cse_us
07-24 04:57 PM
Here's update on my cases
Self e-filed: May 30, 2008
FP: Jun 25, 2008
Card prod ordered: July 23, 2008
EB3-I / PD: Mar 2006 / I-485 - RD: Jul 2007
Will post about duration as soon as I get the cards in hand.
I Efiled mine on may 19th, FP on jul 3rd, no update yet.
Efiled my wife's EAD on may 30th, FP on jun 24th, Card prod ordered July 23rd.
We are currently working on EADs which expire on 30th Aug.
Am worried if I will have the card by then or not.
If i dont have the approval by aug 19th, I am planning to take Infopass for the interim EAD.
It sucks to see they dont follow FIFO or atleast close to FIFO, so much variation as some june filers received card in june itself.
Jul 2nd filer, EB2 - PD Apr 2007
Self e-filed: May 30, 2008
FP: Jun 25, 2008
Card prod ordered: July 23, 2008
EB3-I / PD: Mar 2006 / I-485 - RD: Jul 2007
Will post about duration as soon as I get the cards in hand.
I Efiled mine on may 19th, FP on jul 3rd, no update yet.
Efiled my wife's EAD on may 30th, FP on jun 24th, Card prod ordered July 23rd.
We are currently working on EADs which expire on 30th Aug.
Am worried if I will have the card by then or not.
If i dont have the approval by aug 19th, I am planning to take Infopass for the interim EAD.
It sucks to see they dont follow FIFO or atleast close to FIFO, so much variation as some june filers received card in june itself.
Jul 2nd filer, EB2 - PD Apr 2007
wallpaper Broly vs Gogeta
gcstruggle
11-09 04:15 PM
RD- July 10; ND - Sept 7, received FP notices for me but not for my spouse.
sparky_jones
10-02 12:01 PM
Hey Sparky_Jones,
You are the first guy whose case was transferred to CSC and you got the FP notices. Can you shed more light as many pople, like me, are stuck with no FP notices and we all had Receipts/EAD/AP from CSC...And now the files are back to either NSC or TSC...
Thanks!
Sure, what additional information are you looking for?
You are the first guy whose case was transferred to CSC and you got the FP notices. Can you shed more light as many pople, like me, are stuck with no FP notices and we all had Receipts/EAD/AP from CSC...And now the files are back to either NSC or TSC...
Thanks!
Sure, what additional information are you looking for?
2011 By edan ozana queue dbz bt
eb3retro
01-13 03:40 PM
u know what, gcseeker2002 is correct to the dot. we do not need a transit visa while coming thru germany in lufthansa. no one even mentions that word. i called and emailed the german consulate b4 i flew out of US, all people including german consulate, travel agent (2 of them),, mentioned that i require it and still i travelled back without it. no one mentioned that word. trust me guys, u wont require it, i just came 10 days ago just with AP.
NOTE : I also recd such emails from German consulate.
Hey gcseeker2002, after 300+ postings also how can you post such a thing.
This is new rule implemented and by thinking you as senior if someone goes and faces problem will you be responsible. So please don't do this boss.
To All Who believe no need to have valid VISA while going back to India or their country.
This is email got from German Consulate at Washington DC to my collegue.
German Cosulate Rep at DC: You wrote that your visa for the United States already expired in September 2010. Therefore you do not fall under Exception Nr. 2. This exception is meant for persons travelling to the US holding a valid US-visa (e.g. a visitors visa with one entry) on their way travelling to the US (Exception 1) and travelling back to their home country during the validity dates of this same visa, but already having used it for entering the US (Exception2) . I hope this clarifies your additional question. I suggest that you apply for an Airport Transit Visa as soon as possible to avoid any problems when travelling back to India via Frankfurt airport.
NOTE : I also recd such emails from German consulate.
Hey gcseeker2002, after 300+ postings also how can you post such a thing.
This is new rule implemented and by thinking you as senior if someone goes and faces problem will you be responsible. So please don't do this boss.
To All Who believe no need to have valid VISA while going back to India or their country.
