delax
08-03 01:08 PM
I remember very clearly from last year that NOT having an A# on your approved I-140 is not a problem - Sheela Murthy was very clear about this on her calls for her clients. The 485 receipt though should have an A#.
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
FP is a different story. You have to get it done for 485 approval.
Disclaimer: My approved I-140 has an A# that matches the A# on the 485 receipt
srh1
10-28 07:03 PM
can any one reply to this thread please
starving_dog
06-13 01:17 PM
Was that 2007 you were referring to?
nshalady
06-15 12:11 AM
You can file I485 while H1 is pending. But if you read the H1 ext clause, you can see that you are eligible for H1 extension beyond 6 years only if your labor is pending for more than 1 year, or if you can't file for adjustment of status because of retrogression. Now, because you are eligible for I-485, you lose the eligibility to extend H1, which means, your pending H1 can be denied whether you file I485 or not. You might be lucky and get away with successful extension. But if the officer knows what he is doing, he'll not clear your extension. I have to add that I am assuming your H1 extension is BEYOND 6 years. If it is within 6 years, there is no problem. You'll get an extension.
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
more...
admin
06-04 06:44 AM
The Heritage Foundation is a powerful Conservative Think Tank based out of Washington DC.
More at http://www.heritage.org
More at http://www.heritage.org
Scythe
11-27 05:09 PM
I guess my button was too simple after all.
more...
Tshelar
01-02 02:11 PM
The consulate usually do need more info if you work for Pharmaceucatical or Biotech company. I work for a Pharmaecutical company and when I had gone for my Visa interview they were very specific to ask me if my work deals in any kind of research in chemicals etc. Since I work in the IT department and has nothing to do with reasearch they did not ask for any more info.
I think your wife should be fine if she furnishes the info that they need.
I think your wife should be fine if she furnishes the info that they need.
Leo07
02-09 10:24 AM
When the H1B is for 3 years, having you sign the contract for for 4 years is a quite stretch. I have signed such contracts before, it's usually not more than 6 months to 1 year (max). Please consult a able attorney, you are likely to have a valid case and make some money too:)
more...
lavanyamohan
11-20 08:58 PM
message sent to CBS60 minutes...
cagedcactus
11-11 03:38 PM
In short... this backlog is not going away, until everyone of us participates at state level, and starts making a difference.
We must stand up and fight this unfair system. they are not going to do anything for us, if we just sit on our lazy behinds....
We must stand up and fight this unfair system. they are not going to do anything for us, if we just sit on our lazy behinds....
more...
HRPRO
01-18 09:30 AM
H-1B is the responsibility of the employer but it is slightly tricky. If the employee is being paid more than the minimum wage quoted, then he/she can be made liable to pay back the full amount. But still attorney fees and other associated costs can be collected back from the employee.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
mambarg
08-01 01:26 PM
But dont you guys expect improvement after all this fiasco ?
Do you not agree that INS will learn some lessons from this ?
Since DOS does not know or INS cannot tell DOS how many apps it has waiting for approval , then how will DOS decide on the monthly cutoff for EB categories ?
With all the fiasco. DOS will definitely ask INS and get the estimate before deciding cut off.
INS also promised that they will work with DOS to make this cutoff process proper ?
I dont know the details, but we may see a definite change henceforth.
So be ready for more surprises in coming months.
Enjoy the ride.............
Do you not agree that INS will learn some lessons from this ?
Since DOS does not know or INS cannot tell DOS how many apps it has waiting for approval , then how will DOS decide on the monthly cutoff for EB categories ?
With all the fiasco. DOS will definitely ask INS and get the estimate before deciding cut off.
INS also promised that they will work with DOS to make this cutoff process proper ?
I dont know the details, but we may see a definite change henceforth.
So be ready for more surprises in coming months.
Enjoy the ride.............
more...
quizzer
10-16 09:10 PM
Any EB2 folks with RD prior to Jan 2007 still waiting for approvals?
ca_immigrant
07-25 07:49 PM
Folks,
What is the best and most cost effective way to send some money home ?
Till last year I was using the service from icici and was under the belief that the exchange rate was pretty decent. the service I believe was never free as they make up for service fee though the exchange rate.
Today for example when I check on icici it says they will give a rate of 47.63 per $ which I believe means around half a rupee less per $ ?
so for $1000 they are essentially charging Rs 500 (aound $10)
I beleive previously they were giving around 25 paise less per $ and now it looks like it is 50 paise less per dollor ?
Western union charges $15 and also gives a lower exchange rate than icici.
So would that mean ICICI isthe best cost effective one ?
Ideas ?
Thanks,
What is the best and most cost effective way to send some money home ?
Till last year I was using the service from icici and was under the belief that the exchange rate was pretty decent. the service I believe was never free as they make up for service fee though the exchange rate.
Today for example when I check on icici it says they will give a rate of 47.63 per $ which I believe means around half a rupee less per $ ?
so for $1000 they are essentially charging Rs 500 (aound $10)
I beleive previously they were giving around 25 paise less per $ and now it looks like it is 50 paise less per dollor ?
Western union charges $15 and also gives a lower exchange rate than icici.
So would that mean ICICI isthe best cost effective one ?
Ideas ?
Thanks,
more...
morphthecat
07-30 03:07 PM
how is the baby supposed to sponsor the parents ??
One option:
http://www.dayzadlaw.com/options.html ( I believe Rajiv Khanna and Murthy have clarified on this matter too):
Cancellation of Removal
Persons in removal proceedings, also known as deportation hearings, may apply in court for a special pardon to receive a green card and stay in the United States. For individuals who have never had a green card, the critical element is proving that you have a spouse, parent, or child who is a US citizen or permanent resident who would suffer extreme hardship if you were not allowed to stay the United States. You must also prove that you have lived in the United States for 10 years and have otherwise obeyed the laws.
.....
I believe it would be extremely difficult to be able to do the above though. Proving extreme hardship ain't going to be easy in court.
One option:
http://www.dayzadlaw.com/options.html ( I believe Rajiv Khanna and Murthy have clarified on this matter too):
Cancellation of Removal
Persons in removal proceedings, also known as deportation hearings, may apply in court for a special pardon to receive a green card and stay in the United States. For individuals who have never had a green card, the critical element is proving that you have a spouse, parent, or child who is a US citizen or permanent resident who would suffer extreme hardship if you were not allowed to stay the United States. You must also prove that you have lived in the United States for 10 years and have otherwise obeyed the laws.
.....
I believe it would be extremely difficult to be able to do the above though. Proving extreme hardship ain't going to be easy in court.
EB3June03
06-18 01:08 PM
From:- http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeon_ltr.pdf
Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons
A new TB classification (Class B: Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment) should be used for all applicants who are recent arrivals to the United States (less than 5 years) from countries with a high TB prevalence, with a Mantoux TST reaction of 10 mm or greater of induration, and no evidence of TB disease. See Section V of the TB Technical Instructions for other conditions for which referral for evaluation for treatment of latent TB infection is recommended. The civil surgeon should pro-actively contact the TB Control Program of the local health department to identify specific sources of treatment for latent TB infection and make the appropriate referral.
What if the applicant is NOT a recent arrival in US and does NOT have any evidence of TB disease? I hope there is another category for that (which might be exempt from treatment).
Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons
A new TB classification (Class B: Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment) should be used for all applicants who are recent arrivals to the United States (less than 5 years) from countries with a high TB prevalence, with a Mantoux TST reaction of 10 mm or greater of induration, and no evidence of TB disease. See Section V of the TB Technical Instructions for other conditions for which referral for evaluation for treatment of latent TB infection is recommended. The civil surgeon should pro-actively contact the TB Control Program of the local health department to identify specific sources of treatment for latent TB infection and make the appropriate referral.
What if the applicant is NOT a recent arrival in US and does NOT have any evidence of TB disease? I hope there is another category for that (which might be exempt from treatment).
more...
kumarh1b
01-22 04:16 PM
Hi,
My H1B extension got denied, I have n't got the denial notice yet. Can someone please advice what options do i have with out going out of status? and how long i can stay in this country?. My current I94 expired in sept 2009.
Please advice.
My H1B extension got denied, I have n't got the denial notice yet. Can someone please advice what options do i have with out going out of status? and how long i can stay in this country?. My current I94 expired in sept 2009.
Please advice.
dpp
02-21 01:15 PM
May be there is some problem with your system. It was updated in the morning only and we are all getting the latest one. Please clear cache and try again.
I saw that in morning , trust me its one of those things I do on my laptop everyday in the morning.
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
I saw that in morning , trust me its one of those things I do on my laptop everyday in the morning.
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
DallasBlue
08-01 11:53 PM
Is there a real need of seperate group other than IV.
Just curious.
we just want to group together locally to meet local lawmakers. Most importantly Senator Cornyn's office in near future and push for our goals.
And it is not any seperate group. join the yahoo group to find out who is doing what in their local cities in Texas.
Just curious.
we just want to group together locally to meet local lawmakers. Most importantly Senator Cornyn's office in near future and push for our goals.
And it is not any seperate group. join the yahoo group to find out who is doing what in their local cities in Texas.
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
jsb
02-06 12:24 PM
Cris,
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
As others have replied, "under review" means, it is somewhere in the stacks of files. They may not even know where it is.
I just called teh number and was able to talk to the officer.. he said the case under review.. means.. Any idea.
Thanks again.
As others have replied, "under review" means, it is somewhere in the stacks of files. They may not even know where it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment