royus77
06-18 12:39 PM
babu123
When had filed my I140 I did send my coworkers reference letter ...yet i got a rfe requesting for employer's experience letter..
Make sure that your co-worker is the one who you reported rather than a peer .It will fetch a lot .
When had filed my I140 I did send my coworkers reference letter ...yet i got a rfe requesting for employer's experience letter..
Make sure that your co-worker is the one who you reported rather than a peer .It will fetch a lot .
wallpaper David Henrie Official Website
mnq1979
09-21 07:38 AM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
karanp25
06-16 05:33 PM
Start off your infopass with the following question.
I am really desperate....would you help me, pretty please? ........
And then proceed with the other questions you have on your list.
After you are done with all your questions and assuming USCIS hasn't kicked you out of their office, make it clear that you want USCIS to look at your application before others ahead of you in the queue. If they don't, "you will be back" for another infopass.
I am really desperate....would you help me, pretty please? ........
And then proceed with the other questions you have on your list.
After you are done with all your questions and assuming USCIS hasn't kicked you out of their office, make it clear that you want USCIS to look at your application before others ahead of you in the queue. If they don't, "you will be back" for another infopass.
2011 david-henrie-time-for-heroes-7
needhelp!
12-31 12:15 PM
This year is going to be a memorable one.
more...
VDaminator
06-05 04:29 PM
Aright here ya go
willwin
07-09 10:07 AM
It is untrue that IV does not care for CP filers.
One should not blame IV for not taking up a cause. IV is everyone. Core team is simply assisting the community in the general management of the organization. It is the community that powers all efforts.
We have had mostly AOS members till now and thus the focus has been on AOS. If you wanted CP in the tracker, let us know and we will add it.It is a minor issue. We haven't had anyone telling us till now or even telling us the bugs in the tracker so that we can improve it.
If you feel strongly that this is a genuine problem for CP filers, and everyone stuck in it can present compelling case for it, please feel free to lead the effort. IV will help you with guidance. Recently several members stuck in Perm audit delays approached IV and they took the initiative to start a campaign. I think this is how IV should evolve for future so that people can help themselves using this platform. IV is willing to help anyone stuck in the EB immigration system. Could you find more people like yourself stuck in CP filing in one place on this forum and discuss amongst yourself various ideas and strategies to find a solution to the problem. IV core will be available for guidance and advice.
Pappu,
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate that.
I said IV doesn't care for CP filers because there are no provision for CP filers in IV's agenda (ofcourse, efforts like recapturing would help CP filers in a big way) as most of the efforts were targeted at AOS. I am not blaming but just requesting that CP filers are also included whenever IV core think about big picture.
All that we need is a safety net like EAD. Else, if several years of wait on GC were to go waste, it would be a disaster.
From what you said, looks like there are very few CP filers who visit this forum (and ofcourse, there is a reason why, hardly anything for them here), however, I would try to see if I could gain some mass here.
Thanks again!
One should not blame IV for not taking up a cause. IV is everyone. Core team is simply assisting the community in the general management of the organization. It is the community that powers all efforts.
We have had mostly AOS members till now and thus the focus has been on AOS. If you wanted CP in the tracker, let us know and we will add it.It is a minor issue. We haven't had anyone telling us till now or even telling us the bugs in the tracker so that we can improve it.
If you feel strongly that this is a genuine problem for CP filers, and everyone stuck in it can present compelling case for it, please feel free to lead the effort. IV will help you with guidance. Recently several members stuck in Perm audit delays approached IV and they took the initiative to start a campaign. I think this is how IV should evolve for future so that people can help themselves using this platform. IV is willing to help anyone stuck in the EB immigration system. Could you find more people like yourself stuck in CP filing in one place on this forum and discuss amongst yourself various ideas and strategies to find a solution to the problem. IV core will be available for guidance and advice.
Pappu,
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate that.
I said IV doesn't care for CP filers because there are no provision for CP filers in IV's agenda (ofcourse, efforts like recapturing would help CP filers in a big way) as most of the efforts were targeted at AOS. I am not blaming but just requesting that CP filers are also included whenever IV core think about big picture.
All that we need is a safety net like EAD. Else, if several years of wait on GC were to go waste, it would be a disaster.
From what you said, looks like there are very few CP filers who visit this forum (and ofcourse, there is a reason why, hardly anything for them here), however, I would try to see if I could gain some mass here.
Thanks again!
more...
H1bslave
11-14 10:27 AM
At the time of 485 approval if future employer (B) is responging to RFE then yes you must work for long-term with B, however, in today's world 6 months is considered long-term.
Well, are you sure I would need to work for this "future employer" for 6 months?
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
Well, are you sure I would need to work for this "future employer" for 6 months?
AC21 does not have a limit on the number of times you switch employers. Technically, if you were working for Employer A at the time of the RFE and submit a EVL from Employer A, you could then switch to Employer B immediately on AC21. In this scenario, I haven't worked with A for 6 months.
Is this scenario different because A is not a future employer?
2010 Posted in David Henrie
manand24
10-22 09:34 AM
See Signature
more...
WillIBLucky
11-17 11:54 AM
Yes, 2007 will be the best chance we would have. After that its all political stunt as we saw this year before elections.
I sincerely hope I am wrong in this assumption.
I sincerely hope I am wrong in this assumption.
hair David Henrie Actor David
aadimanav
06-22 12:25 AM
Source:
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
06/21/2009: CIR and What's Ahead
On Friday, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs officially announced that the President was scheduled to call a small group of Congressional leaders and political leaders to the White House to open a dialogue on CIR next Thursday, 06/25/2009. Troublesome was another statement that recognizes the facts by the Press Secretary at the same press conference that the Congress did not have enough numbers to pass a CIR legislation. As we reported earlier, for a CIR to pass the Congress, it should pass both the Senate and the House. However, it is the House that lacks enough numbers at this time to pass a CIR legislation this year. There are a plenty of House legislators who represent districts that are politically not affected by the Hispanic population and their political pressures. These legislators usually form a group of Democratic represenstives who are either conservative and middle of the road in the political ideology. The situation tends to be different when it comes to the Senate that is consisted of legislators based on their statewide consistuencies as opposed to the House representatives that represent small neighborhood and district constituencies. The Senators' decisions are thus derived more from broader national political or statewide political issues and interests of the whole party. For this reasons, for the past several years, the Senate initiated and was able to pass CIR bills which have ended up in the ditch when it moved to the House floor. The background behind the Press Secretary's announcement downplaying the potential success of CIR within this year is their motivation to control unrealistic rise of expectation in the CIR supporting community on the President's initiatives that can also end up in another ditch with potential negative political fall-outs to his political leadership. The current politcal landscape and environment then raise two questions. The first question is whether the President and the Democratic Congress will have enough energy and zeal to successfuly change the existing political landscape, particularly in the House of Representatives, within such a limited time within this year. The Congress will soon go into the Summer recess and the remaining legislative days in the Congressional calendar for 2009 are very limited. The second question is why then Senate Majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, has been spinning in media on his agenda to take up a CIR bill this fall with the full realization of political reality that can be ditched again in the House. It appears that part of such spinning is related to his own political future. His seat in the Senate will be up for reelection in the national mid-term election in 2010 and he needs a strong support from the Hispanic constituency in the State of Nevada. The Hispanic population has been rapidly growing durng the past several years in the State of Nevada. His push for a CIR will achieve his political calculation, no matter whether the bill will pass or fail in the Senate. Again, the chance for a CIR passing the Senate in 2009 is indeed very good as the chance for Senate Democrats pulling together 60 votes may turn realistic, particularly as affected by the final result of the current Senate election dispute in the State of Minnesota. In the very near future, the Minnesota Supreme Court is likely to hand down a decision sustaining the election of Mr. Al Franken, a progressive Democrat, as the next Senator, over the conservative former(?) Senator Norm Coleman. For the discussion per se, let's assume that the CIR fails to pass either in the Senate or in the House. The Senator Harry Reid will still get all the credits in his Hispanic constituency in the State of Nevada for his initiatives in the Senate to legislate a CIR!
All in all, year 2009 will turn out to be the only year that can pass a CIR because this is a so-called leap-year when there is no national reelection and the House members will be less affected by their activities this year. The key is whether the President Obama will have enough energy, steam, and polical motive to make a full-court pressing and arm-twisting of the conservative Democratic members in the House within a "very" short period of time, within this Summer or early fall at the latest. Currently, his and Democrats' top two reform agenda stay with the nation's health care and energy reforms. Until we see such full dedication and commitment of the President to the CIR within a given time, one should not raise the level of his/her hope or expectation too high as it will indeed bring out really devastating frustration and hopelessness in 2010 in that considering the November 2010 mid-year election, the chance for CIR next year will turn out to be very slim because of the rerunnng Democrats in the election from small districts that are not affected by the Hispanic political pressures. Until we see such solid momentum and heat of passion on the part of the President leading to quick actions in the near future, all the media campaign and spinning of news by the White House and the Senator Reid may have to be taken with caution and discount.
The Oh Law Firm (http://www.immigration-law.com/)
06/21/2009: CIR and What's Ahead
On Friday, Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs officially announced that the President was scheduled to call a small group of Congressional leaders and political leaders to the White House to open a dialogue on CIR next Thursday, 06/25/2009. Troublesome was another statement that recognizes the facts by the Press Secretary at the same press conference that the Congress did not have enough numbers to pass a CIR legislation. As we reported earlier, for a CIR to pass the Congress, it should pass both the Senate and the House. However, it is the House that lacks enough numbers at this time to pass a CIR legislation this year. There are a plenty of House legislators who represent districts that are politically not affected by the Hispanic population and their political pressures. These legislators usually form a group of Democratic represenstives who are either conservative and middle of the road in the political ideology. The situation tends to be different when it comes to the Senate that is consisted of legislators based on their statewide consistuencies as opposed to the House representatives that represent small neighborhood and district constituencies. The Senators' decisions are thus derived more from broader national political or statewide political issues and interests of the whole party. For this reasons, for the past several years, the Senate initiated and was able to pass CIR bills which have ended up in the ditch when it moved to the House floor. The background behind the Press Secretary's announcement downplaying the potential success of CIR within this year is their motivation to control unrealistic rise of expectation in the CIR supporting community on the President's initiatives that can also end up in another ditch with potential negative political fall-outs to his political leadership. The current politcal landscape and environment then raise two questions. The first question is whether the President and the Democratic Congress will have enough energy and zeal to successfuly change the existing political landscape, particularly in the House of Representatives, within such a limited time within this year. The Congress will soon go into the Summer recess and the remaining legislative days in the Congressional calendar for 2009 are very limited. The second question is why then Senate Majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, has been spinning in media on his agenda to take up a CIR bill this fall with the full realization of political reality that can be ditched again in the House. It appears that part of such spinning is related to his own political future. His seat in the Senate will be up for reelection in the national mid-term election in 2010 and he needs a strong support from the Hispanic constituency in the State of Nevada. The Hispanic population has been rapidly growing durng the past several years in the State of Nevada. His push for a CIR will achieve his political calculation, no matter whether the bill will pass or fail in the Senate. Again, the chance for a CIR passing the Senate in 2009 is indeed very good as the chance for Senate Democrats pulling together 60 votes may turn realistic, particularly as affected by the final result of the current Senate election dispute in the State of Minnesota. In the very near future, the Minnesota Supreme Court is likely to hand down a decision sustaining the election of Mr. Al Franken, a progressive Democrat, as the next Senator, over the conservative former(?) Senator Norm Coleman. For the discussion per se, let's assume that the CIR fails to pass either in the Senate or in the House. The Senator Harry Reid will still get all the credits in his Hispanic constituency in the State of Nevada for his initiatives in the Senate to legislate a CIR!
All in all, year 2009 will turn out to be the only year that can pass a CIR because this is a so-called leap-year when there is no national reelection and the House members will be less affected by their activities this year. The key is whether the President Obama will have enough energy, steam, and polical motive to make a full-court pressing and arm-twisting of the conservative Democratic members in the House within a "very" short period of time, within this Summer or early fall at the latest. Currently, his and Democrats' top two reform agenda stay with the nation's health care and energy reforms. Until we see such full dedication and commitment of the President to the CIR within a given time, one should not raise the level of his/her hope or expectation too high as it will indeed bring out really devastating frustration and hopelessness in 2010 in that considering the November 2010 mid-year election, the chance for CIR next year will turn out to be very slim because of the rerunnng Democrats in the election from small districts that are not affected by the Hispanic political pressures. Until we see such solid momentum and heat of passion on the part of the President leading to quick actions in the near future, all the media campaign and spinning of news by the White House and the Senator Reid may have to be taken with caution and discount.
more...
MunnaBhai
12-21 10:48 AM
If you are from a minority community then she might help. Following her papa and UPA Govt.'s policies
:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D
hot David Henrie
kaisersose
12-07 12:05 PM
A lot of folks are planning to leave the original sponsor after 180 days. My question is, is there any harm in quitting after 6 months as compared to say 9 months or a year? Would USCIS look infavorably on my application if I quit as soon as the AC21 can kick in? Would quitting after a few more months be any better?
Thanks in advance
There is no gain in waiting longer.
What is AC21? It exists due to immigration rules of limited PDs and backlogs which prolong the processing time of a 485 beyond 180 days. Since these delays are caused by their system, they have provided the option of switching employers as long as certain criteria is met.
As long as you meet the critieria you are all set. Waiting longer without meeting the criteria will be of no use and if you meet all the requirements of AC21, there is no reason to wait.
Thanks in advance
There is no gain in waiting longer.
What is AC21? It exists due to immigration rules of limited PDs and backlogs which prolong the processing time of a 485 beyond 180 days. Since these delays are caused by their system, they have provided the option of switching employers as long as certain criteria is met.
As long as you meet the critieria you are all set. Waiting longer without meeting the criteria will be of no use and if you meet all the requirements of AC21, there is no reason to wait.
more...
house David looking great
greencardfever5
08-24 01:18 AM
poorslumdog,
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
tattoo David Henrie Getting A House
sathishav
03-07 09:51 AM
Once you I140 is approved, you lock the PD. Only time you lose it is, if USCIS cancels it for fraud.
Else, layoff or revocation does not matter. You just have to start another new PERM again.
Else, layoff or revocation does not matter. You just have to start another new PERM again.
more...
pictures Selena Gomez amp; David Henrie
Templarian
04-23 04:42 PM
^I didn't even know if it was relevant when i remembered the "SDL", i just remember my bro talking about it once. But that was a very long time ago.
Maybe as your learning you could write up some very simple step by step tutorials for beginning the use of SDL.
Maybe as your learning you could write up some very simple step by step tutorials for beginning the use of SDL.
dresses Hottie David Henrie
s.m.srinivas
03-31 01:58 PM
Hi All,
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
I had H1B of Company A. This H1B expires in this September 2009. In May 2008, I got a good offer from Company B, and they applied for "Transfer of my H1B". Since June 4th 2008, I started working for Company B with the receipt in Hand. Since From June 3rd 2008, till Feb 2009, my case was in pending status. On Feb 13th 2009, USCIS did put RFE for some documents about Company B. During that period, I had emergency to travel to India, so I did go to India for 3 weeks, returned back on March 12th with old employer (Company A's) VISA only, as it is still valid till sept 2009 & more over my case of transfering visa to Company B is still on Pending status. After I returned back, Company B did reply to RFE & I got a email from USCIS saying that they have received it on March 23rd 2009. On March 30th I received one more email from USCIS, saying that my H1B transfer is denied & the denial notice will have the reason as well as options for you. Still I am yet to receive the denial notice.
