h1techSlave
08-05 12:18 PM
The fee is for processing your application, which they did. So there is no provision for a refund.
wallpaper by Natalie Portman,
leoindiano
08-28 03:00 AM
Admin Dudes,
I contributed $600 dollars so far and i have no access to Donor Forums. Please fix this.
Thanks
I contributed $600 dollars so far and i have no access to Donor Forums. Please fix this.
Thanks
GCard_Dream
10-09 04:10 PM
I am not sure if you have done this already but if you have photoshop or any other photo editing software, just take your picture and do resize to 320 X 240. In photoshop, when I do image resize it gives me the new size option in inches and pixels. I pick pixels and specify 320X240 and bamm.. your image is ready. Let me know if that doesn't help.
I have a hard time to adjust my photo to designated spec. I shrunked to 62kb but they did not take it and if I make it lesser, it won't be 320 x 240 pixels but less. I use regular digital camera. anybody help me how to do?
I have a hard time to adjust my photo to designated spec. I shrunked to 62kb but they did not take it and if I make it lesser, it won't be 320 x 240 pixels but less. I use regular digital camera. anybody help me how to do?
2011 natalie portman hair up.
ujayra01
07-12 10:21 AM
Most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005?
You really got to be kidding us. The 8 people I know of in EB3 during these period is still waiting.
actually, i think that the EB3 will also make rapid advances come October.
with the quota exhausted for this year, and the pre-adjudication taking place and with most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005, i think the dates will advance to 2003 by Dec and to mid 2004 by Feb/March. After that, it is anyone's guess if the quota for India will hold out. As for me, I see at least another year or two wait for my GC, unless the Congress passes a miracle.
You really got to be kidding us. The 8 people I know of in EB3 during these period is still waiting.
actually, i think that the EB3 will also make rapid advances come October.
with the quota exhausted for this year, and the pre-adjudication taking place and with most of the EB3 India applicants having received their GC between 2002 and 2005, i think the dates will advance to 2003 by Dec and to mid 2004 by Feb/March. After that, it is anyone's guess if the quota for India will hold out. As for me, I see at least another year or two wait for my GC, unless the Congress passes a miracle.
more...
pappu
06-04 01:15 PM
IV presents, live update directlly from the Senate 'floor'. You can see how Senators debate, take positions on the various ammendments lying on the 'table' and gathering dust since last week.
It will truely be an experience, not to be missed.
Join us at:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=75738#post75738
:D
It will truely be an experience, not to be missed.
Join us at:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=75738#post75738
:D
thomachan72
09-19 08:32 AM
i had interview at mumbai consulate on friday morning 9.30.
EVERYONE please take time to read and reply...
the officer was very rude... i said good morning upon entering and she did not reply.... then she said she is getting strange people since morning and no one is following her instructions....
she asked me the name of company, my job title etc..i replied ...
and then she asked me for my old passport and wrote CWOP on expired visa.....
she asked my wife if she has old passport and i said no and there it started..."SHE got angry and said did i asked you? let her speak... " "women can speak for herself etc..." she did utter some few words slowly so i said "excuse me" and that's it..she told me people like me should not be in usa..etc...etc........."
here is the deal...she did not gave me any slip or anything and said we can go now.....
WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
will i get my passport with stamp? or do they send Pink/Yellow/White slip through courier?
expert any advise?
i tracked the passport on VFS site on Saturday morning and VFS says they have not received passport from the embassy. is this normal? should i wait till monday evening before jump on any conclusion?
Sorry to hear this. It seems to be a real unfortunate thing to happen. Hope the lady was just having an emotional issue and doesn't act upon that. I would anyway wait till Monday and contact the VFS again. Hope for the best.
EVERYONE please take time to read and reply...
the officer was very rude... i said good morning upon entering and she did not reply.... then she said she is getting strange people since morning and no one is following her instructions....
she asked me the name of company, my job title etc..i replied ...
and then she asked me for my old passport and wrote CWOP on expired visa.....
she asked my wife if she has old passport and i said no and there it started..."SHE got angry and said did i asked you? let her speak... " "women can speak for herself etc..." she did utter some few words slowly so i said "excuse me" and that's it..she told me people like me should not be in usa..etc...etc........."
here is the deal...she did not gave me any slip or anything and said we can go now.....
WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
will i get my passport with stamp? or do they send Pink/Yellow/White slip through courier?
expert any advise?
i tracked the passport on VFS site on Saturday morning and VFS says they have not received passport from the embassy. is this normal? should i wait till monday evening before jump on any conclusion?
Sorry to hear this. It seems to be a real unfortunate thing to happen. Hope the lady was just having an emotional issue and doesn't act upon that. I would anyway wait till Monday and contact the VFS again. Hope for the best.
more...
tonyHK12
01-31 09:29 AM
Definitely lets all agree to meet with our local house reps.
You can find your local congressman/woman from http://house.gov by entering your zip code.
They are generally very close to your geographic area.
Please ask if you have any questions, doubts.
You can find your local congressman/woman from http://house.gov by entering your zip code.
They are generally very close to your geographic area.
Please ask if you have any questions, doubts.
2010 Rihanna#39;s Short Pixie Haircut
priderock
07-12 01:23 PM
TANA reportedly paid Mr Clinton million dollars for the fund raising dinner/speech. I am not sure how it helps though. I have not seen them raise voice to address our issues.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hair Pixie Haircuts 2011-2012
xlr8r
09-15 02:58 PM
This is bizarre stuff.
It says that NSC I-140 processing date for EB2 is March 13, 2008. Since when did they become so efficient to jump from July 6th, 2007 to March 2008? I guess they mistakenly typed 2008 instead of 2007?
Those lazy bums had better get ready for an onslaught of Service Requests. :)
It says that NSC I-140 processing date for EB2 is March 13, 2008. Since when did they become so efficient to jump from July 6th, 2007 to March 2008? I guess they mistakenly typed 2008 instead of 2007?
Those lazy bums had better get ready for an onslaught of Service Requests. :)
more...
Macaca
03-28 04:27 PM
A member posted that s/he did labor certification and I-140 on F1. I don't remember the name of the thread.
You can do labor certification without H1 as long as employer is willing.
You can do labor certification without H1 as long as employer is willing.
hot Round/Square Face Haircuts
waitin_toolong
07-19 11:49 AM
in fact if your friend did not claim hope credits or some others that he was entitled to in the last 3 years he can file amendment to those taxes as well.
more...
house natalie portman pixie.
lostinbeta
10-16 05:09 PM
No problem :)
tattoo Natalie Portman Pixie Haircut
gparr
July 25th, 2005, 07:06 PM
I enjoy shooting white objects, particularly snow and white flowers, because it's difficult to get the exposures right and to avoid blowing out highlights. However, I'm never happy with the results I get when I process the images in Photoshop. Below is a shot of an Angel's Trumpet bloom I shot the other day. The challenge is to download the RAW file (link below) and process it to either show me that it can be better than my effort or to confirm for me that I'm on target with my image processing. If you post your version, please also post details of what you did in Photoshop so I can try to replicate it. Have fun and thanks.
Gary
Download the RAW file:
http://www.gparr.com/images/gparrraw.zip
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/angeltrump03.jpg
Gary
Download the RAW file:
http://www.gparr.com/images/gparrraw.zip
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/angeltrump03.jpg
more...
pictures Natalie Portman
amitjoey
07-17 07:17 PM
I think we need to send flowers with thank you note to IV core members and congress woman.Let us get vote and send flowers to those addresses.
Thank you
Instead send $$ as donations to IV. Contribute.
Thank you
Instead send $$ as donations to IV. Contribute.
dresses natalie portman pixie hair. pixie haircut | Tumblr; pixie haircut | Tumblr
hmehta
07-13 07:52 PM
All,
My Attorney emailed today that in order to potentially benefit from the AILF lawsuit for the July VB fiasco, they will go ahead and file my I-485 next week. Now, I am not sure if this is a good thing to do. Anybody with such a situation? Any experts, please advise.
