages being offered for the position).
Adjudicators should make a favorable decision if the case contains proof of one of three specific matters.
the company's net income is equal to or greater than the wage that is offered
the company's current net assets are equal to or greater than the offered wage
the petitioner is employing the beneficiary and paying the beneficiary a wage in an amount equal to the prevailing wage
Point #3 will fail, then your company must prove #1 or #2 in order to be approved.
#2 => net income = taxable income
#3 => net current assets = current assets - current liabilities
You will be fine if you company can prove 'ability to pay' (the financial capability to pay the wages being offered for the position).
Adjudicators should make a favorable decision if the case contains proof of one of three specific matters.
the company's net income is equal to or greater than the wage that is offered
the company's current net assets are equal to or greater than the offered wage
the petitioner is employing the beneficiary and paying the beneficiary a wage in an amount equal to the prevailing wage
Point #3 will fail, then your company must prove #1 or #2 in order to be approved.
#2 => net income = taxable income
#3 => net current assets = current assets - current liabilities
more...
pictures The Oni
venky08
01-07 03:12 PM
there is a discussion about this elsewhere in the forum. please go thru the previous threads.
in those discussion threads, it was mentioned that after I-140 is revoked, the USCIS will send an RFE to you asking for evidence of future employment consistent with the labor certificate description. it will give you a few weeks time to respond back to the RFE.
Then you are to send a letter from your new employer that they are promising you a job in future where you would essentially do the same job functions as described in the labor...
if you inform the USCIS using AC 21 provision to change the job upfront, you may not get this RFE.
hi Munna,
thanks for your reply. you said no effect on your GC. but once I-140 with drawn then how can USCIS process 485? can you please eloborate.
in those discussion threads, it was mentioned that after I-140 is revoked, the USCIS will send an RFE to you asking for evidence of future employment consistent with the labor certificate description. it will give you a few weeks time to respond back to the RFE.
Then you are to send a letter from your new employer that they are promising you a job in future where you would essentially do the same job functions as described in the labor...
if you inform the USCIS using AC 21 provision to change the job upfront, you may not get this RFE.
hi Munna,
thanks for your reply. you said no effect on your GC. but once I-140 with drawn then how can USCIS process 485? can you please eloborate.
dresses Hanya tattoos Tattoos? oni
Humhongekamyab
01-29 10:23 AM
this rumour sounds like its straight out of timesofindia :p;)
:d
:d
more...
makeup Decorate Tattoo Studio)
chnaveen
03-16 03:41 PM
Need your opinion on this.. filed for I-485 on EB2 in July 07. I am the primary applicant. I have been married since May '04. Need to apply for a divorce. My wife, a derivative in my application, is holding up the process as it may affect her chances of getting a GC without any sweat. She has an parallel GC process running solely in her name, which I believe hasnt cleared PERM yet (some sort of audit). She is on H1B, extendable for another 3 years, and has EAD from my GC application. Will there be any implications on her application if the divorce goes through? And also, can I out of spite do anything to get her derivative application out of the queue :rolleyes: ?
Any 485 application based on a dependent status to the Primary will be decided based on the relationship. If the relationship breaks legally (through Divorce) before the final decision on the pending 485, the dependent's 485 application will be denied. But as you said, she is on H1 and has another GC processing solely in her name, that would not be affected at all with your divorce and also her H1 status too not affected.
Dependent's current EAD based on your GC will also be revoked, but I am not sure whether EAD will be valid until 485 is denied.
You may have to send your Divorce decree to USCIS mentionig about the Change of Status in your maritial Status and referring to your pending 485 Application receipt numbers including her application's receipt numbers.
Any 485 application based on a dependent status to the Primary will be decided based on the relationship. If the relationship breaks legally (through Divorce) before the final decision on the pending 485, the dependent's 485 application will be denied. But as you said, she is on H1 and has another GC processing solely in her name, that would not be affected at all with your divorce and also her H1 status too not affected.
Dependent's current EAD based on your GC will also be revoked, but I am not sure whether EAD will be valid until 485 is denied.
You may have to send your Divorce decree to USCIS mentionig about the Change of Status in your maritial Status and referring to your pending 485 Application receipt numbers including her application's receipt numbers.
girlfriend Japanese Back Tattoo ideas
RiaonH4
01-18 11:30 AM
FALSE STATEMENT - law was changed couple of years ago.
How can they advertise it on Sulekha with an incorrect statement???
Ria
How can they advertise it on Sulekha with an incorrect statement???
Ria
hairstyles Print Japanese Oni Tattoo
InTheMoment
08-04 02:24 PM
Sure...cannot deny your experience, but since my spouse had gone twice to the SS office, first to change her name and then to remove the restrictions after GC and I as well; on all occasions we were never asked for the old SS nor did they take it when we offered. They specifically mentioned that they do not need to see old cards. So if you surrendered, good for you.
That said, I would say, it is better to destroy old SS cards to avoid confusion in our records as well as... why have old useless cards with SS numbers on them lurking around anyways. I shredded ours at home :p
We cannot keep 2 Social Security cards at the same time.
They took my card and put into a drawer containing old returned card.
I have seen an american women infront of me apply for a new card after her name change(after marrige). They took her old card and put into the drawer.
You can apply for a new card without the old card if you inform the card is lost.
You can replace your Social Security card if it is lost or stolen. You are limited to three replacement cards in a year and 10 during your lifetime.
Name change, taking out the restrictions will not count towards the replacement limit.
That said, I would say, it is better to destroy old SS cards to avoid confusion in our records as well as... why have old useless cards with SS numbers on them lurking around anyways. I shredded ours at home :p
We cannot keep 2 Social Security cards at the same time.
They took my card and put into a drawer containing old returned card.
I have seen an american women infront of me apply for a new card after her name change(after marrige). They took her old card and put into the drawer.
You can apply for a new card without the old card if you inform the card is lost.
You can replace your Social Security card if it is lost or stolen. You are limited to three replacement cards in a year and 10 during your lifetime.
Name change, taking out the restrictions will not count towards the replacement limit.
dealsnet
03-28 10:39 AM
Doesn't matter.
what's your PD?? and which country you are from? Need more information to let me know whether you will get GC soon or not.
what's your PD?? and which country you are from? Need more information to let me know whether you will get GC soon or not.
hitpauler
04-21 01:04 PM
Wandmaker,
In my case, one namecheck is cleared by IO, which I presume includes both electronic and manual namechecks, in case if the electronic one shows something on the radar. However what I am unable to understand why the second namecheck, when all the steps were done to clear the first namecheck
In my case, one namecheck is cleared by IO, which I presume includes both electronic and manual namechecks, in case if the electronic one shows something on the radar. However what I am unable to understand why the second namecheck, when all the steps were done to clear the first namecheck
