anzerraja
07-20 03:33 AM
Lately the members of IV have come to know that Aman Kapoor, the co-founder of IV has sold his house and spent around $64000/- towards the administrative costs of IV. This too was brought to our attention from a regular member like you and me, without which this would not have come to our knowledge at all.
So some of the members have taken an initiative to reimburse Aman and other core IV team members with the expenses they have incurred so far towards the administrative costs of IV. Note that the time they have spent and the sufferings cannot be compensated. Let us do the least by atleast compensating the money. Please do not donate directly to IV funds.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
So some of the members have taken an initiative to reimburse Aman and other core IV team members with the expenses they have incurred so far towards the administrative costs of IV. Note that the time they have spent and the sufferings cannot be compensated. Let us do the least by atleast compensating the money. Please do not donate directly to IV funds.
There is a funding drive in this other thread towards reimbursing the administrative costs of IV.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10708
Could you please pledge an amount ?
waiting_4_gc
07-31 06:44 PM
My I-485(with G-28) was filed by our company lawyer and company did not let us file EAD. I'm filing EAD on my own after USCIS made it clear with FAQ2 that they will accept EAD applications without the I-485 Receipt notice.
My questions is, Can I be sure the receipt notice for the EAD will come to me and not to the lawyer by any chance? I don't have any intention of using EAD but don't want my employer/lawyer know that I have filed it.
Thanks
I think you will receive receipt notice for EAD and AP provided you file them.However I had a question about the forms.
Are you going to send old version of I-765 and I-131 or new version of the forms?
And you can file EAD and AP applications with old fee till August 17,2007, right?
Please PM me as am also filing EAD and AP, we can share the knowledge
My questions is, Can I be sure the receipt notice for the EAD will come to me and not to the lawyer by any chance? I don't have any intention of using EAD but don't want my employer/lawyer know that I have filed it.
Thanks
I think you will receive receipt notice for EAD and AP provided you file them.However I had a question about the forms.
Are you going to send old version of I-765 and I-131 or new version of the forms?
And you can file EAD and AP applications with old fee till August 17,2007, right?
Please PM me as am also filing EAD and AP, we can share the knowledge
go_guy123
05-14 06:13 PM
It is time to pass the DREAM Act.
DREAM Act is held hostage up by the CIR advocates just like skilled immigration.
But the repeated failures will weaken the CIR coalition as some Latino organizations
like MALDEF have grudgingly started thinking about piecemeal options.
Dream act gives GC to illegals brought here as children by illegal parents. But then why shouldn't non-USC children of H1B get
GC before non-USC children of illegals. It is extremely hard to justify illegals are ahead of line of legals. But legals themselves
are so massively backlogged that asking illegals to go to the end of the line behind legals means nothing (practically) for illegals
amnesty advocates. H1Bs/EBs will put up with the country quota pain but La Raza et al will never buy that.
In fact, it is hard core anti-amnesty camp that is using the "piecemeal" strategy and winning again and again by ratcheting up the pressure through piecemeal bills like REAL ID act, Arizona law and its copy cat in different states.
DREAM Act is held hostage up by the CIR advocates just like skilled immigration.
But the repeated failures will weaken the CIR coalition as some Latino organizations
like MALDEF have grudgingly started thinking about piecemeal options.
Dream act gives GC to illegals brought here as children by illegal parents. But then why shouldn't non-USC children of H1B get
GC before non-USC children of illegals. It is extremely hard to justify illegals are ahead of line of legals. But legals themselves
are so massively backlogged that asking illegals to go to the end of the line behind legals means nothing (practically) for illegals
amnesty advocates. H1Bs/EBs will put up with the country quota pain but La Raza et al will never buy that.
In fact, it is hard core anti-amnesty camp that is using the "piecemeal" strategy and winning again and again by ratcheting up the pressure through piecemeal bills like REAL ID act, Arizona law and its copy cat in different states.
Lasantha
03-24 02:55 PM
Yeah, I remember these guys.
Thanks for the news vinabath. You know what?
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
Thanks for the news vinabath. You know what?
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
more...
chanduv23
12-16 12:16 PM
DMV people just look at the expiry date.
