sanjay02
08-22 03:07 PM
Doesnt make sense to pay $2500 for retaining the lawyer, they are trying to squeeze maximum out of you. If you are changing employer ask if the new company has an immigration lawyer and you can have him for your services. If they dont have any one you can engage services of your own immigration lawyer and have the new lawyer sign the G-28 form. Also please post the name of law firm and your employer so that others can be cautious.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
I am changing my employer and wanted to retain the services of legal firm representing current employer. Upon asking that I want to retain their services after I leave current employer, I have been told to pay upfront retainer fee of $2500.
- Is it normally the case? I have been told that this fee will be put in my account with the firm and used to pay the charges for the services I request.
- If with God's grace my case is approved without requiring attorney's help, is this retainer refundable in full (I have asked attorney this question and waiting for thier reply). Anybody has a similar experience.
wallpaper free clip art borders and
dazed378
04-07 09:41 PM
A small correction - the notice sent by IRS did not mention that my filing status was changed from "married filing jointly" to "married filing separately" or "filing single". The notice says that
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
"We didn't allow your spouse's personal exemption because your spouse's:
Social Security Number (SSN) or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) was missing or
Last name doesn't match our records or the records provided by the Social Security Administration.
Each exemption listed on your tax return must have a valid SSN or ITIN. If your spouse has a valid Social Security Number assigned by the Social Security Administration or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number assigned by the Internal Revenue Service, please contact us. Please have your spouse's Social Security card available when you contact us. If your spouse has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, please have the notice from us assigning the spouse's number available when you contact us.
If you have questions or need additional information, please have the following on hand when you call:
A copy of this page.
A copy of your tax return.
The notice we sent you.
If you disagree with this change or the way we processed your return, please contact us.
."
Do I still need to file form 1040X? Please let me know.
go_guy123
05-06 09:07 PM
Dear IV Members,
I know this is an immigration forum but I thought if I can get some valuable advice.
A couple of days back, the police forced into our apartment saying that they have heard a complain about domestic violence. I was surprised because the only thing that happenned was that our child was crying during that time. They came inside and started searching our small apartment and started to interogate me. In our bedroom, there is space where we keep our deities and do Puja. My wife is a little bit more religious than me - so she requested them not to go to that space with shoes on. However, they did not listen and just went wherever they wanted. This I think is a disrespect to other culture. Later, when they did not find anything, they just left. We were dumb-founded. We were scared too.... In our building, we are the only Indian/foreigner. This might probably leave a permanant scar in the child's mind when he sees his father interrogated for nothing.
Can someone advice if we can take the matter to someone? Any advice or help will be greatly appreciated.
Why are u putting unrelated stuff here. You can always consult a lawyer for lawsuit
if u feel. Ofcourse nothing is free. U will need to pay a lawyer for that.
I know this is an immigration forum but I thought if I can get some valuable advice.
A couple of days back, the police forced into our apartment saying that they have heard a complain about domestic violence. I was surprised because the only thing that happenned was that our child was crying during that time. They came inside and started searching our small apartment and started to interogate me. In our bedroom, there is space where we keep our deities and do Puja. My wife is a little bit more religious than me - so she requested them not to go to that space with shoes on. However, they did not listen and just went wherever they wanted. This I think is a disrespect to other culture. Later, when they did not find anything, they just left. We were dumb-founded. We were scared too.... In our building, we are the only Indian/foreigner. This might probably leave a permanant scar in the child's mind when he sees his father interrogated for nothing.
Can someone advice if we can take the matter to someone? Any advice or help will be greatly appreciated.
Why are u putting unrelated stuff here. You can always consult a lawyer for lawsuit
if u feel. Ofcourse nothing is free. U will need to pay a lawyer for that.
2011 Scroll+order+clip+art+
nixstor
05-14 07:28 PM
This is totally ludacris to me. Even though the bulletin expects movement going forward, there is no assurance that the dates will not go back. On the flip side, I am wondering if USCIS/DOS wanted to fully utilize the 140K visas this year and just moved the dates too much ahead. If thats the case, the dates might not move again or retrogress back further. DOS official Oppenheimer mentioned that atleast 10-11k were wasted last year. I still feel that the dates are going to go back some time sooner or later without congressional law changes.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
This means that we have to stay put and work towards our common goal of getting the system fixed.
more...
WeShallOvercome
11-07 12:10 PM
If EB2 PD is 1 APR 2004 then what does the ProcessingTimeFrame Date(August 25, 2006) mean for I-485 in Texas Service Center.
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
sury,
What that means is "All applications received before August 25, 2006 AND whose PD is current , are being processed"
If your PD is 2003 but you filed your I-485 after Aug'2006 your app will not be adjudicated.
If you filed before Aug'2006 but your PD is after Apr'2004, your app will not be adjudicated.
If your PD is before Apr'2004 and you filed your app before August 25, 2006, your app will be adjudicated..
This is to make sure people don't start expecting approvals and calling them left and right one day after filing if their PD is current. they need some time for every application, so they put in this 'processing date' which works in conjunction with 'priority date' to check if a case is approvable at any given time. They normally won't entertain calls enquiring about a case if the filing date does not fall within this processing date.
Can anyone clarify. Guys exuse my Ignorance...I just want to know the rule
sury,
What that means is "All applications received before August 25, 2006 AND whose PD is current , are being processed"
If your PD is 2003 but you filed your I-485 after Aug'2006 your app will not be adjudicated.
If you filed before Aug'2006 but your PD is after Apr'2004, your app will not be adjudicated.
If your PD is before Apr'2004 and you filed your app before August 25, 2006, your app will be adjudicated..
This is to make sure people don't start expecting approvals and calling them left and right one day after filing if their PD is current. they need some time for every application, so they put in this 'processing date' which works in conjunction with 'priority date' to check if a case is approvable at any given time. They normally won't entertain calls enquiring about a case if the filing date does not fall within this processing date.
seba
02-08 12:41 AM
Arjun, thanks for clarifying those things. I have a couple of final questions before I book my trip if you could please help me again.
(1) My first H1B was valid from Oct 2004 to Oct 2007, and I got my stamp in Dubai. The stamp expired on Oct 2007. My second H1B is valid from Oct 2007 to Oct 2010, and I am planning to go to Halifax for the stamping. I have stayed at the same company all this time. Does "revalidation" include my situation?
(2) When leaving for Canada, they did not take your white I-94 card (stapled to passport) at the US airport. When arriving in the US, they replaced your old I-94 with a new I-94 at the US airport. Please confirm that all this is correct.
Thanks again. My company uses "immigration lawyers", but they seem rather incompetent, as many of you have experienced.
(1) My first H1B was valid from Oct 2004 to Oct 2007, and I got my stamp in Dubai. The stamp expired on Oct 2007. My second H1B is valid from Oct 2007 to Oct 2010, and I am planning to go to Halifax for the stamping. I have stayed at the same company all this time. Does "revalidation" include my situation?
(2) When leaving for Canada, they did not take your white I-94 card (stapled to passport) at the US airport. When arriving in the US, they replaced your old I-94 with a new I-94 at the US airport. Please confirm that all this is correct.
Thanks again. My company uses "immigration lawyers", but they seem rather incompetent, as many of you have experienced.
more...
waitingnwaiting
01-26 11:14 AM
Proud.
Andhra bags 7 of top 10 IIT ranks - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Andhra-bags-7-of-top-10-IIT-ranks/articleshow/5978951.cms)
HYDERABAD: Andhra Pradesh hit a jackpot with its students bagging seven of the top 10 ranks in IIT-Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), the results of which were declared on Wednesday. In fact, the state claimed the coveted top two ranks of IIT-JEE, with A Jitendar Reddy from Warangal emerging as the national topper followed by Uday K Shah from Hyderabad.
Others from the state who bagged top ranks include Madhu Kiran (fourth), K Satwik (sixth), Janardhan Reddy (seventh) Sabarish Nikhil (eighth) and Neeraj Gopal (ninth). An estimated 30% of the 50,000 students who wrote the examination from the state cleared the test this year, with over 500 of them making it to the top 2,000 in the open category. A total of 65,000 students had written the examination from the southern region.
Andhra students also scored well in the reserved category with OBC students from the state bagging seven out of the top 15 ranks in this section. Among reserved categories including SC, ST, OBC and physically handicapped (PH) the state secured over 50 ranks in the top 200 slab.
Officials from IIT-Madras, who were in charge of the results, said Andhra students already account for 21% of the total student strength in IITs. "One should not be surprised by the performance of these students as they have traditionally done well. This year, the percentage of students from the state in the IITs might be higher than 25%," said T S Natarajan, director, IIT-JEE.
While IIT-Madras, which conducted the examination, was criticized for the errors in mathematics and physics question papers, IIT experts said such errors could have actually worked in favour of the students from Andhra as not many would have been able to crack some of ambiguous questions. "Most front-rankers from the state cracked these ambiguous questions, which might have given them an edge over others," said K V Raghunath, vice-chairman, Narayana Group of Colleges whose students bagged five of the top seven ranks. Some other experts noted that a tough maths paper helped garner top ranks as students from the state have traditionally done well in the subject.
Andhra bags 7 of top 10 IIT ranks - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Andhra-bags-7-of-top-10-IIT-ranks/articleshow/5978951.cms)
HYDERABAD: Andhra Pradesh hit a jackpot with its students bagging seven of the top 10 ranks in IIT-Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), the results of which were declared on Wednesday. In fact, the state claimed the coveted top two ranks of IIT-JEE, with A Jitendar Reddy from Warangal emerging as the national topper followed by Uday K Shah from Hyderabad.
Others from the state who bagged top ranks include Madhu Kiran (fourth), K Satwik (sixth), Janardhan Reddy (seventh) Sabarish Nikhil (eighth) and Neeraj Gopal (ninth). An estimated 30% of the 50,000 students who wrote the examination from the state cleared the test this year, with over 500 of them making it to the top 2,000 in the open category. A total of 65,000 students had written the examination from the southern region.
Andhra students also scored well in the reserved category with OBC students from the state bagging seven out of the top 15 ranks in this section. Among reserved categories including SC, ST, OBC and physically handicapped (PH) the state secured over 50 ranks in the top 200 slab.
Officials from IIT-Madras, who were in charge of the results, said Andhra students already account for 21% of the total student strength in IITs. "One should not be surprised by the performance of these students as they have traditionally done well. This year, the percentage of students from the state in the IITs might be higher than 25%," said T S Natarajan, director, IIT-JEE.
While IIT-Madras, which conducted the examination, was criticized for the errors in mathematics and physics question papers, IIT experts said such errors could have actually worked in favour of the students from Andhra as not many would have been able to crack some of ambiguous questions. "Most front-rankers from the state cracked these ambiguous questions, which might have given them an edge over others," said K V Raghunath, vice-chairman, Narayana Group of Colleges whose students bagged five of the top seven ranks. Some other experts noted that a tough maths paper helped garner top ranks as students from the state have traditionally done well in the subject.
2010 Various School Clip Art
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.
more...
jvs_annapurna
04-12 03:13 PM
Ya, it is my first extension
sent RFE asking that Client letter on the original letter head.
which I couldnt get, but sent the vendor letter stating my duties and date from which started working etc even the copy of the client badge with photo on it is attached in reply to RFE.
But Its denied thats is not enough to prove that you are working at that client place and location. and it seems the employer i.e my h1 company is just token employer.
but I know the clock started from 31st march am in out of status.
will i able wipe out out of status as it effect in future ?
does MTR works or do I need to the appeal ?
What are chances of my transfer ?
Please gurus advise?
Thanks
jvs
sent RFE asking that Client letter on the original letter head.
which I couldnt get, but sent the vendor letter stating my duties and date from which started working etc even the copy of the client badge with photo on it is attached in reply to RFE.
But Its denied thats is not enough to prove that you are working at that client place and location. and it seems the employer i.e my h1 company is just token employer.
but I know the clock started from 31st march am in out of status.
will i able wipe out out of status as it effect in future ?
does MTR works or do I need to the appeal ?
What are chances of my transfer ?
Please gurus advise?
Thanks
jvs
hair school clip art borders and
fromnaija
02-25 07:18 PM
can anybody help me here?
Are you for real? USCIS has nothing to do with LCA amendment. That should be DOL (Department of Labor).
Are you for real? USCIS has nothing to do with LCA amendment. That should be DOL (Department of Labor).
more...
nda050325
07-16 06:27 PM
I am not sure why the previous employer is required to provide a response to the RFE. It is the current employer (or the petitioner) who should respond to the RFE.
