MeraNaamJoker
09-16 04:44 PM
Here is the scenario.
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
If 6 months has been completed after your I-485 is filed then you can port out your process. You can either file AC21 or not. But to work for another company you need EAD. Now here you have mentioned that you have been working for Company B. What is your status with Company B? I guess, H1B.
If the company B can file for an AC21 at the earliest, that is the best option you have with you.
Just in case, if your I-485 is less than 6 months, situation becomes little sticky. Though the law or rule does not say anything specific, USCIS has been little lenient with the lay off and other situations recently.
So once Company A gets winds up, you can claim the process by stating that the company went out of business. There are cases where this was approved recently. Earlier there were exemptions at all.
You all need the co-operation from Company A on this. If they report to USCIS that you guys never joined there or made the company lose money, then none of the process will not stand as per law.
I personally know a unique situation, even after the company reported against the employee, the USCIS issued Green Card.
It all depends on the knowledge of the Officer who takes the case. Basically it is roll of the dice.
Do not take chances. Do it in the legal way as much as possible.
Good Luck to all of you
gopi246
03-20 09:52 PM
Did you contact the SSN department in person or called them.? Its better to go in person and get hold of the supervisor.
My brother had the same issue, but after 2 weeks of waiting, he used to go to the local SSN opffice everyday and somehow was able to get hold of the supervisor. The Supervisor called him once they got the info in their system and also gave him the number. The actual card came after few days in mail. I would suggest you to contact the local SSA office Super/Admin and escalate your case saying you badly need the number to start working.
Thank you very much, I will try and get to the root of the issue. Thanks for you return posts. Now i understand that I have to fight it out.
My brother had the same issue, but after 2 weeks of waiting, he used to go to the local SSN opffice everyday and somehow was able to get hold of the supervisor. The Supervisor called him once they got the info in their system and also gave him the number. The actual card came after few days in mail. I would suggest you to contact the local SSA office Super/Admin and escalate your case saying you badly need the number to start working.
Thank you very much, I will try and get to the root of the issue. Thanks for you return posts. Now i understand that I have to fight it out.
StuckInTheMuck
11-13 07:29 AM
Same here. Ignored medical in the July 2 filing rush, got receipt, EAD and AP all in time, waiting for FP notice.
I-485 approval
08-20 10:30 AM
I filed for I-485 under EB3 category in July 2007 and have a priority date of March 2003. Since EB3 is not moving at all. I applied in EB2 category and got I-140 approved based on my old Priority date(March 2003).
My attorney sent a letter to USCIS and requesting them to approve my case based on my approved I-140 (EB2) in July 2009. Since then we haven't recieved any communication from them.
My case is current as of Aug 1st 2009 but no LUD's on my case.
How would I know that USCIS have changed my case from EB3 to EB2.
I apperciate your response in this regard.
My attorney sent a letter to USCIS and requesting them to approve my case based on my approved I-140 (EB2) in July 2009. Since then we haven't recieved any communication from them.
My case is current as of Aug 1st 2009 but no LUD's on my case.
How would I know that USCIS have changed my case from EB3 to EB2.
I apperciate your response in this regard.
more...
lostinbeta
10-28 10:06 PM
Oh, I meant your situation eberth.
Not your site. The site was good. I like the house and grass, it was cool :)
Sorry, I should have specified in the first place.
Not your site. The site was good. I like the house and grass, it was cool :)
Sorry, I should have specified in the first place.
nixstor
09-17 02:09 PM
Paskal,
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
more...
duttasurajit
10-18 02:22 PM
I did some research and it seems for AC21 the job description matters and it should be same or similar. The job title may be different.
I think we should be fine but it is safe to take the opinion of at least two good immigration attorneys before proceeding.
I think we should be fine but it is safe to take the opinion of at least two good immigration attorneys before proceeding.
indianindian2006
02-08 08:38 PM
what is OCI??
Overseas citizen of India
Overseas citizen of India
more...
vandanaverdia
09-12 07:08 PM
23 members & growing...
Wake up Washingtonians & Oregonians....
Wake up Washingtonians & Oregonians....
raysaikat
05-31 12:18 AM
Thanks a lot, Raysaikat.
I appreciate the response.Here are a few of my immidiate thoughts....
1)I have been unemployed for a little over 180 days now.The key question is what is the penalty for remaining in the country for doing so?
This is the year when most people actually did NOT get jobs...I am guessing there are a lot of people in my position.
There are two things: (i) out of status, (ii) unlawful presence. Unlawful presence is a narrower concept (a subset of out of status) with severe consequences: a person who has been unlawfully present for 180 days to 365 days is barred for 3 years from reentering; a person who has been unlawfully present for more than 1 year is barred from reentering for 10 years.
It is a complicated matter to determine if your "out of status" days have become "unlawfully present" days. I am not qualified to make that judgment: you need to ask an immigration lawyer, or your school's International Student's Office. I suspect that you are merely out of status and not yet unlawfully present:
In this document, "out of status" is defined as what I am referring to as "unlawful presence".
212(a)(9)(b) Out of Status Penalty Law: This section of law provides [snip]
* For purposes of this provision of the law only, a person who has violated the terms of their status, but who has not remained in the US past their fixed status expiration date as shown on their papers will not be considered to be “out of status” unless and until a government agency has officially informed them that they are “out of status.” In other word, it is possible for to be “out of status” for purposes of filing an extension or change of status in the US, but not be “out of status” for purposes of this penalty provision of the law.
[snip...]
It is not clear to me what should be regarded as the "fixed status expiration date" in your case. In the best case, that is the time your 12 month OPT expires and from that time you will start to accrue unlawfully present days. In the worst case, that is the time when your 90 days of OPT period expired, which means that you have already accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence and you will be barred from reentering US for 3 years.
Again, if you need to know this, please consult an immigration lawyer. Your school's international students' office should also be able to help you. But in my experience, they are not able to deal with complex situations and usually gives too conservative an answer that will save their behind should there be any complications. Once one staff of my school's ISSO asked me to apply for CPT for working in the UK! Thankfully the actual advisor was more knowledgeable. However, the advisors are not immigration lawyers.
2)How does USCIS actually track who is employed and who is not?
They may have multiple methods if they actually launch an investigation, but usually they will check their records the next time you apply for a VISA, inside or outside US. E.g., if you want to apply for H1-B, you will have to show that you are not out of status.
3)If I were to catch the next flight back home (India), will I face problems while leaving the US/or entering India?
Nope. You can merrily exit US. Entering home country of course is in the jurisdiction of the authority of your home country. Assuming you are an Indian citizen, they cannot prevent you from entering.
I.e., you will have no problem at all.
4)Can I get a letter from a firm/company stating that I was doing an unpaid internship with them?(which will be counted towards the employment period)Are there any repurcursions for the company?
Any thoughts/opinions wouldbe most appreciated.
Thanks!
My only suggestion is not to walk the path of doing fraudulent activities for staying in the US. If that means going back to India, please do so. Perhaps you will have an equally bright career in India.
I appreciate the response.Here are a few of my immidiate thoughts....
1)I have been unemployed for a little over 180 days now.The key question is what is the penalty for remaining in the country for doing so?
This is the year when most people actually did NOT get jobs...I am guessing there are a lot of people in my position.
There are two things: (i) out of status, (ii) unlawful presence. Unlawful presence is a narrower concept (a subset of out of status) with severe consequences: a person who has been unlawfully present for 180 days to 365 days is barred for 3 years from reentering; a person who has been unlawfully present for more than 1 year is barred from reentering for 10 years.
It is a complicated matter to determine if your "out of status" days have become "unlawfully present" days. I am not qualified to make that judgment: you need to ask an immigration lawyer, or your school's International Student's Office. I suspect that you are merely out of status and not yet unlawfully present:
In this document, "out of status" is defined as what I am referring to as "unlawful presence".
212(a)(9)(b) Out of Status Penalty Law: This section of law provides [snip]
* For purposes of this provision of the law only, a person who has violated the terms of their status, but who has not remained in the US past their fixed status expiration date as shown on their papers will not be considered to be “out of status” unless and until a government agency has officially informed them that they are “out of status.” In other word, it is possible for to be “out of status” for purposes of filing an extension or change of status in the US, but not be “out of status” for purposes of this penalty provision of the law.
[snip...]
It is not clear to me what should be regarded as the "fixed status expiration date" in your case. In the best case, that is the time your 12 month OPT expires and from that time you will start to accrue unlawfully present days. In the worst case, that is the time when your 90 days of OPT period expired, which means that you have already accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence and you will be barred from reentering US for 3 years.
Again, if you need to know this, please consult an immigration lawyer. Your school's international students' office should also be able to help you. But in my experience, they are not able to deal with complex situations and usually gives too conservative an answer that will save their behind should there be any complications. Once one staff of my school's ISSO asked me to apply for CPT for working in the UK! Thankfully the actual advisor was more knowledgeable. However, the advisors are not immigration lawyers.
2)How does USCIS actually track who is employed and who is not?
They may have multiple methods if they actually launch an investigation, but usually they will check their records the next time you apply for a VISA, inside or outside US. E.g., if you want to apply for H1-B, you will have to show that you are not out of status.
3)If I were to catch the next flight back home (India), will I face problems while leaving the US/or entering India?
Nope. You can merrily exit US. Entering home country of course is in the jurisdiction of the authority of your home country. Assuming you are an Indian citizen, they cannot prevent you from entering.