With these things on board I have following questions
Am I out of status?
Company A visa is valid till september 2009, so can I go back to Company A?
If Yes, then if I go back to Company A, can I apply for Extension from them freshly with premium processing or something
What is the chances that Company B appeal for the denial and get it stamped in these situation?
What are my other options?
Please do suggest me, as I believe as soon as I receive the notice formally to company B, I need to seize working and I will out of status with immediate effect. The time I have is to adjust things is between today & the day I receive the denial notice...
more...
makeup Selena Gomez at David henrie
GCDelay
11-30 03:21 PM
xxx
girlfriend David Henrie Writes An Episode
plassey
07-23 10:41 PM
I think, he should run for his life from his in laws now...:)
with a GC already fatest option might be to go to Mahabaleshwar for some honeymoon:)
with a GC already fatest option might be to go to Mahabaleshwar for some honeymoon:)
hairstyles David Henrie of Wizards of
GCBy3000
12-28 12:56 PM
My friend who filed his 485 in June, got his GC two months back. His PD was 2001. How did he get his GC within 3 months of filing 485 when the 485 processing time not even showed June 07 till now?
These dates are for mere reporting purposes. I think even if they have one application with 1999 date, they might show 1999 as processing date. With my experience with these dates and USCIS, I cannot figure out the rationale behind these reports from USCIS. Someone might be sitting there in USCIS with 20-30 randomn dates and play inky... pinky...ponky... father ...has a.. donkey... bla bla bla and then pick a date for this report. All BS.
These dates are for mere reporting purposes. I think even if they have one application with 1999 date, they might show 1999 as processing date. With my experience with these dates and USCIS, I cannot figure out the rationale behind these reports from USCIS. Someone might be sitting there in USCIS with 20-30 randomn dates and play inky... pinky...ponky... father ...has a.. donkey... bla bla bla and then pick a date for this report. All BS.
msyedy
12-13 12:35 PM
Cons
(a) How many EB visas will they increase in CIR?...
(b) Will they allow you to file I-485 before your visa number is available.
(c) How stable would be your job be in comming years
(d) What year of your H1 B are you in.
1) If you do not have a problem in H1b extension then.. new Perm Labor in 6 months... (a) I-140 in one month if premium ---- b) if they say no premium you have to wait, how long can't say)
1a) favourable ... 1b) -- ?????
2) If Eb numbers increase a) allow you to file I-485 to get EAD.
b) Eb num increases but no I-485 until date becomes current.
2a) will get you EAD, WIFE can get a job anywhere.. no travel problems and extensions.
2b -- opposite to 2a
3) Job at this company or Green Card. a) You want green card quicker as EB2 will move faster than EB3 even if USCIS don't allow you to file I-485 is
current.
b) If dont care about the earlier issues and are happy to stick with the new job and feel you will be at this place then
Your decision....
I may be wrong but I need GC quicker
(a) How many EB visas will they increase in CIR?...
(b) Will they allow you to file I-485 before your visa number is available.
(c) How stable would be your job be in comming years
(d) What year of your H1 B are you in.
1) If you do not have a problem in H1b extension then.. new Perm Labor in 6 months... (a) I-140 in one month if premium ---- b) if they say no premium you have to wait, how long can't say)
1a) favourable ... 1b) -- ?????
2) If Eb numbers increase a) allow you to file I-485 to get EAD.
b) Eb num increases but no I-485 until date becomes current.
2a) will get you EAD, WIFE can get a job anywhere.. no travel problems and extensions.
2b -- opposite to 2a
3) Job at this company or Green Card. a) You want green card quicker as EB2 will move faster than EB3 even if USCIS don't allow you to file I-485 is
current.
b) If dont care about the earlier issues and are happy to stick with the new job and feel you will be at this place then
Your decision....
I may be wrong but I need GC quicker
needhelp!
03-10 03:00 PM
What is FOIA?
Freedom Of Information Act
See this: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22037
Freedom Of Information Act
See this: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22037
No comments:
Post a Comment