This is email got from German Consulate at Washington DC to my collegue.
German Cosulate Rep at DC: You wrote that your visa for the United States already expired in September 2010. Therefore you do not fall under Exception Nr. 2. This exception is meant for persons travelling to the US holding a valid US-visa (e.g. a visitors visa with one entry) on their way travelling to the US (Exception 1) and travelling back to their home country during the validity dates of this same visa, but already having used it for entering the US (Exception2) . I hope this clarifies your additional question. I suggest that you apply for an Airport Transit Visa as soon as possible to avoid any problems when travelling back to India via Frankfurt airport.
more...
loudoggs
10-11 04:30 PM
Yeah that sucks. I have a 2004 PD as well but was lucky to get out of PBEC in Jan 2007 and was able to apply for 485 in July.
I feel for people like you who have older PDs (2001 to 2004) and missed the July-Aug window.
It is unfair that some people with recent PDs (even 2007 PDs) got to apply for 485.
Hope something works out for all old timers.
Same situation here too. My husband came to this country in 1999. Filed for greencard in 2004. Labor was sent to philly BEC and it got cleared in September 2007 so we too missed the window too. Not sure what to do
I feel for people like you who have older PDs (2001 to 2004) and missed the July-Aug window.
It is unfair that some people with recent PDs (even 2007 PDs) got to apply for 485.
Hope something works out for all old timers.
Same situation here too. My husband came to this country in 1999. Filed for greencard in 2004. Labor was sent to philly BEC and it got cleared in September 2007 so we too missed the window too. Not sure what to do
smsthss
06-12 10:09 AM
can we watch this live?? the room #'s for 10 am and 11 am are different. is there another link?
more...
indianabacklog
07-14 10:21 PM
[QUOTE=paskal]people,
Paskal - The children of legal immigration applicants were specifically covered in the Child Status Protection Act passed earlier in this decade. They are now allowed to immigrate with their parents even if they turn 21 during the middle of the process, a key change designed to ensure that those here for years waiting on green cards could still benefit. There were other important benefits in this bill. read from the bottom up...
Yes, there is the child status protection act but if you are waiting for labor certification this act does NOTHING to protect a child from aging out at 21. These children who have slipped through the net have NO path to residency if they have taken the trouble and are paying the tuition fees to stay in F1 status and therefore cannot benefit from the DREAM act.
Paskal - The children of legal immigration applicants were specifically covered in the Child Status Protection Act passed earlier in this decade. They are now allowed to immigrate with their parents even if they turn 21 during the middle of the process, a key change designed to ensure that those here for years waiting on green cards could still benefit. There were other important benefits in this bill. read from the bottom up...
Yes, there is the child status protection act but if you are waiting for labor certification this act does NOTHING to protect a child from aging out at 21. These children who have slipped through the net have NO path to residency if they have taken the trouble and are paying the tuition fees to stay in F1 status and therefore cannot benefit from the DREAM act.
2010 dragon ball z broly wallpaper.
akhilmahajan
07-10 10:25 AM
There has to be some other way. LOU DOBB is not the only program for CNN which gets them ratings.
I guess we need to explore ways.
I guess we need to explore ways.
more...
shouldIwait
05-30 12:37 PM
done...
hair roly vs goku and vegeta
conchshell
08-06 11:12 AM
But consider this: I just posted this in the approval thread:
Looking at the overall approval trend in IV, , Murthy forum etc it is clear to me that FIFO is out of the door and in most likelihood low hanging fruit is being plucked from the tree. At the next Ombudsman call I am going to raise the issue of USCIS's declared commitment to FIFO but actions that seem completely contrary to it.
Obviously anonymous postings in open forums cannot be presented as evidence but one can certainly request the Ombudsman's office to ask for monthly 485 approval statistics and the cat will be out of the bag. By the time the wheels of Goverment bureaucracy move it might be a month or two before this data is made available to the Ombudsman's Office; forget the applicants - that will be like asking for the moon.
Regardless of whether I get approved or not in the next month or two; from a process perspective a monthly approval report going from the USCIS to the Ombudsman's Office each month should hopefully force them to stop this stonewalling and walk the talk.
This will not only help EB2s down the line but spare a thought for next year when EB2 is current, EB3 has a cut off of June 1, 2006 and we start seeing May 2006 EB3 approvals when 2001/02 EB3s are still pending. Again I welcome suggestions but the focus of my effort is going to be the approval process rather than a personal case or two.
Good idea delax. I support this action.
Looking at the overall approval trend in IV, , Murthy forum etc it is clear to me that FIFO is out of the door and in most likelihood low hanging fruit is being plucked from the tree. At the next Ombudsman call I am going to raise the issue of USCIS's declared commitment to FIFO but actions that seem completely contrary to it.
Obviously anonymous postings in open forums cannot be presented as evidence but one can certainly request the Ombudsman's office to ask for monthly 485 approval statistics and the cat will be out of the bag. By the time the wheels of Goverment bureaucracy move it might be a month or two before this data is made available to the Ombudsman's Office; forget the applicants - that will be like asking for the moon.
Regardless of whether I get approved or not in the next month or two; from a process perspective a monthly approval report going from the USCIS to the Ombudsman's Office each month should hopefully force them to stop this stonewalling and walk the talk.
This will not only help EB2s down the line but spare a thought for next year when EB2 is current, EB3 has a cut off of June 1, 2006 and we start seeing May 2006 EB3 approvals when 2001/02 EB3s are still pending. Again I welcome suggestions but the focus of my effort is going to be the approval process rather than a personal case or two.
Good idea delax. I support this action.
more...
rockstart
02-12 08:02 AM
I think he is just trying to scare you. There is no way he can sue your for his losses. Evey employer has an insurance against his employees in case there is any mistake by his employee this insurance covers it. He cannot prepare any case against him so just tell him to shut up and go to hell.
hot as the father Dbz goku vs
mallu
12-02 02:40 PM
12/02/2007: News of DHS Plan to Approve Immigration Applications Without FBI Name Check Results After Certain Months Stirs Confusion
A couple of sources reported lately that DHS was planning to place a cap on the FBI fingerprint check period and should the agency fail to receive the FBI report within certain undisclosed period of time, the agency will proceed with adjudication of pending immigration applications. Reportedly, the information was released at a DHS meeting with the immigration stakeholders but there are no details of information available about the so-called plan of change of course in managing homeland security matter.
This reminds of the agency's past history in 1998 acting on the backlogs in CIA clearance for over one year causing a huge I-485 backlogs for years and announcing that the INS would adjudicate pending I-485 applications without waiting for the CIA completion of the security clearance on a condition that should the CIA report indicate a negative information, the INS would "revoke" the approved I-485 applications. The people who suffered the most from the lack of coordination betweren the INS and the CIA at the time were Chinese. The INS stop-gap action stirred some political concern and short-lived. The CIA clearance backlogs gradually improved afterwards helping the INS to remove the 485 backlogs over a period of time.
Such unusual stop-gap action was taken "before" 9/11. Since 9/11, the security and name checks have presented the DHS with a challenging task of balancing betweein securing homeland and reducing clearance time. The FBI name checks have presented a serious problem of backlogs particularly in two areas: One is name check backlogs in the new hires of federal government employees and the other is the immigration backlogs. According to the CIS Ombudsman reports, in 2006 the DHS had about 82,824 backlogs pending more than one year. and in 2007 the number increased to 106,738 cases. Such backlogs induced federal litigations in the form of mandamus actions by the applicants with some successful results. The burden of such litigations on the DHS financial and litigation resources has mounted over the years. In order to deal with the problem, the USCIS one time "informally" handled such problem by approving applications (I-485 and natulalization cases) when the applicants brought mandamus actions in the federal courts. Such action had brought a boom of business for some immigration lawyers rushing to filing of a sort of "massive" mandamus actions. Obviously, this action raised a serious polical outcry for the agency compromising the nation's security by adjudicating applications without the name check results, leading to suspension of the DHS informal policy and a subsequent announcement that the agency would not give any favorable consideration in adjudication of applications where a federal lawsuit was pending.
The environment of the agency's security management indeed changed before and after 9/11 and the precedent of INS approving I-485 applications without name check results without prejudice to potential revocation of such approved I-485 applications afterwards may not be that easily reintroduced as the agency will have to overcome two hurdles: A political pressure in the upcoming national election and a potential compromise of security. There was a legislative proposal in the Congress in one of the FY 2008 appropriation bills (CJS Appropriation Bill) which mandated the DHS to adjudicate immigration and naturalization applications, should the FBI fail to clear the name checks within six months from the effective date of the legislation. This legislation has yet to be finalized. Please stay tuned.
A couple of sources reported lately that DHS was planning to place a cap on the FBI fingerprint check period and should the agency fail to receive the FBI report within certain undisclosed period of time, the agency will proceed with adjudication of pending immigration applications. Reportedly, the information was released at a DHS meeting with the immigration stakeholders but there are no details of information available about the so-called plan of change of course in managing homeland security matter.
This reminds of the agency's past history in 1998 acting on the backlogs in CIA clearance for over one year causing a huge I-485 backlogs for years and announcing that the INS would adjudicate pending I-485 applications without waiting for the CIA completion of the security clearance on a condition that should the CIA report indicate a negative information, the INS would "revoke" the approved I-485 applications. The people who suffered the most from the lack of coordination betweren the INS and the CIA at the time were Chinese. The INS stop-gap action stirred some political concern and short-lived. The CIA clearance backlogs gradually improved afterwards helping the INS to remove the 485 backlogs over a period of time.
Such unusual stop-gap action was taken "before" 9/11. Since 9/11, the security and name checks have presented the DHS with a challenging task of balancing betweein securing homeland and reducing clearance time. The FBI name checks have presented a serious problem of backlogs particularly in two areas: One is name check backlogs in the new hires of federal government employees and the other is the immigration backlogs. According to the CIS Ombudsman reports, in 2006 the DHS had about 82,824 backlogs pending more than one year. and in 2007 the number increased to 106,738 cases. Such backlogs induced federal litigations in the form of mandamus actions by the applicants with some successful results. The burden of such litigations on the DHS financial and litigation resources has mounted over the years. In order to deal with the problem, the USCIS one time "informally" handled such problem by approving applications (I-485 and natulalization cases) when the applicants brought mandamus actions in the federal courts. Such action had brought a boom of business for some immigration lawyers rushing to filing of a sort of "massive" mandamus actions. Obviously, this action raised a serious polical outcry for the agency compromising the nation's security by adjudicating applications without the name check results, leading to suspension of the DHS informal policy and a subsequent announcement that the agency would not give any favorable consideration in adjudication of applications where a federal lawsuit was pending.
The environment of the agency's security management indeed changed before and after 9/11 and the precedent of INS approving I-485 applications without name check results without prejudice to potential revocation of such approved I-485 applications afterwards may not be that easily reintroduced as the agency will have to overcome two hurdles: A political pressure in the upcoming national election and a potential compromise of security. There was a legislative proposal in the Congress in one of the FY 2008 appropriation bills (CJS Appropriation Bill) which mandated the DHS to adjudicate immigration and naturalization applications, should the FBI fail to clear the name checks within six months from the effective date of the legislation. This legislation has yet to be finalized. Please stay tuned.
more...
house Dragon Ball Z: Bardock
Lasantha
02-25 10:41 AM
Good point !
Be aware that these 47,000 applications include family-based, asylum cases and refugee AOS as well. The employment based applications could be much lower than the 47,000.
Be aware that these 47,000 applications include family-based, asylum cases and refugee AOS as well. The employment based applications could be much lower than the 47,000.
tattoo Buy Dragon Ball Z – Broly
sbindval
07-02 04:14 PM
for myself and my wife
600 - medical
300 - documents etc
1800 - change travle plans
---
$2700 - total
600 - medical
300 - documents etc
1800 - change travle plans
---
$2700 - total
more...
pictures Goku vs Broly
krishnam70
07-08 01:12 PM
ANALYSE YOUR ANSWER YOU MAKE MY POINTS VERY VALID
NO SELF RESPECT
WHITE KISS ARCE ...
SUBMISSIVE U NEED A WHITE MASTER ...
AND TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS YOU RESOLRT TO THE MAN WITH THE DHOTI ...GANDHIGIRI...
GRAVITATION DID ANYONE EVER TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT
Thats one hell of an accusation 'hopeful'.
If you believe in what you said then you would not be in this forum. Why are you in this country?
1. If you said you came here for your Master's and then found and job and applied for GC and been stuck there and now realized that this process stinks and decided to go back its fine by me, then you have no place here.
2. If you said you came here after your education on work visa and then applied for GC and stuck here and now realized that this process stinks and decided to go back its fine by me, then you have no place here
3. If you feel superior to all the folks who are in this forum then you have no place here.
4. If you think working for some company as a FT employee makes you qualified,oh btw i dont care if its a Fortune 10 company, been there done that, then you have no reason to be here. After all you think you are priveleged and superior to other folks in here.
5. Whats this superiority of being a FT employee over Contractor? I have been in this country now for over 10 yrs and worked as FT employee and Contractor. I dont see anything special in being a FT employee over a contractor. Just because you became a FT employee does not mean the company thinks you are the most perfect person to be their employee, it means you fit in their budget and they want to milk you services, so you become a 'one client wonder'. Contractor on the other hand gets paid more, gets to work on different projects . There is some uncertaininty due to job changes etc but if we are tracking it right its works well, in my last 4 yrs of contracting never been out of job.
6. What I have seen by the way you bash others in this thread shows that you somehow think you are superior to others(which is okay if you keep it to yourself). Pardon me for saying this, you are stepping over the line. Few days ago there was a thread where one guy got banned due to some stupid comments like you about fake degrees, fake resumes and that he was somehow more deserving of the GC than the others.
when you are in a public forum conduct yourself with dignity and try to help others and get help and not try to push your convoluted ideas and come across as a jerk. Staying in this country means many things to different people and does not constitute to not loving our home countries in anyway
I am sorry I must say its you who has to think before you open your trap dude..
NO SELF RESPECT
WHITE KISS ARCE ...
SUBMISSIVE U NEED A WHITE MASTER ...
AND TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS YOU RESOLRT TO THE MAN WITH THE DHOTI ...GANDHIGIRI...
GRAVITATION DID ANYONE EVER TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT
Thats one hell of an accusation 'hopeful'.
If you believe in what you said then you would not be in this forum. Why are you in this country?
1. If you said you came here for your Master's and then found and job and applied for GC and been stuck there and now realized that this process stinks and decided to go back its fine by me, then you have no place here.
2. If you said you came here after your education on work visa and then applied for GC and stuck here and now realized that this process stinks and decided to go back its fine by me, then you have no place here
3. If you feel superior to all the folks who are in this forum then you have no place here.
4. If you think working for some company as a FT employee makes you qualified,oh btw i dont care if its a Fortune 10 company, been there done that, then you have no reason to be here. After all you think you are priveleged and superior to other folks in here.
5. Whats this superiority of being a FT employee over Contractor? I have been in this country now for over 10 yrs and worked as FT employee and Contractor. I dont see anything special in being a FT employee over a contractor. Just because you became a FT employee does not mean the company thinks you are the most perfect person to be their employee, it means you fit in their budget and they want to milk you services, so you become a 'one client wonder'. Contractor on the other hand gets paid more, gets to work on different projects . There is some uncertaininty due to job changes etc but if we are tracking it right its works well, in my last 4 yrs of contracting never been out of job.
6. What I have seen by the way you bash others in this thread shows that you somehow think you are superior to others(which is okay if you keep it to yourself). Pardon me for saying this, you are stepping over the line. Few days ago there was a thread where one guy got banned due to some stupid comments like you about fake degrees, fake resumes and that he was somehow more deserving of the GC than the others.
when you are in a public forum conduct yourself with dignity and try to help others and get help and not try to push your convoluted ideas and come across as a jerk. Staying in this country means many things to different people and does not constitute to not loving our home countries in anyway
I am sorry I must say its you who has to think before you open your trap dude..
dresses blast dragonball z goku
aroranuj
04-15 08:57 PM
Hello All,
I have just received a copy of the denial notice that USCIS sent to the attorney for my I-140. This is what the notice states is the reason for the denial. Can someone please advise me what my chances are for an appeal to be approved? My lawyer is noncommittal at this this time. My I140 was filed under the EB3 Category. My 6th year of H1B expires in June.
"A Bachelor's degree is generallt found to require 4 years of education. Therefore, the beneficiary's 3 year diploma is not equivalent to a 4 year bachelors degree which is the minimum educational requirement to be classified as a professional on this labor certificate.
Under part H Number 4 of the Labor Certificate, the petitoner has checked the box "Other" under education. Under part 4-A the petitioner stated: 'Will accept academic studies evaluated as equivalent of US Bachelors'. The evaluation submitted indiactes that the beneficiary has the foreign equivalent of a US Bachelor of Science.
However this statement cannot infer that the petitioner will accept anything less than the minimum education requirements for a professional, i.e Bachelors degree. The evidence indicates that the beneficiary does not have a bachelors degree or foreign equivalent degree. Therefore, the beneficiary does not meet the minimum requirements of the ETA-9089"
Please note that I have a 3 year diploma & 1 year towards Bachelors in business & this case was files at the Texas Center. Any insights from knowledgeable members will be helpful.
I have just received a copy of the denial notice that USCIS sent to the attorney for my I-140. This is what the notice states is the reason for the denial. Can someone please advise me what my chances are for an appeal to be approved? My lawyer is noncommittal at this this time. My I140 was filed under the EB3 Category. My 6th year of H1B expires in June.
"A Bachelor's degree is generallt found to require 4 years of education. Therefore, the beneficiary's 3 year diploma is not equivalent to a 4 year bachelors degree which is the minimum educational requirement to be classified as a professional on this labor certificate.
Under part H Number 4 of the Labor Certificate, the petitoner has checked the box "Other" under education. Under part 4-A the petitioner stated: 'Will accept academic studies evaluated as equivalent of US Bachelors'. The evaluation submitted indiactes that the beneficiary has the foreign equivalent of a US Bachelor of Science.
However this statement cannot infer that the petitioner will accept anything less than the minimum education requirements for a professional, i.e Bachelors degree. The evidence indicates that the beneficiary does not have a bachelors degree or foreign equivalent degree. Therefore, the beneficiary does not meet the minimum requirements of the ETA-9089"
Please note that I have a 3 year diploma & 1 year towards Bachelors in business & this case was files at the Texas Center. Any insights from knowledgeable members will be helpful.
more...
makeup Dragonball Z Broly 3 Vs Goku 3
pooja_34
12-21 06:28 PM
DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MEERA SHANKAR, Indian Ambassador to US.
girlfriend Screenshots DBZ SS Vegeta Live
buddyinus
08-01 12:47 PM
Everybody is checking LUDs on their approved 140s. What doz this mean? And how do I check it? Pls send me step by step information...Thanks
hairstyles limit mugen. goku vs broly
adibhatla
02-19 04:41 PM
Just a small addition to your point 4.
MTR allows you to work. Usually an MTR is supposed to be filed within 33 days after you have recieved your denial. As soon as the USCIS recieves your MTR (which is your I290B form), they issue a notice number. This number allows you to work. The only time you are not technically allowed to work is the time since you recieved the denial notice till you recieve your I290B notice number.
1. Your old employer can revoke your I-140, however they cannot do anything to your I-485 application. Technically this should not matter since you are eligible for AC-21 (greater than 180 days, same or similar job).
2. Unfortunately, for one reason or another USCIS has been mistakenly issuing immediate denials (no NOID or RFE - just straight denial) for people with revoked I-140s.
3. After the I-485 denial, the process involves filing an MTR to explain to the USCIS that your case should be portable based on the AC 21 law, Yates memo etc.
4. If you do not have H1b, and are solely dependent on EAD, then you should technically not work when I-485 gets denied. However, there are 2 schools of thought out there: one school believes not to work since the 485 is denied, and another school believes to work since EAD was not explicitly revoked, and since you believe USCIS wrongly denied your I-485. Also, the latter school argues that since your MTR would be opened withing 2-3 months, you can accrue less than 180 days presence, and use 245k to seek pardon for that. Its all about the risk appetite of the new company and their lawyers.
5. Based on my research, it looks like MTR is taking anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months, with the latter being more likely due to the increase in MTRs lately. My advice here will be to discuss all these options with your new employee, to see what their thought is. Obviously, if you feel they will tell you to go home, and won't keep the job open for 2-3 months, then it might make sense to either find another employer who will be willing to file H1b, or stay put.
6. I invoked AC 21, moved on EAD, and got denied last week. I had done all my research, and got guarantee from prior company that they would not revoke I-140. I called them after i got the CRIS email and they said they had not revoked I-140. So i am still waiting for Denial Notice to see reason why.
Bottom line, AC 21 comes with risk, and you have to be ready to ride the wave, if things are to get delayed or you are to be out of work for some time. If there was anything I could have done differently, I would have REALLY forced new employer to file H1b on my behalf. I feel i laid down too easily on this request after my previous company said they would not revoke I-140. I did ask the legal team of the new company, and they said no. I should have discussed with my bosses, since they really wanted me, and would have probably overriden the legal team.
But life goes on...
MTR allows you to work. Usually an MTR is supposed to be filed within 33 days after you have recieved your denial. As soon as the USCIS recieves your MTR (which is your I290B form), they issue a notice number. This number allows you to work. The only time you are not technically allowed to work is the time since you recieved the denial notice till you recieve your I290B notice number.
1. Your old employer can revoke your I-140, however they cannot do anything to your I-485 application. Technically this should not matter since you are eligible for AC-21 (greater than 180 days, same or similar job).
2. Unfortunately, for one reason or another USCIS has been mistakenly issuing immediate denials (no NOID or RFE - just straight denial) for people with revoked I-140s.
3. After the I-485 denial, the process involves filing an MTR to explain to the USCIS that your case should be portable based on the AC 21 law, Yates memo etc.
4. If you do not have H1b, and are solely dependent on EAD, then you should technically not work when I-485 gets denied. However, there are 2 schools of thought out there: one school believes not to work since the 485 is denied, and another school believes to work since EAD was not explicitly revoked, and since you believe USCIS wrongly denied your I-485. Also, the latter school argues that since your MTR would be opened withing 2-3 months, you can accrue less than 180 days presence, and use 245k to seek pardon for that. Its all about the risk appetite of the new company and their lawyers.
5. Based on my research, it looks like MTR is taking anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months, with the latter being more likely due to the increase in MTRs lately. My advice here will be to discuss all these options with your new employee, to see what their thought is. Obviously, if you feel they will tell you to go home, and won't keep the job open for 2-3 months, then it might make sense to either find another employer who will be willing to file H1b, or stay put.
6. I invoked AC 21, moved on EAD, and got denied last week. I had done all my research, and got guarantee from prior company that they would not revoke I-140. I called them after i got the CRIS email and they said they had not revoked I-140. So i am still waiting for Denial Notice to see reason why.
Bottom line, AC 21 comes with risk, and you have to be ready to ride the wave, if things are to get delayed or you are to be out of work for some time. If there was anything I could have done differently, I would have REALLY forced new employer to file H1b on my behalf. I feel i laid down too easily on this request after my previous company said they would not revoke I-140. I did ask the legal team of the new company, and they said no. I should have discussed with my bosses, since they really wanted me, and would have probably overriden the legal team.
But life goes on...
CADude
05-29 04:58 PM
We have to send BIG "THANK YOU" card who wrote this bill..:cool: It has written by NumberOne or Far Left Democrats or What?? Some one is smoking crack/pipe when writing :)
Posting this since almost every thread has the question about the cut-off date after which all LCs or I-140s will be invalidated.
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm
Excerpt from "http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm" posted earlier, the cutoff date is May 15, 2007; NOT May 21 2007. (Thanks to "cnag" for finding this link).
... ...
Wait, there is more! The end of employer-sponsored immigration and the inauguration of the points system do not take place at the same time. No kidding, there are two different dates when the old is no good and the new becomes available. If you can contain your excitement and read the finer points of Section 502(d)(1) of S. 1348, you will discover that the point system does not take effect until the first day of the fiscal year following enactment, unless (and there always is one) this is less than 270 days. What then? Not to fear. In that case, the point system does not "go live" until the first day of the FOLLOWING fiscal year. Keep reading! The point system in clause (1) is made expressly subject to clause (2) which has few surprises in store. It is not for the uninitiated or the faint of heart. These tender souls should protect their blood pressure and keep on reading. Pursuant to Section 502(d)(2), only those employment-based immigrant petitions on Form I-140 filed before the introduction of S. 1348 on May 15th will remain valid and serve as the basis for an immigrant visa after enactment. So what, you say? Well, suppose that President Bush signs the bill on September 10th 2007. That is the date of enactment. Now, the points system waits until October 1, 2008, the first day of the second fiscal year following enactment. From September 10, 2007 until October 1, 2008, over one year, we will have no employment-based green cards! You heard me right friend, no employer sponsorship based on anything after May 15th 2007 and no points system. This is Pat Buchanan's dream come true- an entire fiscal year without any green cards being issued on the basis of employment!
... ...
Thanks,
Jayant
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm
Posting this since almost every thread has the question about the cut-off date after which all LCs or I-140s will be invalidated.
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm
Excerpt from "http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm" posted earlier, the cutoff date is May 15, 2007; NOT May 21 2007. (Thanks to "cnag" for finding this link).
... ...
Wait, there is more! The end of employer-sponsored immigration and the inauguration of the points system do not take place at the same time. No kidding, there are two different dates when the old is no good and the new becomes available. If you can contain your excitement and read the finer points of Section 502(d)(1) of S. 1348, you will discover that the point system does not take effect until the first day of the fiscal year following enactment, unless (and there always is one) this is less than 270 days. What then? Not to fear. In that case, the point system does not "go live" until the first day of the FOLLOWING fiscal year. Keep reading! The point system in clause (1) is made expressly subject to clause (2) which has few surprises in store. It is not for the uninitiated or the faint of heart. These tender souls should protect their blood pressure and keep on reading. Pursuant to Section 502(d)(2), only those employment-based immigrant petitions on Form I-140 filed before the introduction of S. 1348 on May 15th will remain valid and serve as the basis for an immigrant visa after enactment. So what, you say? Well, suppose that President Bush signs the bill on September 10th 2007. That is the date of enactment. Now, the points system waits until October 1, 2008, the first day of the second fiscal year following enactment. From September 10, 2007 until October 1, 2008, over one year, we will have no employment-based green cards! You heard me right friend, no employer sponsorship based on anything after May 15th 2007 and no points system. This is Pat Buchanan's dream come true- an entire fiscal year without any green cards being issued on the basis of employment!
... ...
Thanks,
Jayant
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0530-endelman.shtm
ken
10-01 08:31 PM
Hi Ebizash-
Did you noticed any LUD on your case today
Hi Ebizash-
Did you noticed any LUD today on ure AP renewal case
Did you noticed any LUD on your case today
Hi Ebizash-
Did you noticed any LUD today on ure AP renewal case
0 comments:
Post a Comment