varumo_varatho
11-08 10:43 AM
Speaking of my personal experience, Yes, you can get an emergency appointment as returning h1b's are eligible for such appointments. Just send an email directly to the consulate and request for emergency appointment stating that you have to return to your project. I have done it before
It is advisable to carry all the LCA's, just in case, though the VO might just look at the current one. I am sure you will be taking all the other docs required.
Best of luck
cheers !
It is advisable to carry all the LCA's, just in case, though the VO might just look at the current one. I am sure you will be taking all the other docs required.
Best of luck
cheers !
wallpaper emo love quotes backgrounds.
narimmigration
08-13 02:45 PM
When my spouse started working using EAD, my employer told us that they cannot renew her H4 since she had already started using her EAD; also my employer renewed only my H1 and H4 for my minor son.
I suggest you to contact a good attorney to know what you should do now.
Good luck.
I suggest you to contact a good attorney to know what you should do now.
Good luck.
go_guy123
11-03 08:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INo69f7f8bo
About CIR.
He talks of more H1B.....no green cards :(
About CIR.
He talks of more H1B.....no green cards :(
2011 emo love graphics
chandra140
10-13 01:48 PM
I got the 140 denial notice.
The USCIS did not mentioned any reason like my valid labour is expired.Not sure is the denial is because of 180 day rule or not.
Here is the reason...
The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary or evidence of schedule A designation.As such, the beneficiary is ineligible for classification as a member of the preofessions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.
The USCIS did not mentioned any reason like my valid labour is expired.Not sure is the denial is because of 180 day rule or not.
Here is the reason...
The petitioner did not submit an individual labour certification for the beneficiary or evidence of schedule A designation.As such, the beneficiary is ineligible for classification as a member of the preofessions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability.
more...
wa_Saiprasad
12-14 10:09 AM
Well you can always get the Equivalence Certificate from know Evaluator. USCIS also uses few Evaluators’ for various purposes. You should find one of those and get the Evaluation done by them. 3 year Indian degree is VERY MUCH equal to a 4 years BS degree in the US. It's very interesting they way these evaluators do it.
chanduv23
10-09 03:15 PM
Fromnaija and ChanduV-
I may be moving to California in early November. So, I am sorry I am not able to offer a leading role in AZ. But, I believe it will greatly help others considering such a role, if you could explain what kind of responsibilities and commitments such a position may entail.
U can definitely lead till then :), I may also be moving out of Tri State - nature of job is like that.
Lets find more people.
We need people to come out of their closets and start getting active
I may be moving to California in early November. So, I am sorry I am not able to offer a leading role in AZ. But, I believe it will greatly help others considering such a role, if you could explain what kind of responsibilities and commitments such a position may entail.
U can definitely lead till then :), I may also be moving out of Tri State - nature of job is like that.
Lets find more people.
We need people to come out of their closets and start getting active
more...
kumar1
07-11 11:30 AM
Hey, with ALL EB numbers gone till October, what else USCIS employees are suppose to do? Poop, Pee and approve I-140! This way, make this freaking GC line even longer. When PERM came in the picture...everyone was so exited.... Fact of the matter is it does not matter if you get labor certification in 2 days and I-140 in 3 days. There are only 140,000 EB visas available. All we are doing here is making the line longer. One thing that has changed is.. every Tom Dick and Harry has an approved labor through PERM so they can extend their H1-B for ever technically. Earlier, when getting a lobor certification was time consuming, getting H1-B extended beyond 6 years are a real pain@neck. my 2 cents....
2010 emo love quotes wallpapers.
smuggymba
07-28 02:26 PM
Your Payments When You Are Outside The United States (http://ssa.gov/international/countrylist4.htm) ??? What does this mean .... looks like you can claim benefits.
hmm..we need to double check then. there was a huge discussion here, can u search that thread...i'll check also
hmm..we need to double check then. there was a huge discussion here, can u search that thread...i'll check also
more...
Green.Tech
08-03 05:13 PM
Hello,
I am working on H1B and filed for my extention in Mar 2007. My original H1B expired in Jun 2007 and filed for EAD/AP/485 on Jul 22 2007. Today my employer received that h1b extension got denied. He got a RFE in may 2007 to which he replied.
What are my options now? Can I stay here now? Can I work now? Can another employer file for my h1 extension now?
Please help.
Thank you.
What was the reason of denial please?
I am working on H1B and filed for my extention in Mar 2007. My original H1B expired in Jun 2007 and filed for EAD/AP/485 on Jul 22 2007. Today my employer received that h1b extension got denied. He got a RFE in may 2007 to which he replied.
What are my options now? Can I stay here now? Can I work now? Can another employer file for my h1 extension now?
Please help.
Thank you.
What was the reason of denial please?
hair emo love quotes wallpapers.
royus77
06-25 10:12 AM
My Company is asking me to sign a new 2 year contract with them to get employment verification letter required for I-485. Is this legal?
if there is any breakage clause,Make sure that you understand the amount of damages. If the company is desi ,you can always negotiate at a later time
if there is any breakage clause,Make sure that you understand the amount of damages. If the company is desi ,you can always negotiate at a later time
more...
anandrajesh
09-21 04:52 PM
Point 2 in ur post is in the agenda. Ability to File 140/485 even if the dates are not current. Looks like this will be the least controversial of all things we can ask for, but will solve majority of our issues. This one thing doesnt ask for any EB numbers increase, doesnt look for H1 B increase and doesnt ask for anything that will have our opposition groups jumping up and down
hot emo love quotes wallpapers.
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
more...
house Emo Love Quotes Part Three
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
tattoo emo love quotes wallpapers.
BharatPremi
07-27 12:49 PM
The correct answer would be differed on the basis of your current status.
Are you currently H1 holder or H4 holder?
Are you currently H1 holder or H4 holder?
more...
pictures best love quotes wallpapers.
GotGC??
03-09 07:01 PM
Just goes to show that reform is the only solution. There is no point waiting out for the Visa bulletins for the next 6-7 months...
But someone was mentioning that unusedvisas for the current year is "released" in the 4th quarter (July-Sep). May be something would come out of that...
In similar context I have a few questions...
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
But someone was mentioning that unusedvisas for the current year is "released" in the 4th quarter (July-Sep). May be something would come out of that...
In similar context I have a few questions...
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
dresses emo love wallpaper
thomachan72
11-10 02:47 PM
Never heard of this before. Wouldn't know what to do either. Can you call them and ask? or send an email? what does your attorney say? Was an educational evaluation done on this?
more...
makeup Emo+love+quotes+wallpapers
breddy2000
07-21 09:29 AM
EB3_NEPA
As Far I as know we cannot have 2 Visas at the same time. The logic behind this is, L1 Visa is specifically meant for Company Transfer and you need to be having at least 1 year in the Company even before applying for L1 Visa.
And coming to having H1 simultaneously is not possible as you will be doing a transfer from H1 to L1 as you are still in the country and your H1 visa becomes invalid. Also the 6 year limit applies to both the period spent on H1 and L1.
If you would require to start afresh , then you need to go back the country and get fresh L1 visa stamped and that would be valid for 6 years...
I was in the same situtation and had to transfer from L1 to H1 as I did not want to go through the Visa appointment hassles.
Hope this helps...
As Far I as know we cannot have 2 Visas at the same time. The logic behind this is, L1 Visa is specifically meant for Company Transfer and you need to be having at least 1 year in the Company even before applying for L1 Visa.
And coming to having H1 simultaneously is not possible as you will be doing a transfer from H1 to L1 as you are still in the country and your H1 visa becomes invalid. Also the 6 year limit applies to both the period spent on H1 and L1.
If you would require to start afresh , then you need to go back the country and get fresh L1 visa stamped and that would be valid for 6 years...
I was in the same situtation and had to transfer from L1 to H1 as I did not want to go through the Visa appointment hassles.
Hope this helps...
girlfriend emo love quotes wallpapers.
sen
02-21 08:02 AM
Guys,
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
hairstyles emo love wallpapers for
needhelp!
03-09 03:12 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c4934c1786b99f1896b1c58f5df66 d79
(http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c4934c1786b99f1896b1c58f5df66 d79)
22 CFR, Part 42, Sec 42.53
Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7Cslb&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1337) or (b) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7Cslb&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1343) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
[WIKIfication needed]
(http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=c4934c1786b99f1896b1c58f5df66 d79)
22 CFR, Part 42, Sec 42.53
Sec. 42. 53 Priority date of individual applicants.
(a) Preference applicant . The priority date of a preference visa applicant under INA 203 (a) or (b) shall be the filing date of the approved petition that accorded preference status.
(b) Former Western Hemisphere applicant with priority date prior to January 1, 1977 . Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, an alien who, prior to January 1, 1977, was subject to the numerical limitation specified in section 21(e) of the Act of October 3, 1965, and who was registered as a Western Hemisphere immigrant with a priority date prior to January 1, 1977, shall retain that priority date as a preference immigrant upon approval of a petition according status under INA 203 (a) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7Cslb&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203a&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1337) or (b) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7Cslb&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1343) .
(c) Derivative priority date for spouse or child of principal alien . A spouse or child of a principal alien acquired prior to the principal alien's admission shall be entitled to the priority date of the principal alien, whether or not named in the immigrant visa application of the principal alien. A child born of a marriage which existed at the time of a principal alien's admission to the United States is considered to have been acquired prior to the principal alien's admission.
[WIKIfication needed]
sonu
10-06 10:02 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am in the same situation as your, USCIS website shows that my wife's AP approved and mine is still pending at TSC. I called USCIS yesterday , they told me to wait for 90 days from notice date.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am in the same situation as your, USCIS website shows that my wife's AP approved and mine is still pending at TSC. I called USCIS yesterday , they told me to wait for 90 days from notice date.
av2307
09-03 03:18 PM
By the way - harrdr , I'm exactly in the same situation - PD May '08 , I-140 approved and i have a very enticing full time offer from a Major financial firm. But i don't want to jeopardize my chances to get a GC in the next couple of yrs ( given that EB2 dates have moved forward substantially last month).
Please keep me in loop in case you find anything else about the situation. I'll do the same.
TIA
-A
Please keep me in loop in case you find anything else about the situation. I'll do the same.
TIA
-A
No comments:
Post a Comment