I.e., you will have no problem at all.
4)Can I get a letter from a firm/company stating that I was doing an unpaid internship with them?(which will be counted towards the employment period)Are there any repurcursions for the company?
Any thoughts/opinions wouldbe most appreciated.
Thanks!
My only suggestion is not to walk the path of doing fraudulent activities for staying in the US. If that means going back to India, please do so. Perhaps you will have an equally bright career in India.
more...
Rb_newsletter
02-22 03:14 PM
just curious. Are you working for a consulting company?
shsk
07-19 11:35 PM
I agree with you, if it takes more than a year, do we have to stay in the same apartment, there should be some workaround (without any pbm)
more...
go_guy123
10-11 10:54 AM
It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill.
Senator Menendez in charge of this...looks like Fox guarding the hen house. I suspect he is more interested in hostage taking "employment-based immigrants " for his
"comprehensive immigration reform". Dream act advocates know this and are openly attacking the "frenemies" or "two-faced" pro-immigrant politicians and Senetor Reid in the democratic party.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill.
Senator Menendez in charge of this...looks like Fox guarding the hen house. I suspect he is more interested in hostage taking "employment-based immigrants " for his
"comprehensive immigration reform". Dream act advocates know this and are openly attacking the "frenemies" or "two-faced" pro-immigrant politicians and Senetor Reid in the democratic party.
smc
07-26 12:47 PM
This looks like he is trying it again. The older one (which was defeated) was Amendment 2339 of HR 2669, which was defeated on 7/19. This is Amendment 2428 of HR 2638 (which they are currently debating) and has a date of 7/25.
Hope it passes this time.
Hope it passes this time.
more...
hmehta
07-14 10:32 AM
Yes, my PD is Nov. 2005 - from looking at the current situation, it looks like we have nothing to lose if we file it - the worst thing that can happen is that it will be rejected (even before being processed). I am applying!!!:)
My papers reached my lawyer only on 3rd. So, she didnt file at that time. Yesterday, she asked me if we can apply to become a part of lawsuit. I said OK. My file was sent to uscis yesterday by fedex. Since, I have spent 1000$ already on medical and other stuffs, just thought, why not give it a shot.
I would ask you guys to consider filing especially if your PD is in 2005 or later.
My papers reached my lawyer only on 3rd. So, she didnt file at that time. Yesterday, she asked me if we can apply to become a part of lawsuit. I said OK. My file was sent to uscis yesterday by fedex. Since, I have spent 1000$ already on medical and other stuffs, just thought, why not give it a shot.
I would ask you guys to consider filing especially if your PD is in 2005 or later.
absaarkhan
01-31 04:07 PM
Advance Parole should be Approved when the Beneficiary is in US.
Per Law Advance Parole Can be Used ONLY WHEN IT IS Approved when the Beneficiary is in US.
Thats the Opinion of Sheela Murthy and Rajiv Khanna too.
Per Law Advance Parole Can be Used ONLY WHEN IT IS Approved when the Beneficiary is in US.
Thats the Opinion of Sheela Murthy and Rajiv Khanna too.
more...
ja258
04-03 11:16 AM
My case was rejected with incorrect fee as reason. But my lawyer claims that the rejection packet did not have the original checks. So, they don't know whose fault it is. Any one with similar issue ?
I was just wondering how you resolved this issue. I'm in a similar situation,I mailed the correct fee for sure,but a month later my package was returned with a claim that I sent an incorrect fee. I'm so confused and not sure what to do because I know,in fact I checked the money orders (985 and 85 (biometric)) again and again before mailing it,and I even have a record of the money order now. I don't understand...
I was just wondering how you resolved this issue. I'm in a similar situation,I mailed the correct fee for sure,but a month later my package was returned with a claim that I sent an incorrect fee. I'm so confused and not sure what to do because I know,in fact I checked the money orders (985 and 85 (biometric)) again and again before mailing it,and I even have a record of the money order now. I don't understand...
traveldoc
09-10 02:24 PM
Thanks txh1b. But my question is what if they reject the second AP saying that the first one was approved. Any thoughts on this?
MYGCBY2010
07-27 04:21 PM
I had filed FOIA request to USCIS requesting a copy of I140 approval notice. My I140 was approved after which I changed employer. I need I140 approval notice to keep my original priority date.
But after filing G639, I got a response back from USCIS saying the case has been sent to DoS for visa approval and that I should contact DoS directly regarding the case.
Also remember, G639 form is for FOIA request for USCIS only.
You need to file a letter to DoS (google "DOS + foia" and you would see format of the letter)
Other than this,I have also filed Form I824 (Action on approved petition) with $200 filing fees requesting I140 approval from USCIS. I guess looking at the processing time, I will have to wait for another 6 months before I hear back from USCIS
Did you put in your A# OR THE Petition Number 3 in that form. Please respond.
But after filing G639, I got a response back from USCIS saying the case has been sent to DoS for visa approval and that I should contact DoS directly regarding the case.
Also remember, G639 form is for FOIA request for USCIS only.
You need to file a letter to DoS (google "DOS + foia" and you would see format of the letter)
Other than this,I have also filed Form I824 (Action on approved petition) with $200 filing fees requesting I140 approval from USCIS. I guess looking at the processing time, I will have to wait for another 6 months before I hear back from USCIS
Did you put in your A# OR THE Petition Number 3 in that form. Please respond.
thamizhan
07-17 10:17 PM
CHEERS TO AILA, AILF AND IMMIGRATION VOICE
Aside from Representative Lofgren, thanks are also due to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Immigration Law Foundation and Immigration Voice. AILA as usual worked behind the scenes to try and push USCIS to reverse course while it's sister organization AILF quickly assembled a large number of plaintiffs for a major class action law suit. With the threat of a lawsuit of a massive lawsuit, USCIS felt the heat needed to motivate them and the fact that the suit was about to be filed surely contributed to USCIS' quick reversal of course. AILF is playing an increasingly vital role in the pro-immigration community giving us the ability to stand up for immigrants in the courts - often the only place many problems can be resolved.
Finally, a new voice - Immigration Voice - emerged to do what has never been effectively done in the past - organize the grassroots employment immigrant community. IV's Flower Campaign and its San Jose protest were firsts and garnered the attention of the nation's media and managed to humanize what for many was a dry technical issue. IV was also extremely effective at conveying news to its members and to the entire pro-immigration community (including this lawyer) and know IV will now be a critical part of future advocacy efforts. I'm looking forward to seeing the organization grow in size and influence.
Just a few days back I was decrying how the anti-immigration community was able to whip the pro-immigration community in the CIR bill because of their ability to mobilize their grassroots supporters. Now you can see how our side - which, after all, represents the views of most Americans - can win the same way.
Aside from Representative Lofgren, thanks are also due to the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Immigration Law Foundation and Immigration Voice. AILA as usual worked behind the scenes to try and push USCIS to reverse course while it's sister organization AILF quickly assembled a large number of plaintiffs for a major class action law suit. With the threat of a lawsuit of a massive lawsuit, USCIS felt the heat needed to motivate them and the fact that the suit was about to be filed surely contributed to USCIS' quick reversal of course. AILF is playing an increasingly vital role in the pro-immigration community giving us the ability to stand up for immigrants in the courts - often the only place many problems can be resolved.
Finally, a new voice - Immigration Voice - emerged to do what has never been effectively done in the past - organize the grassroots employment immigrant community. IV's Flower Campaign and its San Jose protest were firsts and garnered the attention of the nation's media and managed to humanize what for many was a dry technical issue. IV was also extremely effective at conveying news to its members and to the entire pro-immigration community (including this lawyer) and know IV will now be a critical part of future advocacy efforts. I'm looking forward to seeing the organization grow in size and influence.
Just a few days back I was decrying how the anti-immigration community was able to whip the pro-immigration community in the CIR bill because of their ability to mobilize their grassroots supporters. Now you can see how our side - which, after all, represents the views of most Americans - can win the same way.
atlfp
04-08 03:17 PM
The raw majority definitely counts. The reson S.1932 failed was because it was an extremely republican bill -- it went through without a single democrat vote. A small fraction of republican was able to black mail the visa numbers stuff because of republican can not afford to lose any single republican vote. They needed all of them to get it trhough. In another words, those anti-immigration guys did not build a coalition against legal immigration, as they still can not today, they simply black mailed it.
The situation for PACE act is definitely different. PACE enjoys broad support from both side. It will be very difficult for any of those anti-immigration guy to play the same kind of trick again. It simply won't work.
Your belief in raw majority votes in the conference is touching. ;-) But all it takes is one person -- one Sensenbrenner, or equivalent to build a coalition within the conference, and one house leader to pick and choose the members of the conference.
To reiterate -- 20% of the house is in the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus. The house bill was voted in by a clear majority. Chew on that.
The situation for PACE act is definitely different. PACE enjoys broad support from both side. It will be very difficult for any of those anti-immigration guy to play the same kind of trick again. It simply won't work.
Your belief in raw majority votes in the conference is touching. ;-) But all it takes is one person -- one Sensenbrenner, or equivalent to build a coalition within the conference, and one house leader to pick and choose the members of the conference.
To reiterate -- 20% of the house is in the House (Anti) Immigration Caucus. The house bill was voted in by a clear majority. Chew on that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment