GCwaitforever
02-28 04:20 PM
I take it that you are under retrogression. You could use AC21 and be on the EAD, provided the new job is similar in nature. Check with an attorney.
H-1B after 6 year period is derived from the pending GC application. If your GC is rejected, automatically your H-1B is also invalid. As you are on H-1B extension beyond 6-year period, it does not matter if you are on EAD or H-1B. There is no switching back to H-1B unless you leave the country for one year.
H-1B after 6 year period is derived from the pending GC application. If your GC is rejected, automatically your H-1B is also invalid. As you are on H-1B extension beyond 6-year period, it does not matter if you are on EAD or H-1B. There is no switching back to H-1B unless you leave the country for one year.
wallpaper Who is alexander ovechkin
gc2
02-24 06:54 AM
here's more information from USCIS interoffice memo that would help in your decision making process. Please note that these memo's are not binding until final ruling by USCIS. They are considered as guidelines for officers while adjudicating pending 485 cases.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Here below is the extract from above document.
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it�s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.
Question 2. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days and a Request for Evidence (RFE) has been issued?
Answer: If a response to an RFE is received, and the response does not adequately address the issues, or the response is simply that the beneficiary no longer works for the petitioner, or a response is not received at all, and the petition still cannot be approved:
A. Deny the petition on the merits of the case; and
B. Deny the I-485 and the portability request since there was never an approved petition from which to port.
Question 3. What is �same or similar� occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?
Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the �same or similar� occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:
A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the �same or similar� occupational classification.
B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of �same or
similar� occupational classification.
C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).
Question 4. Should service centers or district offices use a difference in geographic location of the employment in the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in I-140 portability cases?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien�s I-140 employment when considering the alien�s new position and job duties and not the geographic location of the new employment.
Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?
Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien�s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is �same or similar.�
Question 6. Can multinational managers or executives classifiable under 8 USC
203(b)(1)(C) avail themselves of AC21 �106(c) (8 USC �204(j)) portability benefits even where the alien changes to a new job as a manager for an unrelated company? Can �same or similar� for multinational employees mean employment with an unrelated company?
Answer: Yes, multinational managers or executives can avail themselves of portability benefits where the alien changes to a new job as a manager or executive even for an unrelated company. However, there may be factual circumstances where such aliens cannot benefit from porting (i.e. where the job duties are vastly different, so that that the new position is not in the same or similar occupational classification as the I-140 employment).
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other words, from the new company/employer to which someone has ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment. It may be appropriate to confirm the legitimacy of a new employer and the job offer through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information
about these issues. In an adjustment setting, public charge is also a relevant inquiry.
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.
Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly
intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
Question 9. Must a successor employer in an I-140 portability case provide a new labor certification?
Answer: No. There is no requirement that successor employers in adjustment portability cases obtain a new labor certification for those occupations traditionally requiring one. AC21 also provides that any underlying labor certification also remains valid if the conditions of �106(c) are satisfied. The
beneficiary of an approved labor certification may benefit from it although the alien seeks to adjust on the basis of different employment.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-
485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have
had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Question 12. Can the 180 days that an I-485 application must be pending for I-140 portability eligibility accrue during a period when visa numbers are unavailable?
Answer: Yes. The fact that a visa number becomes unavailable after the filing of the I-485 application does not stop the number of days required for I-140 portability eligibility from accruing.
Question 13. Does the alien�s priority date change as a result of porting under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: No. The priority date continues to be determined at the time of the initial labor certification filing with the Department of Labor or at the time the initial I-140 immigrant petition is filed with USCIS (in cases where no labor certification is required).
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
Here below is the extract from above document.
Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it�s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.
Question 2. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days and a Request for Evidence (RFE) has been issued?
Answer: If a response to an RFE is received, and the response does not adequately address the issues, or the response is simply that the beneficiary no longer works for the petitioner, or a response is not received at all, and the petition still cannot be approved:
A. Deny the petition on the merits of the case; and
B. Deny the I-485 and the portability request since there was never an approved petition from which to port.
Question 3. What is �same or similar� occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?
Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the �same or similar� occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:
A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the �same or similar� occupational classification.
B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of �same or
similar� occupational classification.
C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).
Question 4. Should service centers or district offices use a difference in geographic location of the employment in the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in I-140 portability cases?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien�s I-140 employment when considering the alien�s new position and job duties and not the geographic location of the new employment.
Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?
Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien�s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is �same or similar.�
Question 6. Can multinational managers or executives classifiable under 8 USC
203(b)(1)(C) avail themselves of AC21 �106(c) (8 USC �204(j)) portability benefits even where the alien changes to a new job as a manager for an unrelated company? Can �same or similar� for multinational employees mean employment with an unrelated company?
Answer: Yes, multinational managers or executives can avail themselves of portability benefits where the alien changes to a new job as a manager or executive even for an unrelated company. However, there may be factual circumstances where such aliens cannot benefit from porting (i.e. where the job duties are vastly different, so that that the new position is not in the same or similar occupational classification as the I-140 employment).
Question 7. Should service centers or district offices request proof of �ability to pay� from successor employers in I-140 portability cases, in other words, from the new company/employer to which someone has ported?
Answer: No. The relevant inquiry is whether the new position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the alien�s I-140 employment. It may be appropriate to confirm the legitimacy of a new employer and the job offer through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information
about these issues. In an adjustment setting, public charge is also a relevant inquiry.
Question 8. Can an alien port to self-employment under INA �204(j)?
Answer: Yes, as long as the requirements are met. First, the key is whether the employment is in a "same or similar" occupational classification as the job for which the original I-140 petition was filed.
Second, it may be appropriate to confirm that the new employer and the job offer are legitimate through an RFE to the adjustment applicant for relevant information about these issues. Third, as with any portability case, USCIS will focus on whether the I-140 petition represented the truly
intended employment at the time of the filing of both the I-140 and the I-485. This means that, as of the time of the filing of the I-140 and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
Question 9. Must a successor employer in an I-140 portability case provide a new labor certification?
Answer: No. There is no requirement that successor employers in adjustment portability cases obtain a new labor certification for those occupations traditionally requiring one. AC21 also provides that any underlying labor certification also remains valid if the conditions of �106(c) are satisfied. The
beneficiary of an approved labor certification may benefit from it although the alien seeks to adjust on the basis of different employment.
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-
485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have
had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate.
Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?
Answer: An I-140 is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
A. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
B. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.
Question 12. Can the 180 days that an I-485 application must be pending for I-140 portability eligibility accrue during a period when visa numbers are unavailable?
Answer: Yes. The fact that a visa number becomes unavailable after the filing of the I-485 application does not stop the number of days required for I-140 portability eligibility from accruing.
Question 13. Does the alien�s priority date change as a result of porting under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: No. The priority date continues to be determined at the time of the initial labor certification filing with the Department of Labor or at the time the initial I-140 immigrant petition is filed with USCIS (in cases where no labor certification is required).
track73
09-21 08:49 PM
intresting article
http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/opinion/index.php?ntid=93041&ntpid=119
wish something works out.....
http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/opinion/index.php?ntid=93041&ntpid=119
wish something works out.....
2011 wallpaper alex ovechkin beard.
anurakt
12-13 01:39 PM
I called the senator's office and thanked him for the bill.
more...
rayoflight
03-22 08:19 PM
Do we have to pay the Filing Fee for renewing the EAD?
I-765 Instructions:
Renewal EAD: If this is a renewal application and you are applying under one of the following categories, a filing fee is not required:
5. (c).(9) or (c)(16) Adjustment applicant who filed for adjustment under the fee structure implemented July 30, 2007
See Page 7: http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
I-765 Instructions:
Renewal EAD: If this is a renewal application and you are applying under one of the following categories, a filing fee is not required:
5. (c).(9) or (c)(16) Adjustment applicant who filed for adjustment under the fee structure implemented July 30, 2007
See Page 7: http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
morchu
06-09 04:10 PM
In the current scenario, I dont think it is "admin" delays that affect the EB immigration. The main issue is incompetent and illogical "laws".
Well we have to sometimes acknowledge the "good" also. USCIS & FBI did a great job in solving many of the "administrative" delays in the past.
1. FBI checks are faster now.
2. USCIS processing is faster now.
3. Labor processing is faster now (compared to 5 years for LC approvals).
So I believe the major issue is not "administrative delays" anymore (for EB immigration). Sure, there is always slot for improvement.
Well we have to sometimes acknowledge the "good" also. USCIS & FBI did a great job in solving many of the "administrative" delays in the past.
1. FBI checks are faster now.
2. USCIS processing is faster now.
3. Labor processing is faster now (compared to 5 years for LC approvals).
So I believe the major issue is not "administrative delays" anymore (for EB immigration). Sure, there is always slot for improvement.
more...
wellwisher02
04-10 03:41 PM
Even NSC may be using their June 8, 2007 RD criteria, but more loosely. What do you get when you do a search with where RD < June 8, 2007 for NSC?
---
Just go one step further and run an 'Update' statement, approving all unapproved GCs. :)
---
Just go one step further and run an 'Update' statement, approving all unapproved GCs. :)
2010 hair Who is alexander ovechkin
old_hat
05-13 08:05 PM
qasleuth
The labor at the client I mentioned was paid 15/hr or $30,000/year which is about 15K less than an average engineer graduating from US schools. They know they are underpaid. The discussion came up over lunch when I ask them if they know they are underpaid.
They are also not the best and brightest (which is the intent of the immigration). They are not IIT grads. Most are graduates of cottage education institutions all over India. They come here because it is better than the ghetto... Some grow into the job, some do not.
The Urban Institute study shows that between 1985 and 2000 435,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents a year graduated with Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees in Science and Engineering. That's three times the number of jobs in Science and Engineering added per year, 150,000 during that time.
Separately Michael Teitelbaum at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation told Congress that neither he nor a separate study by the RAND Corporation can find any evidence of worker shortages. These studies are not anomalies.
VIVEK WADHWA, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Bottom line is that all of our research at Duke and now at Harvard shows the same thing. That there is no shortage of engineers; there's no shortage of scientists. Companies aren't going abroad because of skills. They're going abroad because it's cheaper.
Again, my "anecdotal" discussions are based on studies and observations about what is going on at clients around my major metro area. L1s come in, work for about 6 months and mass layoffs of US citizens occur.
Do you have some real counter evidence?
Do you work in the US?
Have you been to Dice.com and seen the number of jobs relative to applicants?
Things in IT are slow if you have not heard...
:)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0424/p02s01-usgn.html
"I do think that students, when difficult economic times come around, kind of fall back on some of the main curriculums � the bread-and-butter curriculums," says Tim Valley, vice president of enrollment management at the Milwaukee School. "There's also quite a bit written about the shortage of engineers in the United States: I think students are picking up on that."
The labor at the client I mentioned was paid 15/hr or $30,000/year which is about 15K less than an average engineer graduating from US schools. They know they are underpaid. The discussion came up over lunch when I ask them if they know they are underpaid.
They are also not the best and brightest (which is the intent of the immigration). They are not IIT grads. Most are graduates of cottage education institutions all over India. They come here because it is better than the ghetto... Some grow into the job, some do not.
The Urban Institute study shows that between 1985 and 2000 435,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents a year graduated with Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees in Science and Engineering. That's three times the number of jobs in Science and Engineering added per year, 150,000 during that time.
Separately Michael Teitelbaum at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation told Congress that neither he nor a separate study by the RAND Corporation can find any evidence of worker shortages. These studies are not anomalies.
VIVEK WADHWA, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Bottom line is that all of our research at Duke and now at Harvard shows the same thing. That there is no shortage of engineers; there's no shortage of scientists. Companies aren't going abroad because of skills. They're going abroad because it's cheaper.
Again, my "anecdotal" discussions are based on studies and observations about what is going on at clients around my major metro area. L1s come in, work for about 6 months and mass layoffs of US citizens occur.
Do you have some real counter evidence?
Do you work in the US?
Have you been to Dice.com and seen the number of jobs relative to applicants?
Things in IT are slow if you have not heard...
:)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0424/p02s01-usgn.html
"I do think that students, when difficult economic times come around, kind of fall back on some of the main curriculums � the bread-and-butter curriculums," says Tim Valley, vice president of enrollment management at the Milwaukee School. "There's also quite a bit written about the shortage of engineers in the United States: I think students are picking up on that."
more...
a_paradkar
07-25 02:46 PM
I am assuming when they say through Aug 17 in Q5 & Q6 they mean July 2 to Aug 17?
Can anybody confirm that?
Can anybody confirm that?
hair alex ovechkin girlfriend
nabs501
07-16 02:13 PM
There are 2 things you need from your employer:
1. Employer Verification letter
2. I-140 approval notice (if I140 is approved) or I-140 receipt notice if I-140 is pending.
All the other documents required for I485 are your own documents. But the above mentioned 2 documents are part of the initial evidence (read the I-485 form). So, if you file without these documents, chances are that your case will be denied.
If your company is a "big time" firm, then you can contact the HR directly and ask for the employment verification letter directly from them. HRs in big companies usually have dedicated ppl working on giving out verification letters and they work independently from the Immigration HR. Usually they dont even ask for the reason why you need the letters for. (I have worked in 3 different "big time" firms and thats was my exp)
Assuming you already have the I140 approval notice and after getting the verification letter you should be able to file your application directly.
Remember: 485 is employee's application and not employer's. So, provided you have all the documents just go ahead and file your application either all by yourself and hire your own lawyer.
This situation seems very similar to mine; I wonder if we are dealing with the same company here ;-)
1. Employer Verification letter
2. I-140 approval notice (if I140 is approved) or I-140 receipt notice if I-140 is pending.
All the other documents required for I485 are your own documents. But the above mentioned 2 documents are part of the initial evidence (read the I-485 form). So, if you file without these documents, chances are that your case will be denied.
If your company is a "big time" firm, then you can contact the HR directly and ask for the employment verification letter directly from them. HRs in big companies usually have dedicated ppl working on giving out verification letters and they work independently from the Immigration HR. Usually they dont even ask for the reason why you need the letters for. (I have worked in 3 different "big time" firms and thats was my exp)
Assuming you already have the I140 approval notice and after getting the verification letter you should be able to file your application directly.
Remember: 485 is employee's application and not employer's. So, provided you have all the documents just go ahead and file your application either all by yourself and hire your own lawyer.
This situation seems very similar to mine; I wonder if we are dealing with the same company here ;-)
more...
thecipher5
09-20 08:36 AM
Hello,
Is there a fax template we can use to send faxes to the senators? Is this available in the Resources section?
Good Luck!
thecipher5
Is there a fax template we can use to send faxes to the senators? Is this available in the Resources section?
Good Luck!
thecipher5
hot star, Alexander Ovechkin.
vpadman
02-03 11:58 AM
The process is fairly straightforward.
If you have the minimum "points" required for immigration, I would suggest to do some research and do the application on your own.
If you have the minimum "points" required for immigration, I would suggest to do some research and do the application on your own.
more...
house Alexander Ovechkin Seen
mbawa2574
03-04 12:26 PM
Guys while the letter was hilarious, we need to keep the insults against law-makers to an absolute minimum of zero. When IV admins approach various senator/congressmen offices, the staff of those offices most often visits the IV website. Do we really want them to see our profanity filled comments against the law-makers? Have we really reached a stage in our US lives where we can DEMAND things from law makers?
:):):):)
:):):):)
tattoo Alex Ovechkin is the best
H1B-GC
07-18 10:20 AM
Since it's less than 180 Days there is something still to cheer. But your lawyer couldn't answer them so he/she is incompetant. Schedule a conference call with Rajeev khanna or someone worthy and discuss the issue at length. It will cost you $$$ but still worth it in your scenario.you cannot depend on this forum member's Advise to decide this critical issue but many of them are pretty upto date on immigration issues.
more...
pictures LAS VEGAS - JUNE 23: Alex
grupak
12-14 04:14 PM
Seems like countries like Germany is opposed to the Blue card. Anybody know the arguments against it.
dresses alex ovechkin girlfriend
gc_in_30_yrs
10-03 08:54 PM
just wait for 4 months. I am there to switch to new employer. I WILL DEFINATELY want to retain my PD as I work for a BS desi company. I paid all the money for my green card till now. I am waiting for 485 to be filed. I am planning to change company as everyone in this world know that once you are struck to file for 485; all your requests are turned down by your employer (assuming you work for a desi company like the one i work for)
:D
:D
more...
makeup Alexander ovechkin girlfriend
GCwaitforever
04-10 02:15 PM
This brings another question. Are there any annual/monthly targets decided per center - like so many EB GC petitions, Family petitions, and Naturalizations, Asylum petitions, adoptions etc ...? If one center is done with prescribed quota, do they move resources to something else?
I understand these are internal workings of USCIS. But they are answerable to Senate Judiacry committee and some one at that level is watching over these folks.
Why did TSC decide to go with only April 30th as RD? Did they have bunch of other applications like seasonal agricultural workers from Mexico? I do not know, because The Great Emilio Gonzalez spends time criticizing magazine articles instead of looking inside for processing efficiencies. It is time, one of the immigrants who has gone through the processing hurdles of USCIS becomes its chief. Emileo does not have any empathy for fellow immigrants. So does Elaine Chao.
I understand these are internal workings of USCIS. But they are answerable to Senate Judiacry committee and some one at that level is watching over these folks.
Why did TSC decide to go with only April 30th as RD? Did they have bunch of other applications like seasonal agricultural workers from Mexico? I do not know, because The Great Emilio Gonzalez spends time criticizing magazine articles instead of looking inside for processing efficiencies. It is time, one of the immigrants who has gone through the processing hurdles of USCIS becomes its chief. Emileo does not have any empathy for fellow immigrants. So does Elaine Chao.
girlfriend » LIFESTYLE - ALEX OVECHKIN
jonty_11
04-23 04:03 PM
and u thought our IV moderators did not have an artistic/humorous side.
hairstyles Alex Ovechkin could very well
mhathi
08-19 11:32 AM
I also read somewhere on another thread that you can walk-in if you can prove your emergency. Take proof of travel with you (plane tickets).
Disclaimer: This is purely based on one reply on another thread. I have no personal knowledge or experience with this.
Disclaimer: This is purely based on one reply on another thread. I have no personal knowledge or experience with this.
kumar4875
10-15 02:27 PM
do we have any conference call facility for this?
la_2002_ch
09-09 10:24 AM
Demand used for EB2 India for
August 2010 bulletin:
Prior to CY-2006: 3,175
Prior to CY-2007: 21,600
Sep 2010 bulletin:
Prior to CY-2006: 0
Prior to CY-2007: 16,350
Oct 2010 bulletin:
Prior to CY-2006: 0
Prior to CY-2007: 13,125
So they have processed or assigned visa to 3225 cases in last month.
you forgot 1300 odd visas from EB2 China... so a total of 4500 odd cases were processed...
August 2010 bulletin:
Prior to CY-2006: 3,175
Prior to CY-2007: 21,600
Sep 2010 bulletin:
Prior to CY-2006: 0
Prior to CY-2007: 16,350
Oct 2010 bulletin:
Prior to CY-2006: 0
Prior to CY-2007: 13,125
So they have processed or assigned visa to 3225 cases in last month.
you forgot 1300 odd visas from EB2 China... so a total of 4500 odd cases were processed...