As pending 485 do not have expiry date they won't accept it as status.
What would you think would be a solution for this?
As pending 485 do not have expiry date they won't accept it as status.
What would you think would be a solution for this?
sathyaraj
11-01 10:45 PM
Let us assume that we have totally 70,000 Nurses pending now.
a. PD <= 2006 is 10000
b. PD > 2006 is 60000
This would not help much of ppl waiting in EB3 with PD earlier than Nov 2006 bcoz it takes only 10,000 of their queue. But it really helps the ppl with PD > 2006.
Also it depends on whether 7% country limit is applicable. It would help RoW better than retrogressed countries.
In either case, it is a win-win situation for EB3 India 61,000 * .07 = 4270. Still it is worth of about 1 yr worth of EB3 visas for retrogressed countries.
Any thoughts or corrections?
Could you please explay why is that? What if there are nurses with PD 2002, 03, 04 or 05
a. PD <= 2006 is 10000
b. PD > 2006 is 60000
This would not help much of ppl waiting in EB3 with PD earlier than Nov 2006 bcoz it takes only 10,000 of their queue. But it really helps the ppl with PD > 2006.
Also it depends on whether 7% country limit is applicable. It would help RoW better than retrogressed countries.
In either case, it is a win-win situation for EB3 India 61,000 * .07 = 4270. Still it is worth of about 1 yr worth of EB3 visas for retrogressed countries.
Any thoughts or corrections?
Could you please explay why is that? What if there are nurses with PD 2002, 03, 04 or 05
more...
looivy
05-03 08:04 PM
Hi All,
Need help to determine what should I do.
I stayed in India for a month but since my application did not clear, I entered USA on AP because my boss was getting mad that I had to extend my vacation and I did not want to risk losing my job.
Mumbai consulate has now sent me an email saying that admin processing has been completed (after more than 60 days ) and are asking me to submit my passport. BTW, the DOS in DC still says my app is pending admin processing.
I am in USA now as a parolee. Should I go ahead and send my passport to India and get it stamped and have it sent back to USA through a friend.
Please advise.
Thanks.
Need help to determine what should I do.
I stayed in India for a month but since my application did not clear, I entered USA on AP because my boss was getting mad that I had to extend my vacation and I did not want to risk losing my job.
Mumbai consulate has now sent me an email saying that admin processing has been completed (after more than 60 days ) and are asking me to submit my passport. BTW, the DOS in DC still says my app is pending admin processing.
I am in USA now as a parolee. Should I go ahead and send my passport to India and get it stamped and have it sent back to USA through a friend.
Please advise.
Thanks.
Adam
08-27 04:50 PM
Don't feel too left out, I have no idea either :lol:
those Calvin and Hobbes are great!
those Calvin and Hobbes are great!
more...
deepikak
03-25 04:50 PM
I have voted for all the questions posted on legal immigration which speaks about our issues.
Please do participate , this is a golden chance to get our voice heard.
I have also posted a question about the same , you can also vote for this question.
Legal immigrants pay more taxes with no benefits ,waiting for GC for more than 10 +yrs ,aspiring to own a home with their savings but cant buy as they cant get GC .do something like visa recapture, allow us to file for AOS irespective of their PD."
Indian, atlanta,ga:)
Please do participate , this is a golden chance to get our voice heard.
I have also posted a question about the same , you can also vote for this question.
Legal immigrants pay more taxes with no benefits ,waiting for GC for more than 10 +yrs ,aspiring to own a home with their savings but cant buy as they cant get GC .do something like visa recapture, allow us to file for AOS irespective of their PD."
Indian, atlanta,ga:)
jediknight
03-26 01:57 AM
I voted up the Immigration questions.
Looks like the Anti-Immigration folks are trying to vote down our questions.
- JK
Looks like the Anti-Immigration folks are trying to vote down our questions.
- JK
more...
xbohdpukc
09-25 11:59 AM
The Immigration Nationality Act does not say specifically that h4 time is added towards h1 time. It is the way laws interpreted by uscis that states h4 time counted towards H1. USCIS can change their interpretation by merely issuing a memo.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but my assumption would be that this is cannot be changed by an USCIS memo. Why? Because H4 is simply a derivative status which means that it obeys all the rules pertinent to the primary beneficiary's status plus additional restrictions imposed to the particular classification by law. H status is restricted to 6 year continuous presence in the US.
It would be helpful to find the definition of a derivative status; INA does not provide such definition, but I'm sure they wouldn't be using these words loosely without a proper definition.
So my guess would be is that the answer to the question of "decoupling" H4 and H1b time will boil down to the answer to another question: what really defines a derivative status.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
I'm not a lawyer, but my assumption would be that this is cannot be changed by an USCIS memo. Why? Because H4 is simply a derivative status which means that it obeys all the rules pertinent to the primary beneficiary's status plus additional restrictions imposed to the particular classification by law. H status is restricted to 6 year continuous presence in the US.
It would be helpful to find the definition of a derivative status; INA does not provide such definition, but I'm sure they wouldn't be using these words loosely without a proper definition.
So my guess would be is that the answer to the question of "decoupling" H4 and H1b time will boil down to the answer to another question: what really defines a derivative status.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
milind70
07-24 08:37 PM
Hello,
I have an unfortunate situation. My parents names are misspelled in the Birth certificate compared to the Passport parents name page. Do we need to submit the parents names page of the passport when we submit our documents for 485 ?? Please let me know if this will be a problem and if there is a work around for this ??
Also if I have a Birth certificate (with my actual full name - dated in 2007 though), do I need to submit the affidavits ??
Thanks
It would be better to get affidavits from your parents ,if u submit without affidavits u might get a RFE and this might delaying your process.
I have an unfortunate situation. My parents names are misspelled in the Birth certificate compared to the Passport parents name page. Do we need to submit the parents names page of the passport when we submit our documents for 485 ?? Please let me know if this will be a problem and if there is a work around for this ??
Also if I have a Birth certificate (with my actual full name - dated in 2007 though), do I need to submit the affidavits ??
Thanks
It would be better to get affidavits from your parents ,if u submit without affidavits u might get a RFE and this might delaying your process.
KanME
12-26 12:15 PM
Thanks for reply... that clears things a little. :)
more...
zofa30
09-13 02:16 PM
Hi,
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
I am on Eb-2+PERM and get my PERM and wait for I-140 to be approved (by premium processing). I have 2 questions:
1-If I my I-140 is approved but even though the PD (or visa number) is not available. If I left to a new employer can I port my PD when they then become available or if my employer revoke my I-140 I will also lose the chance or porting the PD to my new GC application (PERM + I-140) with the new employer?
2- How much time I could save by porting my PD? does it depend on country of origin?
Thanks.
singhv_1980
01-22 06:54 PM
Buddy! I am not too sure about that. But according to my understanding security check is an optional thing depending on the job profile but this PIMS is for everyone. I am not too sure how long is the delay because of PIMS in Toronto. But ppl in India have waited on an average for 2 weeks. Again, some of them got their visa right away also. So, you may wanna call consulate and ask them if you are stuck coz of PIMS or also for additional security checks.
But in the end, I can say..dont worry! hang on there...you are not alone in this.
But in the end, I can say..dont worry! hang on there...you are not alone in this.
more...
trueguy
08-08 06:18 PM
^^^^^^^
bump
^^^^^^^
bump
^^^^^^^
pbojja
08-04 04:18 PM
[QUOTE=aamchimumbai;266413]All,
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
What makes you think I-140/485 July filers are lucky ? Our cases are straight forward and we are able to file in July 07 .
I m sorry to be little rude but you can just post a question with out mentioning how lucky others are or not .
I feel that those who concurrently filed I-140/485 in July 2007 are very lucky!
What makes you think I-140/485 July filers are lucky ? Our cases are straight forward and we are able to file in July 07 .
I m sorry to be little rude but you can just post a question with out mentioning how lucky others are or not .
austinsamb
05-12 09:53 AM
Some people say this is 6 months, I am not sure and I have been asking on various forums but haven't received a concrete answer yet.
I travelled out of country last year for few days and got back on November 2008 and my H1 Visa expired on March 2009 (4 months) and I had no problems at the port of entry. I-94 was valid till H1 expiry date. So I dont think the 6 month rule exists but I'm not sure about the 3 month rule. My renewal H1 was also pending approval during my travel.
I travelled out of country last year for few days and got back on November 2008 and my H1 Visa expired on March 2009 (4 months) and I had no problems at the port of entry. I-94 was valid till H1 expiry date. So I dont think the 6 month rule exists but I'm not sure about the 3 month rule. My renewal H1 was also pending approval during my travel.
jcrajput
09-30 09:53 PM
Here I am planning to send following letter: Please suggest me ASAP if any changes. I really appericiate your feedback.
Director,
US BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
P.O. Box 805887
Chicago, IL 60680-4120
ATTN: CRU Supervisor - Case Improperly Returned (I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status on Behalf of xxxxx (the �Petitioner�) based on an Employment based visa petition (I-140)
Dear Sir or Madam,
This application/petition was filed along with the required fees is being returned to me for the following reason.
Reference: I797C, Notice of Action, Receipt number: xxxx
Notice date: September 20, 2007
�Please resubmit your application with the �Copy of your form-I797, (Notice of Action) if the petition has already been filed or approved. (I-140)�
I believe that my application was sent along with the copy of I-140 and I feel that my case is improperly returned.
Originally I have sent my I-485 application based on JULY 2007 VISA BULLETIN to NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER. Here below is my shipping detail:
FedEx Tracking number xxxx
Ship (P/U) date Jun 30, 2007
Delivery date Jul 2, 2007 7:55 AM
Sign for by: R.WILLIAMS
Delivered to: Shipping/Receiving
Service type: FedEx First Overnight
Packaging type: FedEx Pak
Number of pieces 1
Weight: 1.00 lb.
Shipper Information
xxx
Recipient Information
xxx
I have sent my application with the copy of form I-797, (Notice of Action) which was already field and approved on date March 09, 2007. Here below if the detail for the form I-797 for case type I-140.
Case type: I-140 (IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER)
Receipt number: xxxx
Receipt date: December 11, 2006
Notice Date: March 9, 2007
Priority date: October 4, 2006
Petitioner: xxxx
Beneficiary: xxxx
A # xxx
NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER.
I would like to re-submit this application and I am requesting for processing once again.
Please contact me if you need any further information or assistance. Your kind attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Human Resources Manager
xxxxxxx
Director,
US BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
P.O. Box 805887
Chicago, IL 60680-4120
ATTN: CRU Supervisor - Case Improperly Returned (I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status on Behalf of xxxxx (the �Petitioner�) based on an Employment based visa petition (I-140)
Dear Sir or Madam,
This application/petition was filed along with the required fees is being returned to me for the following reason.
Reference: I797C, Notice of Action, Receipt number: xxxx
Notice date: September 20, 2007
�Please resubmit your application with the �Copy of your form-I797, (Notice of Action) if the petition has already been filed or approved. (I-140)�
I believe that my application was sent along with the copy of I-140 and I feel that my case is improperly returned.
Originally I have sent my I-485 application based on JULY 2007 VISA BULLETIN to NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER. Here below is my shipping detail:
FedEx Tracking number xxxx
Ship (P/U) date Jun 30, 2007
Delivery date Jul 2, 2007 7:55 AM
Sign for by: R.WILLIAMS
Delivered to: Shipping/Receiving
Service type: FedEx First Overnight
Packaging type: FedEx Pak
Number of pieces 1
Weight: 1.00 lb.
Shipper Information
xxx
Recipient Information
xxx
I have sent my application with the copy of form I-797, (Notice of Action) which was already field and approved on date March 09, 2007. Here below if the detail for the form I-797 for case type I-140.
Case type: I-140 (IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER)
Receipt number: xxxx
Receipt date: December 11, 2006
Notice Date: March 9, 2007
Priority date: October 4, 2006
Petitioner: xxxx
Beneficiary: xxxx
A # xxx
NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER.
I would like to re-submit this application and I am requesting for processing once again.
Please contact me if you need any further information or assistance. Your kind attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Human Resources Manager
xxxxxxx
kaisersose
08-29 09:22 PM
Un"un: Unknown :)
No comments:
Post a Comment