Can you provide more details on the RFE ?
Can you provide more details on the RFE ?
hot school clip art borders and
nrk
02-02 01:04 PM
Congrats.... :)
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
more...
house SCHOOL PAGE BORDERS CLIP ART
franklin
02-09 01:01 AM
emailed the reporter to thank him of his support and give him more info on IV and their efforts and details on the IV agenda.
I also emailed moveon.org, and asked for their help
I also emailed moveon.org, and asked for their help
tattoo clipart primary school
glus
03-19 11:40 AM
Hello
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
OK,
I am sorry to hear your I140 is pending for so long. You have 2 options. 1 - wait. 2-act. If you select the latter, do this:
-contact your senator
-if you receive a letter stating (pending security/background check), contact a good imm. lawyer and do a writ of mandamus.
USCIS does not have to complete FBI checks on I-140. If they argue that they are doing FBI check, you have a case and a period of 3 years if way over unreasonable. USCIS completes internal checks within a few months max. So, your pending I140 for 3 years can't possibly be due to internal uscis checks. I bet they lost your folder; if you want email me privately and I will give you more details on such cases.
If you follow my advise, and go through a goooood lawyer, your I140 will be DECIDED within a few weeks.
I have substituted a Labor in 2004, My priority date is 4/4/2002. My I-140 is pending since May 2004 and i renew my EAD every year, EAD expires in July 2008. I got my 9th year H1 extensions till july 2007 from the same company/employer.
I tried to change the employer and file a new H1 which was denied this month. The reason for denial is USCIS is not satisfied with the place of work, I have re-applied H1 again on the same company. Now can i apply another NEW H1 from a different company.
I am tensed as my I-140 has been pending since so long....can someone please help me in this matter and suggest me what to do.
Thanks
Raghu
OK,
I am sorry to hear your I140 is pending for so long. You have 2 options. 1 - wait. 2-act. If you select the latter, do this:
-contact your senator
-if you receive a letter stating (pending security/background check), contact a good imm. lawyer and do a writ of mandamus.
USCIS does not have to complete FBI checks on I-140. If they argue that they are doing FBI check, you have a case and a period of 3 years if way over unreasonable. USCIS completes internal checks within a few months max. So, your pending I140 for 3 years can't possibly be due to internal uscis checks. I bet they lost your folder; if you want email me privately and I will give you more details on such cases.
If you follow my advise, and go through a goooood lawyer, your I140 will be DECIDED within a few weeks.
more...
pictures school clip art borders and
Mahatma
08-15 09:56 AM
Welcome VDL Rao and continue to bless us through your wisdom.
Sorry if somebody offended you knowingly or unknowingly.
The best parameter of your recognition is: so many people wait to hear your words.
Please make it a routene to enlighten us at leat every 15 days about your take on USCIS affairs.
I am pledging to double my recurring contribution for next 3 years.
Regards.
Sorry if somebody offended you knowingly or unknowingly.
The best parameter of your recognition is: so many people wait to hear your words.
Please make it a routene to enlighten us at leat every 15 days about your take on USCIS affairs.
I am pledging to double my recurring contribution for next 3 years.
Regards.
dresses clip art borders and
sobers
04-07 08:33 PM
Folks, I know you all are probably as deeply disappointed with the stalling of the Senate Immigration Bill as I am. But I guess i'm getting used to it now:mad: - had similar experience after S. 1932 relief was stripped out in December.
But instead of despairing, i'm now thinking of alternative ways to broaden our message and reach out to key lawmakers.
As you all may know, House Judiciary Committe Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner is going to be the Key House Negotiator on any Immigration Bill this year ....
Whether we like it or not, this is the hard truth.
The good news is that per se Sensenbrenner is not a restricionist. He is also not part of Tancredo Anti-Immigrant Caucus. However Sensenbrenner is against Illegal Immigration and Amnesty.
The bad news is that because of recent events (including attacks against him by latino/church activists, etc) he has decidedly moved to the right. He has probably hardened against his views to immigration, not just the illegal kind.
Since he is going to the point man on this issue, no doubts there, we ought to have a campaign to reveal the plight of legal immigrants to him. I'm convinced he's currently beseiged by restrictionist NumbersUSA, FAIR and CIS.org and being fed all his facts on immigration by these folks. We pay taxes, we obey laws, we wait in line patiently, we serve our local community here (for instance I've done many years of community work in the U.S. here and have been recognized for it), we enhance the compeititveness of this country by bringing our much needed skills to work for US business, and we do all this without taking a dime of public benefit. When restrictionists talk of how amnesty will be unfair to people waiting in long lines (that is Us Folks!), have they ever considered what to do to shorten these lines? Illegal immigration is unfair, but the legal immigration system is also broken - and unfair! We folks have the longest waits in the histroy of the US immigration system. If the (legal) system is not working properly, and here it is not, then people will have less incentive to follow it. Why should people follow the rules when it is much easier to get in without following the rules? So to deter illegal immigration ,you also have to show them the LEGAL immigration system works, and give prospective immigrants a good example.
Anyway, the point of all this rambling is this: I think we should have a campaign to bring some sense to sensenbrenner. I do not think he is a bad person per se. But he needs to be shown the light here- the genuine problems we are facing. We should have a webfax campaign now. Once the conference committee process starts, thousands of faxes start pouring in and staffers just count them and throw them in the bin. No one has time to read them.
But instead of despairing, i'm now thinking of alternative ways to broaden our message and reach out to key lawmakers.
As you all may know, House Judiciary Committe Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner is going to be the Key House Negotiator on any Immigration Bill this year ....
Whether we like it or not, this is the hard truth.
The good news is that per se Sensenbrenner is not a restricionist. He is also not part of Tancredo Anti-Immigrant Caucus. However Sensenbrenner is against Illegal Immigration and Amnesty.
The bad news is that because of recent events (including attacks against him by latino/church activists, etc) he has decidedly moved to the right. He has probably hardened against his views to immigration, not just the illegal kind.
Since he is going to the point man on this issue, no doubts there, we ought to have a campaign to reveal the plight of legal immigrants to him. I'm convinced he's currently beseiged by restrictionist NumbersUSA, FAIR and CIS.org and being fed all his facts on immigration by these folks. We pay taxes, we obey laws, we wait in line patiently, we serve our local community here (for instance I've done many years of community work in the U.S. here and have been recognized for it), we enhance the compeititveness of this country by bringing our much needed skills to work for US business, and we do all this without taking a dime of public benefit. When restrictionists talk of how amnesty will be unfair to people waiting in long lines (that is Us Folks!), have they ever considered what to do to shorten these lines? Illegal immigration is unfair, but the legal immigration system is also broken - and unfair! We folks have the longest waits in the histroy of the US immigration system. If the (legal) system is not working properly, and here it is not, then people will have less incentive to follow it. Why should people follow the rules when it is much easier to get in without following the rules? So to deter illegal immigration ,you also have to show them the LEGAL immigration system works, and give prospective immigrants a good example.
Anyway, the point of all this rambling is this: I think we should have a campaign to bring some sense to sensenbrenner. I do not think he is a bad person per se. But he needs to be shown the light here- the genuine problems we are facing. We should have a webfax campaign now. Once the conference committee process starts, thousands of faxes start pouring in and staffers just count them and throw them in the bin. No one has time to read them.
more...
makeup clip art borders baby. clip
xgoogle
08-21 10:09 AM
Any updates from people in this situation ?
girlfriend school clip art. school clip
neelu
01-02 02:34 PM
Please anyone.........help me.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
hairstyles clipart school borders
meridiani.planum
02-01 05:23 AM
thanks for the reply..this means having a dependent visa is the key at the time of approval..
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
yes. if your wife was on H4, as soon as your 485 is approved, her H4 ends. However since your 485 is getting approved, your PD is presumably current meaning she is eligible to immediately file 485, and get to that as a legal status. If she has a dependent visa approved, and has travelled here thats nice, otherwise she has to file a 485 from your home country as a follow-to-join and htat can take some time for her to travel here.
There is no 6 month grace period as such. Its just that upto 6 months of out-of-status is forgiven at 485 approval, and since on your 485 approval your H1 ends and so does her h4, it makes her status-less here. Being in that state upto 6 months is forgiven for 485.
Its most important that you get married before the approval of your 485. Do court-marriage if your PD is current, to be on the safe side, even if the actual ceremony is still a month or two away. When to honeymoon is upto you. Cant let USCIS decide EVERYTHING, can we...
if the application was approved and the wife was on h4 (but didnot file her i485 yet..) then she could still file for her i485?
yes. if your wife was on H4, as soon as your 485 is approved, her H4 ends. However since your 485 is getting approved, your PD is presumably current meaning she is eligible to immediately file 485, and get to that as a legal status. If she has a dependent visa approved, and has travelled here thats nice, otherwise she has to file a 485 from your home country as a follow-to-join and htat can take some time for her to travel here.
There is no 6 month grace period as such. Its just that upto 6 months of out-of-status is forgiven at 485 approval, and since on your 485 approval your H1 ends and so does her h4, it makes her status-less here. Being in that state upto 6 months is forgiven for 485.
Its most important that you get married before the approval of your 485. Do court-marriage if your PD is current, to be on the safe side, even if the actual ceremony is still a month or two away. When to honeymoon is upto you. Cant let USCIS decide EVERYTHING, can we...
shortchanged
08-03 06:43 PM
From my experience None of these issues matter.
I had I 140 approved in 02/06, no A# on the approval notice.But before approval, I had an RFE on this I-140, with an A#, on that notice, the same A# I had used for I-485 application form.But when I got the I-797 NOA for this AOS, it had a different A#,(July2 '07filer).
When I did not get reciept even by August 16'07, I filed a 2nd I-485, eventhough many people including Ms.Murthy advised againt it.I just did not want to miss out the window of opportunity of July Fiasco.
So I have 2 485s pending,I did finger printing for the July2 filing, never got FP notice for the second filing.My wife and son did FP for both I-485s.
I too was worried about these things, and was expecting RFEs on all these and medicals etc.
But on 8/1/08, I have got CRIS email with 3 messages for Card Production Ordered for me ,my wife and son. I still do not know what shall I do with the 2nd 485.Also I have appointment for FP for efiled EADs on 8/5/08, which I may not go at all, if I get the snail mail tomorrow.
As usual there is no logic, pattern, predictability, rhyme or reason with USCIS business.I am just relieved for now that most of my major worries are on pause for now.
I had I 140 approved in 02/06, no A# on the approval notice.But before approval, I had an RFE on this I-140, with an A#, on that notice, the same A# I had used for I-485 application form.But when I got the I-797 NOA for this AOS, it had a different A#,(July2 '07filer).
When I did not get reciept even by August 16'07, I filed a 2nd I-485, eventhough many people including Ms.Murthy advised againt it.I just did not want to miss out the window of opportunity of July Fiasco.
So I have 2 485s pending,I did finger printing for the July2 filing, never got FP notice for the second filing.My wife and son did FP for both I-485s.
I too was worried about these things, and was expecting RFEs on all these and medicals etc.
But on 8/1/08, I have got CRIS email with 3 messages for Card Production Ordered for me ,my wife and son. I still do not know what shall I do with the 2nd 485.Also I have appointment for FP for efiled EADs on 8/5/08, which I may not go at all, if I get the snail mail tomorrow.
As usual there is no logic, pattern, predictability, rhyme or reason with USCIS business.I am just relieved for now that most of my major worries are on pause for now.
syzygy
07-21 10:41 AM
This is smart idea. Will convey the message to right people.
This idea was floated a few years back, but then we did not have the win of a flower campaign behind us.
We now have a senator to focus our energies on - Dick Durbin.
How about everybody with a US degree send a copy of the diploma in a packet to Sen Durbin with a message - Dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples..something to that nature?
Alternatively we can send it to Sen Obama asking him to please let the senior senator from illinois, sen Durbin, know we are high skilled immigrants - dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples.
maybe we can send an apple too :D
sending to sen obama will make sure the issue is played in media because of the presidential coverage.
This idea was floated a few years back, but then we did not have the win of a flower campaign behind us.
We now have a senator to focus our energies on - Dick Durbin.
How about everybody with a US degree send a copy of the diploma in a packet to Sen Durbin with a message - Dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples..something to that nature?
Alternatively we can send it to Sen Obama asking him to please let the senior senator from illinois, sen Durbin, know we are high skilled immigrants - dont hold us hostage because of a few bad apples.
maybe we can send an apple too :D
sending to sen obama will make sure the issue is played in media because of the presidential coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment