new_phd
05-14 01:28 PM
Point taken.
I did look under the visa bulletin section of the forums, I did not see anything on pages 1 and 2 so I posted.
But, point taken.
Mocking me so much shows you in bad taste, my friends.
This is the last thing you will see me posting here.
And it is a "her".
subah ho gayi mamu ..... ae yabadaba chal iske liye chai banaa
translation: ("new_phd is finally up....
yabadaba please make tea for him")
I did look under the visa bulletin section of the forums, I did not see anything on pages 1 and 2 so I posted.
But, point taken.
Mocking me so much shows you in bad taste, my friends.
This is the last thing you will see me posting here.
And it is a "her".
subah ho gayi mamu ..... ae yabadaba chal iske liye chai banaa
translation: ("new_phd is finally up....
yabadaba please make tea for him")
wallpaper You skin complexion and hair
jonty_11
06-16 02:04 PM
Thank you rsdang..
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Making phone calls is crucial to this process....just do your part...and leave the rest to IV.. They are forcefully pursuing our interests...Please call !!!!!!
No reason to be shy IVians. The person at the other end of the line is human just like you and it is a part of their job to take our messages and convey them to the representatives.
Making phone calls is crucial to this process....just do your part...and leave the rest to IV.. They are forcefully pursuing our interests...Please call !!!!!!
boldm28
04-19 03:48 PM
I asked this question few days ago but no one responded. I guess nothing is going on. Why do they waste tax payers money by introducing bills and not acting on them.
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
Any way, pack your bags or wait for ten years.
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
Any way, pack your bags or wait for ten years.
Y cant you ask the same question in your home country assuming it is India
you wont get any reply not in 100 years
2011 Black Hair Blue Eyes Girl.
harrydr
01-06 09:56 AM
Hey Teddy,
During you process for porting from EB3 to EB2 did you:
1. Do this within the same organization after getting your advanced degree?
2. Did you have to file for a new PERM and start from the begineeing under EB2?
3. Were you successfully able to port your PD or did you start with a new PD under EB2?
During you process for porting from EB3 to EB2 did you:
1. Do this within the same organization after getting your advanced degree?
2. Did you have to file for a new PERM and start from the begineeing under EB2?
3. Were you successfully able to port your PD or did you start with a new PD under EB2?
more...
GooblyWoobly
07-18 06:25 PM
Wrong! Yes, you will be the new fee but then you will pay the same fee each year you renew your EAD. No fee payment only applies if you file your I-485 with the new fee structure.
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
Can someone else confirm this too? For Q2, I think you are wrong. Take this case....
Primary is on H1, derivative on H4, both apply for AOS, primary goes on EAD (thus invalidating H1, and in turn spouse's H4). So, the spouse just has AOS receipt number, and no H4. Is she out of status? Of course not. This is a very common scenario.
Also, for Q1, I765 is a completely different entity in the pay schedule http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
So, why wouldn't I get the benefit of the higher fee if I pay that? Any source of information for you to say I will have to pay each year?
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
Can someone else confirm this too? For Q2, I think you are wrong. Take this case....
Primary is on H1, derivative on H4, both apply for AOS, primary goes on EAD (thus invalidating H1, and in turn spouse's H4). So, the spouse just has AOS receipt number, and no H4. Is she out of status? Of course not. This is a very common scenario.
Also, for Q1, I765 is a completely different entity in the pay schedule http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
So, why wouldn't I get the benefit of the higher fee if I pay that? Any source of information for you to say I will have to pay each year?
gcseeker2002
02-20 03:16 PM
I was looking at the flcdatacenter website for Perm labors filed in 2006, and here are the numbers of total perm filed :
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
Total : 105960
India : 26636 = 25.2%
China : 8222 = 7.75%
No wonder china is moving faster in the EB categories
more...
sumagiri
02-25 03:08 PM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
Pre-adjudication. That would be really good. According to latest processing times, NSC shows July 30th 2007 for 485. So does that mean that cases before that are either adjudicated/pre-adjudicated or atleast there is an RFE?
Is there any one who confirmed that their case is pre-adjudicated @ NSC. ?
Pre-adjudication. That would be really good. According to latest processing times, NSC shows July 30th 2007 for 485. So does that mean that cases before that are either adjudicated/pre-adjudicated or atleast there is an RFE?
Is there any one who confirmed that their case is pre-adjudicated @ NSC. ?
2010 images eye makeup tips brown
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
satishku_2000
02-21 11:02 AM
Hey
I thought I am the only poor soul looking for whole month to see the processing dates, Finally they have published today.
I have seen that I-140 EB3 moved siginificantly But still away from the my receipt date.
Hopefully you have a good news :)
I thought I am the only poor soul looking for whole month to see the processing dates, Finally they have published today.
I have seen that I-140 EB3 moved siginificantly But still away from the my receipt date.
Hopefully you have a good news :)
hair eye makeup blue eyes brown hair. for rown hair,fair skin
sundeep14
07-23 10:09 AM
as folks mentioned above it is totally ok to not renew AP...do it if u travellin in the next few months...
on a side note...do people here know the average time it is takin to renew AP nowdays....TSC......paper and/or electronic..?
I had put in EAD renewal at TSC and got the approved EAD in hand within a month ...that was really good speed...anyone has info on AP approval timelines???
on a side note...do people here know the average time it is takin to renew AP nowdays....TSC......paper and/or electronic..?
I had put in EAD renewal at TSC and got the approved EAD in hand within a month ...that was really good speed...anyone has info on AP approval timelines???
more...
javadeveloper
09-27 04:30 PM
Hi All,
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
I have same issue:
My paralegals response:
He gave USCIS's Ph# and asked me to call them
USCIS's response:
Don't worry , during 485's approval time USCIS will find that I have two A#'s and consolidate those two numbers.
Now as per other members , do I need to raise this issue with IO at the time of Finger printing??? If we do what we can expect from IO at FP office?
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------
EB1 ROW
PD: 08/2006
140: approved in 06/2007 (NSC)
485 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
765 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
131 (self and spouse): RD: 07/06/2007; RN: 09/12/07 (NSC)
FP notice recieved on 09/24/07
FP appointment (self and spouse): 10/16/07
I have same issue:
My paralegals response:
He gave USCIS's Ph# and asked me to call them
USCIS's response:
Don't worry , during 485's approval time USCIS will find that I have two A#'s and consolidate those two numbers.
Now as per other members , do I need to raise this issue with IO at the time of Finger printing??? If we do what we can expect from IO at FP office?
hot Blue Eye Makeup: This is a
javadeveloper
12-08 01:10 PM
We received a letter from NSC saying that both our AP applications were approved on 10/21/08.
Keep this proof while traveling , you can try to convince IO that you went outside US by assuming that the AP is approved.Thats the best you can do
Keep this proof while traveling , you can try to convince IO that you went outside US by assuming that the AP is approved.Thats the best you can do
more...
house Make-up and Hair: Claudia
scorpion
02-26 05:30 PM
Consult your Lawyer
tattoo If possible, consult a makeup
puskeygadha
05-22 10:15 AM
Hello -
if they are to terminate concurrent filing. How long would it take for
the rule to take place. This includes 2 months comment period and all
Thanks
P :)
if they are to terminate concurrent filing. How long would it take for
the rule to take place. This includes 2 months comment period and all
Thanks
P :)
more...
pictures hair Blue-grey eyes
smileyslimey
11-30 09:47 AM
Thanks, honge_kamyaab.
Your point is well taken.
But, my doubt is on the premise that a new H1-B can be obtained based on a previous approved I-140 or Labor Cert. However, if I am changing industries, my job function and description are both changing. In that case, can I use the fact that I had an I-140 from a previous employer in a different industry for a new H1?
Appreciate your help.
Regards.
Your point is well taken.
But, my doubt is on the premise that a new H1-B can be obtained based on a previous approved I-140 or Labor Cert. However, if I am changing industries, my job function and description are both changing. In that case, can I use the fact that I had an I-140 from a previous employer in a different industry for a new H1?
Appreciate your help.
Regards.
dresses eye makeup for lue eyes. eye makeup for lue eyes and
Rockford
07-17 02:19 PM
can you provide the link to that blog? I cannot find it.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/immigration-v-1.html#comment-76176292
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/immigration-v-1.html#comment-76176292
more...
makeup Benoit Moeyaert - Hair Stylist
Ruth B
02-19 11:30 AM
I need your help. I am currently under "adjustment of status" through employment but I have not received my green card yet. I already received EAD and advance parole last December/07. I left my studies at the college since then. I am not in F1 status anymore.
I have D/S on my I-94. I am wondering, what would I need to do if my F1 visa stamp expired on July 13/2000? I am planning to travel to my native country for the first time since I got here in 1999. I have remained in legal status during all this time by taking classes at the college. Do I need to get a visa stamp at the embassy back home?
Can I travel while my green card is pending? I�m just trying to make sure I�m doing the right thing here. I don�t want to make a mistake that will affect the outcome of my green card, not to mention my safe return to the U.S. Thanks in advance for your help.
I have D/S on my I-94. I am wondering, what would I need to do if my F1 visa stamp expired on July 13/2000? I am planning to travel to my native country for the first time since I got here in 1999. I have remained in legal status during all this time by taking classes at the college. Do I need to get a visa stamp at the embassy back home?
Can I travel while my green card is pending? I�m just trying to make sure I�m doing the right thing here. I don�t want to make a mistake that will affect the outcome of my green card, not to mention my safe return to the U.S. Thanks in advance for your help.
girlfriend cute eye makeup ideas for lue eyes. eye makeup tips for brown eyes
salvador marley
07-14 10:55 AM
when was the deadline for this? i take it that the guy who did the one with the moon has won it.
hairstyles 2010 cool eye makeup tricks.
optimist578
01-31 03:10 PM
You can always ask for a copy of the approval after the I-140 is approved. Depends on how cooperative your HR and lawyer are.
Is there a way to track the status of one's I-140 petition through USCIS's website?
Is there a way to track the status of one's I-140 petition through USCIS's website?
GotGC??
06-21 09:22 AM
Any idea what constitutes a "simple, str forward" case? At 485 stage, what are the things that could potentially make it a more complicated case?
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
dazed378
03-28 02:47 PM
Thanks, snathan.
Is not it strange that IRS processed the tax refund before completing the ITIN processing? They could not confirm the current status of my wife's ITIN processing, as they could not pull out any details about the W-7 based on the information provided by me. They only guessed that it might be still undergoing processing. I wonder if they misplaced the W-7 form or something like that :-(.
Is not it strange that IRS processed the tax refund before completing the ITIN processing? They could not confirm the current status of my wife's ITIN processing, as they could not pull out any details about the W-7 based on the information provided by me. They only guessed that it might be still undergoing processing. I wonder if they misplaced the W-7 form or something like that :-(.
No comments:
Post a Comment