My Attorney emailed today that in order to potentially benefit from the AILF lawsuit for the July VB fiasco, they will go ahead and file my I-485 next week. Now, I am not sure if this is a good thing to do. Anybody with such a situation? Any experts, please advise.
more...
makeup as actress Natalie Portman
rsb
06-29 02:11 PM
Thanks logiclife for you detailed answer.
girlfriend Natalie Portman
ragz4u
05-31 09:50 AM
My close friend mentioned - recently aged parents of a Cisco Systemss manager came from Madras. They arrived in SFO and were asked to go back, since they had come here a year before and had asked for an extension of visa from 6 months to 1 year, they stayed and then went back. They came back this year to visit and were denied entry at Port of ENtry. His parents were in 75 years range and have vowed not to come back.
I believe their doucmented were in order otherwise. So it is tough to take things for granted.
I'm sure a good lawyer can work on this. Extension is 100% legal and I don't think any USCIS officer can hold one back for that reason!
But in any case, this sux big time. The person whose parents were sent back should stand up and take this issue up rather than meekly give in.
I believe their doucmented were in order otherwise. So it is tough to take things for granted.
I'm sure a good lawyer can work on this. Extension is 100% legal and I don't think any USCIS officer can hold one back for that reason!
But in any case, this sux big time. The person whose parents were sent back should stand up and take this issue up rather than meekly give in.
hairstyles natalie portman pixie hair.
InTheMoment
02-05 06:53 PM
Good, the doc is moving along well to the observership which is a way to build brownie points in one's resume when applying for the residency match. It is a different issue, nevertheless, that several good hospitals do not bother to consider observership as a significant credential when assessing candidates for residency.
As such it is a non-clinical and non-payroll position and he/she might as well can do it on B2 (visitor). So there are no visa issues as such.
Well, my wife is doing her residency in a hospital affiliated to one of the top 2 univ programs in the US and hence the knowledge of these facts. I really emphatize with the double whammy type challenges docs have to face i.e professionally as well as with immigration/J-1/H-1 issues.
As such it is a non-clinical and non-payroll position and he/she might as well can do it on B2 (visitor). So there are no visa issues as such.
Well, my wife is doing her residency in a hospital affiliated to one of the top 2 univ programs in the US and hence the knowledge of these facts. I really emphatize with the double whammy type challenges docs have to face i.e professionally as well as with immigration/J-1/H-1 issues.
rharan
05-02 02:29 PM
Hello All,
My RIR (EB3) is still pending and the PD is Nov 2004.
My Perm (EB3) got approved April 2007.
Now I'm on 7th year H1b based on my RIR date.
If i file 140 based PERM and PD will be april 2007, If approved I'm eligible for 3 years H1 extension.
What happen if my RIR got approved? Can I file another I140 and retain my PD as Nov 2004?
Pl. advice.
Thanks
My RIR (EB3) is still pending and the PD is Nov 2004.
My Perm (EB3) got approved April 2007.
Now I'm on 7th year H1b based on my RIR date.
If i file 140 based PERM and PD will be april 2007, If approved I'm eligible for 3 years H1 extension.
What happen if my RIR got approved? Can I file another I140 and retain my PD as Nov 2004?
Pl. advice.
Thanks
WeShallOvercome
07-23 06:29 PM
have you used your checks for filing of application or did your employer paid for it.
When SC cashes your check they issue receipt and put receipt number at the back of the check. thru which you could track your case and get the status by calling service center.
and possibly asking SC to issue you another receipt...
Employers and lawyers are smart enough.
They took money from us but paid the fee with their own checks.
I don't think getting the receipt number is an issue, we can somehow get it.
I'm concerned about getting the receipt notice which i might need for applying for EAD/AP on my own.
On top of that i don't have my I-140 approval notice and I'm already in my 7th year. So if I want to invoke Ac21 after 180 days, I need either an EAD, or I-140 approval notice so I can apply for H-1 extension.....
any suggestions?
When SC cashes your check they issue receipt and put receipt number at the back of the check. thru which you could track your case and get the status by calling service center.
and possibly asking SC to issue you another receipt...
Employers and lawyers are smart enough.
They took money from us but paid the fee with their own checks.
I don't think getting the receipt number is an issue, we can somehow get it.
I'm concerned about getting the receipt notice which i might need for applying for EAD/AP on my own.
On top of that i don't have my I-140 approval notice and I'm already in my 7th year. So if I want to invoke Ac21 after 180 days, I need either an EAD, or I-140 approval notice so I can apply for H-1 extension.....
any suggestions?
No comments:
Post a Comment