seahawks
09-09 06:43 PM
Please join the group, guys we will need all of your support. Please sign up on the yahoo groups if you are from WA/Oregon. Lets unite and channelize our efforts to make the rally a success.
wallpaper Aprilia RS250
transpass
08-01 12:42 PM
I am pleasantly surprised and would like to thank Sen Menendez on behalf of all the IV members in his constituency for sponsoring visa recapture bill in Senate. Few days back when we called his office, his position was different. But because of we all calling and requesting for his support, he graciouly has agreed to take up our case. Speaking with his staff, I came to know that more than thousand calls were made to his office in support of the visa recapture bill.
This is just my thinking...
Sen Menendez vigorously supports family based immigration...I watched the failed comprehensive immigration debate on senate floor almost in its entirety. There, he was like a lone warrior arguing against the senators (Like Sessions) who said CIR bill encourages chain migration, etc...He was totally supporting visas that enable family reunions.
hr 5882 supports recapture of lost family based visas along with those of employment based. So no surprise Sen Menendez introduced the senate version of the house bill...And that's good for us...and we will take it...
This is just my thinking...
Sen Menendez vigorously supports family based immigration...I watched the failed comprehensive immigration debate on senate floor almost in its entirety. There, he was like a lone warrior arguing against the senators (Like Sessions) who said CIR bill encourages chain migration, etc...He was totally supporting visas that enable family reunions.
hr 5882 supports recapture of lost family based visas along with those of employment based. So no surprise Sen Menendez introduced the senate version of the house bill...And that's good for us...and we will take it...
Tejas
12-18 12:31 AM
Thank you for ur post. I checked my denial notice. There is no mention of MTR. It mentions that I can file an appeal with AAO within 30 days.
For MTR - Brief / Evidence need to be given within 30 days of denial.
For Appeal - A brief statement of what the error with the decision or what the new evidence is needed in the form, later actual evidences can be given within 30 days of filing form 290(B).
In either case, 290(B) have to be filed to keep it going.
Both Appeal and MTR should be sent to the service that made unfavorable change and later on when additional evidences are sent they need to be send to AAO directly.
Hope this helps.
For MTR - Brief / Evidence need to be given within 30 days of denial.
For Appeal - A brief statement of what the error with the decision or what the new evidence is needed in the form, later actual evidences can be given within 30 days of filing form 290(B).
In either case, 290(B) have to be filed to keep it going.
Both Appeal and MTR should be sent to the service that made unfavorable change and later on when additional evidences are sent they need to be send to AAO directly.
Hope this helps.
2011 retired from 250 GP racing
yabadaba
06-22 03:23 PM
Do we have to send our application to one of the centers based on where we reside/work?
yes:
2 options:
1. current law allows u file at Nebraska
2. direct filing memo says that filing can be done at Texas or Nebraska based on the state u work in from 07/30/2007..however they are allowing people from now till then to do the same.
yes:
2 options:
1. current law allows u file at Nebraska
2. direct filing memo says that filing can be done at Texas or Nebraska based on the state u work in from 07/30/2007..however they are allowing people from now till then to do the same.
more...
smsthss
12-18 05:59 PM
I also got 2 soft LUD'S on both mine and my wife's 485. First LUD on 12/15 and second on 12/18. But the case status remains the same "This case is now pending at the office to which it was transferred". My I-140 got approved on dec 6th. Seems like some kind of update is being done on I-485's. Might be FP notices as i have not received my FP notice yet. Not sure..Anybody seen the same pattern ??
chanduv23
07-17 07:37 AM
Getting innovative is the Key here. Keep your paperwork ready (You must do it in the background). Tell your employer through email that all you need is an employer letter and he can fax it to you, tell him you will personally come over to the place where he is to get signature and you have no issues, remember in your communications "Just praise him" . Tell him he is great, and you respect him and and u love him etc....... tell him that he must definitely enjoy his vacation and you will come to wherever he is or arrange for a pickup from Fedex and he has to do nothing.
All you need from him is a signature and copy of 140 approval. Your lawyer has to give you a copy if u requested, now if they are also playing it by your employer, you can tell them that you will come over to their office, and you need a copy so that you can file 485. Just be very poliet with them - be extremely polite and at equal intervals of time keep sending them polite reminders, tel, them you will come to their place and collect it personally - keep praising them and tell them how much you adore them.
In the background, workout your way, talk to a different lawyer. If a lawyer requests previous lawyer for necessary documentation, they HAVE TO GIVE. This approach may be a bit difficult because your previous lawyer may use delay tactics.
Remember - your employer is unethical and your lawyer is egoistic. You have to deal with crap.
After things go well for u- screw them big time, expose them on the internet and desi crunch.
All you need from him is a signature and copy of 140 approval. Your lawyer has to give you a copy if u requested, now if they are also playing it by your employer, you can tell them that you will come over to their office, and you need a copy so that you can file 485. Just be very poliet with them - be extremely polite and at equal intervals of time keep sending them polite reminders, tel, them you will come to their place and collect it personally - keep praising them and tell them how much you adore them.
In the background, workout your way, talk to a different lawyer. If a lawyer requests previous lawyer for necessary documentation, they HAVE TO GIVE. This approach may be a bit difficult because your previous lawyer may use delay tactics.
Remember - your employer is unethical and your lawyer is egoistic. You have to deal with crap.
After things go well for u- screw them big time, expose them on the internet and desi crunch.
more...
locomotive36
11-15 09:44 AM
With only 3 days to go for voting, lets do our best to ensure that Narayanan Krishnan wins.
Please take a minute to vote and vote many times as possible. Please share with family and friends!
Thankyou and God Bless!
Please take a minute to vote and vote many times as possible. Please share with family and friends!
Thankyou and God Bless!
2010 APRILIA 250 CCM 1999 GP
surabhi
10-17 03:14 PM
apart from payroll tax is'nt the employer suppose to pay employer tax which I suppose is anywhere between 8 to 12 % depending on the state it is operating? or is payroll tax same as employer tax? what other taxes does an employer has to pay if he hires a person on W2? appreciate inputs on this.
Payroll tax is same as employer tax. There are 2 or 3 components of the taxes that employer pays such as Social security ( employer portion), unemployment tax, Medicare ( employer portion)
also employer will need to pay for payroll company such as ADP a fee to maintain payroll, do filings
Payroll tax is same as employer tax. There are 2 or 3 components of the taxes that employer pays such as Social security ( employer portion), unemployment tax, Medicare ( employer portion)
also employer will need to pay for payroll company such as ADP a fee to maintain payroll, do filings
more...
anoopraj2010
07-30 11:11 PM
First of all, lets hope nothing happens to you. At this time i suggest waiting, something might come up later this year or early next year with reference to making use of unused visa numbers, if this happens, your wifes date will become current and her I-485 will get approved. Unfortunately the petition dies with the petitioner. However in the case of family based I-130 petitions, The Attorney General may in his discretion reinstate the approval of your family-based visa. The Attorney General may exercise favorable discretion where "for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate." 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C).
Thank you for your valuable input.
So in other words, visa numbers for the entire family are NOT assigned right away with the family if one has to go for an interview. The worst part was that the interview was due to a missing medical which was filed by us but misplaced by USCIS.
Re. 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C) is for Family based visa, hers is EB based (piggy backing on mine) Does this mean I should really consider filing a 130 to convert to family based?
Congressman can't help in ending this "humanitarian" trauma while I am still alive?
Thank you for your valuable input.
So in other words, visa numbers for the entire family are NOT assigned right away with the family if one has to go for an interview. The worst part was that the interview was due to a missing medical which was filed by us but misplaced by USCIS.
Re. 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C) is for Family based visa, hers is EB based (piggy backing on mine) Does this mean I should really consider filing a 130 to convert to family based?
Congressman can't help in ending this "humanitarian" trauma while I am still alive?
hair 122 990086 Aprilia 250 CCM
smuggymba
09-17 11:19 PM
FB spillover from a year gets added to overall EB quota of 140K for next year. And each category gets its proportional share of the spillover.
do we know how much it is for this year?
do we know how much it is for this year?
more...
TwinkleM
06-26 11:20 AM
Thanx once again Ms. Sen for you so valuable response. Is there anyways, you could tell me the email address. It will be then easy for me to talk to him when I have all the information. Another question, has the email to be sent out only by the lawyer, or the company can directly do that?
Thanx once again...
Thanx once again...
hot aprilia 250 gp.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. 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.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. 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.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
house aprilia 250 gp. aprilia rs 125
MannyD
10-25 01:19 PM
should be valid preferably until you get your new I140 approved.
Wanted to seek clarification: When you say "valid" do you mean past employer doesn't withdraw the 140 petition / substitute the LC? Or does 140 have a "valid till" date?
And I note that someone mentioned we can go for any EB category in the new company. Can we also port the PD for any other job profile or should the job profile (as in approved LC/140) be matching in the new job?
Thanks!
Wanted to seek clarification: When you say "valid" do you mean past employer doesn't withdraw the 140 petition / substitute the LC? Or does 140 have a "valid till" date?
And I note that someone mentioned we can go for any EB category in the new company. Can we also port the PD for any other job profile or should the job profile (as in approved LC/140) be matching in the new job?
Thanks!
tattoo Aprilia 250cc Team Aprilia
jsb
12-11 12:08 PM
Does anybody know what is the current fee for H1B transfer (from one employer to another), and how long does it take.
more...
pictures Aprilia will be the one to
MDix
03-05 05:10 PM
Please see my reply in red.
I have few questions regarding the visa and green card process.
1. Which documents are required to convert H1 to H4 while being in USA?
Ans : Pay-stubs and form I-539
2. As per my understanding if I convert to H4, I can use my H1 at a later point of time. Is it true? What are the preconditions for this?
Ans: Yes, no pre-conditions
3. What happens to my green card process if I convert to H4? I have my I-140 approved.
Ans : It's upto your employer if he keeps your I-140 alive then your GC process is good. You can use your PD in future if you want to re-start your GC
4. Assuming that my understanding in point-2 is correct what is the process to convert back to H1?
Ans : File New H1 again ( techinacally old one as you are not counted in Quota)
Thanks and Regards,
Alpa
I have few questions regarding the visa and green card process.
1. Which documents are required to convert H1 to H4 while being in USA?
Ans : Pay-stubs and form I-539
2. As per my understanding if I convert to H4, I can use my H1 at a later point of time. Is it true? What are the preconditions for this?
Ans: Yes, no pre-conditions
3. What happens to my green card process if I convert to H4? I have my I-140 approved.
Ans : It's upto your employer if he keeps your I-140 alive then your GC process is good. You can use your PD in future if you want to re-start your GC
4. Assuming that my understanding in point-2 is correct what is the process to convert back to H1?
Ans : File New H1 again ( techinacally old one as you are not counted in Quota)
Thanks and Regards,
Alpa
dresses MotoGP: Aprilia readying V4
paskal
07-16 07:27 PM
Hi,
Just FYI. The original poster (GCKabhayega) has a long history of posting such messages with sensitive titles, by giving an impression as if the Visa Bullettin or Processing Times were released. You can confirm this by looking at his/her old posts.
hey inskrish,
you should be getting a welcome e mail any day now!
where's the party man?
Just FYI. The original poster (GCKabhayega) has a long history of posting such messages with sensitive titles, by giving an impression as if the Visa Bullettin or Processing Times were released. You can confirm this by looking at his/her old posts.
hey inskrish,
you should be getting a welcome e mail any day now!
where's the party man?
more...
makeup aprilia 250 gp.
rkiran
12-02 04:35 PM
Hi,
I have a similar situation and am going to the local office on friday.
Did you get the AP? Did they ask more specific questions about the illness and why it is urgent etc. I am still trying to get the letter and am trying to find out what should be included on it. Also, was your letter faxed or scanned or did you get the original.
Thanks,
Thanks for the input.
I actually went to my appoitnment this morning at my local uscis office, the lady was nice. but i was told that the hospital letter need to state what are my granma's sickness instead just sayong terminally ill. and she had me to go back with a new letter tomorrow, and if her supervisor approves it, I will get it right away.
just some info to share.
wish me luck!
I have a similar situation and am going to the local office on friday.
Did you get the AP? Did they ask more specific questions about the illness and why it is urgent etc. I am still trying to get the letter and am trying to find out what should be included on it. Also, was your letter faxed or scanned or did you get the original.
Thanks,
Thanks for the input.
I actually went to my appoitnment this morning at my local uscis office, the lady was nice. but i was told that the hospital letter need to state what are my granma's sickness instead just sayong terminally ill. and she had me to go back with a new letter tomorrow, and if her supervisor approves it, I will get it right away.
just some info to share.
wish me luck!
girlfriend Aprilia RSV250 Moto GP 2001
antihero
05-21 08:44 PM
Let's not laugh it off so completely. When was the LUD on your I-485? It will give us some more clue about what exactly is going on behind the iron curtains.
Recently my wife went for finger printing.... none of us except her received FP notice. So she went there and did FP and asked the person over there about why I didn't get FP.
The person asked her my name and A#. He looked into the system and said I didn't get FP because by July you will get your GCs...... my FPs are still valid.... I know what he said is not true.... as you can see my PD.... but I keep wondering why he said that after looking in his system...... :confused:
PS - Sorry for the Title. But I am just quoting him.
Recently my wife went for finger printing.... none of us except her received FP notice. So she went there and did FP and asked the person over there about why I didn't get FP.
The person asked her my name and A#. He looked into the system and said I didn't get FP because by July you will get your GCs...... my FPs are still valid.... I know what he said is not true.... as you can see my PD.... but I keep wondering why he said that after looking in his system...... :confused:
PS - Sorry for the Title. But I am just quoting him.
hairstyles aprilia 250 gp. aprilia 250 gp
MrWaitingGC
05-22 04:58 PM
What will happen in this case.
prom2
11-05 12:32 PM
Finally I got mail from USCIS on 11/04 saying my AP is approved. But the message says it is approved on 10/17. I didn't know why they took so many days to update the status? Is it normal?
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 17, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
Mine was the same, I receive email on 11/04 and notice sent on 10/17.
Good luck.
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On October 17, 2007, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I131 APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
Mine was the same, I receive email on 11/04 and notice sent on 10/17.
Good luck.
file485
09-26 05:13 PM
Hello,
I am in serious trouble. Sometime ago I tried to switch my I-140 from EB3 to EB2. Now I get NOID to deny 140. Something related to prevailing wage (lawyer has actual letter). In my LC the offered wage was OK for EB3 but low for EB2. Lawyer says he'll try to reinstate EB3, but not sure. Has any one of you been able to reinstate EB3 140? Please help...
GCTrouble..
can you give in the exact scenario...I think many-many of us are just is in the hope to use the old EB3 PD to a later EB2 PD and get out of this hell hole..
As much as I know,we must have both EB3 and EB2 140's approved separately and during filing of 485 submit both the approved i140's with the earliest PD..
Anyone who knows about this ..pls comment what is the right way to do this stunt..
I am in serious trouble. Sometime ago I tried to switch my I-140 from EB3 to EB2. Now I get NOID to deny 140. Something related to prevailing wage (lawyer has actual letter). In my LC the offered wage was OK for EB3 but low for EB2. Lawyer says he'll try to reinstate EB3, but not sure. Has any one of you been able to reinstate EB3 140? Please help...
GCTrouble..
can you give in the exact scenario...I think many-many of us are just is in the hope to use the old EB3 PD to a later EB2 PD and get out of this hell hole..
As much as I know,we must have both EB3 and EB2 140's approved separately and during filing of 485 submit both the approved i140's with the earliest PD..
Anyone who knows about this ..pls comment what is the right way to do this stunt..
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий