HRPRO
02-09 01:31 PM
You will have to file an amended petition to be in compliance.
The PW could be different and you can check that on the OES website at flcdatacenter.com
Hope this helps.
The PW could be different and you can check that on the OES website at flcdatacenter.com
Hope this helps.
xela
11-13 09:26 AM
so in August there were 3999 waiting in 2001, 2075 in 2002, 4769 in 2003 and 6370 in 2004 then in 2005 its 14 678.....
so really we should be in 2003 by now............
so really we should be in 2003 by now............
techbuyer77
06-12 07:26 PM
evl is employment veriication letter
My new employer does not do any type of sponsorship and I was going to go to the previous employer, but they are not doing very good now:(
My new employer does not do any type of sponsorship and I was going to go to the previous employer, but they are not doing very good now:(
posmd
03-19 10:13 PM
Can one of you guys tell me what is the policy of the OK secretary of state on Drivers licenses for the various legal immigration statuses eg H1b, EAD with approved 140, F1 etc.?
I'm considering a move there and would appreciate your feedback.
I'm considering a move there and would appreciate your feedback.
more...
ajkastar
07-27 01:32 PM
Hi,
We are in a peculiar situation regarding our FP. Did you take your FP taken? If so, did you get your file updated sometime after FP was completed? When you gave FP the last time, do you whether they had processed it before the approval?
We had to postpone our 2nd FP in May and gave our prints only in the end of June. I heard that such cases get into delays or problems. The first time over, our FPs were cleared in a week.
Your response will be appreciated. Thanks.
Thank you!
Yes I had my 1st fingerprints done in 2003 and 2nd in 2006. Status was updated for first but not for second firgerprints.
We are in a peculiar situation regarding our FP. Did you take your FP taken? If so, did you get your file updated sometime after FP was completed? When you gave FP the last time, do you whether they had processed it before the approval?
We had to postpone our 2nd FP in May and gave our prints only in the end of June. I heard that such cases get into delays or problems. The first time over, our FPs were cleared in a week.
Your response will be appreciated. Thanks.
Thank you!
Yes I had my 1st fingerprints done in 2003 and 2nd in 2006. Status was updated for first but not for second firgerprints.
sledge_hammer
06-09 05:37 PM
Write a letter to the employer explaining that you need to get paid. Attach a copy of the timesheets and all other documets for proof. Send this via registered mail. Give him some time to respond, if he doesn't, then file a complaint with DOL.
Dear Viewers
Could anyone please advice me on how to claim the unpaid salary from the previous employers.
I was working for a company based in Michigan run by an Indian. This person did not pay me my last month salary. He does not pick up his phone or respond to my email. I have all the proof that my client has paid him the money for which I worked but he continue to ignore my request. This guy owes me around 5000 dollars.
Any piece of advice would be of great help.
Dear Viewers
Could anyone please advice me on how to claim the unpaid salary from the previous employers.
I was working for a company based in Michigan run by an Indian. This person did not pay me my last month salary. He does not pick up his phone or respond to my email. I have all the proof that my client has paid him the money for which I worked but he continue to ignore my request. This guy owes me around 5000 dollars.
Any piece of advice would be of great help.
more...
raffu001
01-31 11:22 AM
While entering the USA in Aug 2007 the Immigration office gave me I-94 validity till June 2008 which is equal to my H1-B Visa Stamp validity in passport, I had my new I-797 H1-B document from new employer with valid I-94 at the bottom till Sep 2009.
Will the I-94 validity given by immigration officer over rules the I-797 I-94 validity. If so, can i apply for the extension. Or shall i go out of the country and while entering ask the immigration officer to give validity based on my new I-797.
Thanks in advance.
Will the I-94 validity given by immigration officer over rules the I-797 I-94 validity. If so, can i apply for the extension. Or shall i go out of the country and while entering ask the immigration officer to give validity based on my new I-797.
Thanks in advance.
a_yaja
01-08 09:25 PM
free "EAD and AP" for life what are you talking about??
People who filed I-485 after the July fiasco (starting with the August 2007 bulletin) paid a higher initial fee ($1010) - but they don't have to pay any EAD & AP fee - either the first time or for any renewals.
Look at the "Special instructions" sections of the following URL:
http://www.uscis.gov/i-485
People who filed I-485 after the July fiasco (starting with the August 2007 bulletin) paid a higher initial fee ($1010) - but they don't have to pay any EAD & AP fee - either the first time or for any renewals.
Look at the "Special instructions" sections of the following URL:
http://www.uscis.gov/i-485
more...
ssdtm
12-11 04:49 PM
Here is good thread that answers most of your questions
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1129&page=6
http://www.immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1129&page=6
Ennada
01-29 11:05 PM
Legalizing unauthorized immigrants would help economy, study says - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/07/immigration.economy/index.html#cnnSTCText)
Washington (CNN) -- Legalization of the more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate more tax revenue, two policy institutes say in a joint report Thursday.
The report by the Center for American Progress and the American Immigration Council estimates that "comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes currently unauthorized immigrants and creates flexible legal limits on future immigration" would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over a 10-year period.
"This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current 'vicious cycle' where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a 'virtuous cycle' of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages," study author Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
The study looks at three scenarios: deportation of undocumented workers, temporary worker programs and legalization of the current undocumented population. Deportation would lead to a loss of $2.6 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, the report says, while a worker program would lead to a gain of $792 billion. Full legalization would lead to the best economic results, the study says.
Other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say that unfettered immigration harms the United States and that entry into the nation must remain limited.
When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority in his administration, but the issue has been sidelined by health care reform efforts in Congress, the weak economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are indications, however, that the Obama administration aims to revive immigration reform efforts in Congress this year.
The study bases many of its conclusions on an examination of what happened after passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to 3 million unauthorized immigrants.
A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report found that 56 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 were from Mexico, a total of about 6.2 million unauthorized immigrants.
About 2.5 million unauthorized migrants, or 22 percent of the total, came from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America, the Pew Hispanic Center study found.
Of the remaining illegal immigrants, about 13 percent were from Asia, and 3 percent were from Canada and Europe, the Pew study said.
The report released Thursday says U.S. enforcement efforts -- mainly along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- are costly and ineffective.
"The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically since the early 1990s despite equally dramatic increases in the amount of money the federal government spends on immigration enforcement," study author Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
According to the report, the U.S. Border Patrol says its annual budget has increased by 714 percent since 1992, from $326.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in fiscal 2009. And the cost ratio of Border Patrol expenditures to apprehensions has increased by 1,041 percent, from $272 per apprehension in 1992 to $3,102 in 2008.
Similarly, the Border Patrol says the number of agents along the border with Mexico has grown by 390 percent, from 3,555 in fiscal 1992 to 17,415 in 2009.
"Yet the unauthorized immigrant population of the United States has roughly tripled in size over the past two decades, from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008," the report says, noting that illegal immigration appears to have declined slightly since 2007 as a result of the global recession.
The report points out that a long-term study conducted by the University of California, San Diego, found that 92 to 98 percent of unauthorized immigrants keep trying to cross the border until they succeed.
Increased enforcement has several unintended consequences, such as making the Southwestern border more lethal by channeling migrants through remote and rugged mountain and desert areas, the study found. The number of border-crossing deaths doubled in the decade after increased border enforcement started, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report said.
An October 2009 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights estimates that 5,607 migrants died while crossing the border between 1994 and 2008.
Tightened borders also have created new opportunities for people smugglers, who charged an average $2,000 to $3,000 per person in 2006, the study said. Ninety percent of illegal immigrants now hire smugglers, according to the report.
An examination of trends after the 1986 immigration reform law shows that legalization of unauthorized immigrants has benefits, the report says. Legalized workers earned more, moved on to better jobs and invested more in their education so they could get higher pay and better jobs.
A previous study found that "the wages of unauthorized workers are generally unrelated to their actual skill level," Thursday's report said.
"Unauthorized workers tend to be concentrated in the lowest-wage occupations; they try to minimize the risk of deportation even if this means working for lower wages; and they are especially vulnerable to outright exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Once unauthorized workers are legalized, however, these artificial barriers to upward socioeconomic mobility disappear."
Study author Hinojosa-Ojeda is founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The self-described progressive Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational think tank headed by John Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, also is a nonpartisan institute.
The report, titled "Raising the Floor for American Workers, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," can be found on the Web.
Washington (CNN) -- Legalization of the more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate more tax revenue, two policy institutes say in a joint report Thursday.
The report by the Center for American Progress and the American Immigration Council estimates that "comprehensive immigration reform that legalizes currently unauthorized immigrants and creates flexible legal limits on future immigration" would yield at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over a 10-year period.
"This is a compelling economic reason to move away from the current 'vicious cycle' where enforcement-only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration and exert downward pressure on already low wages, and toward a 'virtuous cycle' of worker empowerment in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on wages," study author Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
The study looks at three scenarios: deportation of undocumented workers, temporary worker programs and legalization of the current undocumented population. Deportation would lead to a loss of $2.6 trillion in gross domestic product over 10 years, the report says, while a worker program would lead to a gain of $792 billion. Full legalization would lead to the best economic results, the study says.
Other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say that unfettered immigration harms the United States and that entry into the nation must remain limited.
When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that comprehensive immigration reform would be a priority in his administration, but the issue has been sidelined by health care reform efforts in Congress, the weak economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are indications, however, that the Obama administration aims to revive immigration reform efforts in Congress this year.
The study bases many of its conclusions on an examination of what happened after passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to 3 million unauthorized immigrants.
A 2006 Pew Hispanic Center report found that 56 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 were from Mexico, a total of about 6.2 million unauthorized immigrants.
About 2.5 million unauthorized migrants, or 22 percent of the total, came from the rest of Latin America, primarily from Central America, the Pew Hispanic Center study found.
Of the remaining illegal immigrants, about 13 percent were from Asia, and 3 percent were from Canada and Europe, the Pew study said.
The report released Thursday says U.S. enforcement efforts -- mainly along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico -- are costly and ineffective.
"The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically since the early 1990s despite equally dramatic increases in the amount of money the federal government spends on immigration enforcement," study author Hinojosa-Ojeda writes.
According to the report, the U.S. Border Patrol says its annual budget has increased by 714 percent since 1992, from $326.2 million in fiscal year 1992 to $2.7 billion in fiscal 2009. And the cost ratio of Border Patrol expenditures to apprehensions has increased by 1,041 percent, from $272 per apprehension in 1992 to $3,102 in 2008.
Similarly, the Border Patrol says the number of agents along the border with Mexico has grown by 390 percent, from 3,555 in fiscal 1992 to 17,415 in 2009.
"Yet the unauthorized immigrant population of the United States has roughly tripled in size over the past two decades, from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008," the report says, noting that illegal immigration appears to have declined slightly since 2007 as a result of the global recession.
The report points out that a long-term study conducted by the University of California, San Diego, found that 92 to 98 percent of unauthorized immigrants keep trying to cross the border until they succeed.
Increased enforcement has several unintended consequences, such as making the Southwestern border more lethal by channeling migrants through remote and rugged mountain and desert areas, the study found. The number of border-crossing deaths doubled in the decade after increased border enforcement started, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report said.
An October 2009 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights estimates that 5,607 migrants died while crossing the border between 1994 and 2008.
Tightened borders also have created new opportunities for people smugglers, who charged an average $2,000 to $3,000 per person in 2006, the study said. Ninety percent of illegal immigrants now hire smugglers, according to the report.
An examination of trends after the 1986 immigration reform law shows that legalization of unauthorized immigrants has benefits, the report says. Legalized workers earned more, moved on to better jobs and invested more in their education so they could get higher pay and better jobs.
A previous study found that "the wages of unauthorized workers are generally unrelated to their actual skill level," Thursday's report said.
"Unauthorized workers tend to be concentrated in the lowest-wage occupations; they try to minimize the risk of deportation even if this means working for lower wages; and they are especially vulnerable to outright exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Once unauthorized workers are legalized, however, these artificial barriers to upward socioeconomic mobility disappear."
Study author Hinojosa-Ojeda is founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The self-described progressive Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational think tank headed by John Podesta, who was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton.
The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, also is a nonpartisan institute.
The report, titled "Raising the Floor for American Workers, The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," can be found on the Web.
more...
H1bslave
10-23 01:36 PM
Please check you PM.
gc_chahiye
09-24 04:10 PM
Message for USCIS:
PERPETUAL EAD AND AP - STOP STEALING OUR MONEY AND CREATING MORE WORK FOR YOURSELF
they are not stealing your money. The current situation can be explained on the basis of existing laws. Need to be careful about our messaging.
The very fact that all fixes we are asking for are legislative changes implies that the current situation has less to do with USCIS and more with old arcane laws. There are a lot of things USCIS can be accused of, but not 'stealing money'
PERPETUAL EAD AND AP - STOP STEALING OUR MONEY AND CREATING MORE WORK FOR YOURSELF
they are not stealing your money. The current situation can be explained on the basis of existing laws. Need to be careful about our messaging.
The very fact that all fixes we are asking for are legislative changes implies that the current situation has less to do with USCIS and more with old arcane laws. There are a lot of things USCIS can be accused of, but not 'stealing money'
more...
sbdol
07-20 10:18 AM
I got a brilliant idea guys, I am sure it is not new but it looks now is the right time to pursue it.
Apparently it would be very difficult to fight FBI namechek delays. After USCIS was swamped with a pile of cases due to visa retrogression fiasco the processing times most probably will increase significantly. The visa retrogression is going to be reinstated.
Also there is a great injustice to those who had to go through the BEC black hole.
I think everybody agrees that the current green card process is a lottery where winners get everything in a couple of months and losers wait sometimes 10 years. (Yes I know such cases).
So how to fix all this in a way that it would not affect negatively anybody?
The answer might be very simple: Count the time spent waiting in the administration created lines towards citizenship. In other words the 5 year count starts not when one get the green card but from one’s priority date. After all it is not the immigrant's fault that he has the same name as someone who saw a suspicious person on the plane and was questioned by FBI as a witness.
This would PARTIALLY restore justice without punishing anybody.
USCIS will be happy as it would take off some pressure from their delays.
Legislators are happy as more people will be able to vote for them.
Immigration lawyers are happy as the measure would not take away their revenue, in fact it may even increase it.
All those who say in numerous interviews on TV “.. we are a nation of immigrants and we support LEGAL immigration but we do not want amnesty…” are happy or would have to admit that they are happy to save the face.
The current losers in immigration process would automatically catch up (almost) with the luckiest ones.
Immigrationvoice will be happy as I am sure many current waiters and even those who already got their green cards would contribute to support the measure.
Anti immigrants are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not increase the number of immigrants.
Employers are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not affect them in any way.
If immigrationvoice has desire and resources to suggest and support a measure to the legislature it better concentrate on this rather that on something like “… make FBI report namecheck results to the applicants..”.
Of course it would require changes to the current legislature but I cannot imagine that somebody would come out with a sensible reason against it.
Apparently it would be very difficult to fight FBI namechek delays. After USCIS was swamped with a pile of cases due to visa retrogression fiasco the processing times most probably will increase significantly. The visa retrogression is going to be reinstated.
Also there is a great injustice to those who had to go through the BEC black hole.
I think everybody agrees that the current green card process is a lottery where winners get everything in a couple of months and losers wait sometimes 10 years. (Yes I know such cases).
So how to fix all this in a way that it would not affect negatively anybody?
The answer might be very simple: Count the time spent waiting in the administration created lines towards citizenship. In other words the 5 year count starts not when one get the green card but from one’s priority date. After all it is not the immigrant's fault that he has the same name as someone who saw a suspicious person on the plane and was questioned by FBI as a witness.
This would PARTIALLY restore justice without punishing anybody.
USCIS will be happy as it would take off some pressure from their delays.
Legislators are happy as more people will be able to vote for them.
Immigration lawyers are happy as the measure would not take away their revenue, in fact it may even increase it.
All those who say in numerous interviews on TV “.. we are a nation of immigrants and we support LEGAL immigration but we do not want amnesty…” are happy or would have to admit that they are happy to save the face.
The current losers in immigration process would automatically catch up (almost) with the luckiest ones.
Immigrationvoice will be happy as I am sure many current waiters and even those who already got their green cards would contribute to support the measure.
Anti immigrants are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not increase the number of immigrants.
Employers are NOT UNHAPPY since the measure does not affect them in any way.
If immigrationvoice has desire and resources to suggest and support a measure to the legislature it better concentrate on this rather that on something like “… make FBI report namecheck results to the applicants..”.
Of course it would require changes to the current legislature but I cannot imagine that somebody would come out with a sensible reason against it.
lskreddy
08-01 10:24 AM
Thanks for getting IV a media lead.
pls send all contact info to info at immigrationvoice.org
I sent you Matt's info.
pls send all contact info to info at immigrationvoice.org
I sent you Matt's info.
more...
seahawks
07-25 02:01 AM
I'm a new comer... I would like to contribute if I could...but what's IV?
sorry that I was away the past weekend, thus the late reply
IV stands for immigrationvoice.org a forum where we are all writing, sharing our thoughts and helping in whatever ways we can on helping the confused often lengthy process of getting an employment based green card. Check out the home page and you will get all the information on all the wonderful founders, core members, volunteers and ofcourse all the members in whatever way are trying to help raise awareness on the employment immigration problems that we face and to see if we can get the honorable members of the house and senate understand our pain and bring some bill that will make us see light at the end of the legal line of aliens forever waiting for Green Card:)
sorry that I was away the past weekend, thus the late reply
IV stands for immigrationvoice.org a forum where we are all writing, sharing our thoughts and helping in whatever ways we can on helping the confused often lengthy process of getting an employment based green card. Check out the home page and you will get all the information on all the wonderful founders, core members, volunteers and ofcourse all the members in whatever way are trying to help raise awareness on the employment immigration problems that we face and to see if we can get the honorable members of the house and senate understand our pain and bring some bill that will make us see light at the end of the legal line of aliens forever waiting for Green Card:)
va_labor2002
06-16 09:57 AM
why cant we set up a webfax/email for all members to be sent to CNN and FOX like the ones we setup for the senators?
Excellent idea. Please talk to the Core team.
Excellent idea. Please talk to the Core team.
more...
rsharma
10-11 09:08 PM
I am in H1B and more than five years. My employer is a mid size
private Indian company. They start bringing more and more L1B
people and post them in client location. Their LCA is for 55K and they
are paid only 30K even though the billing is in three digit. All the
accomodation, per diem are paid by the client. We are into one of
the XXX product and there is no custom product from our company.
Whats the best way to deal with this guys. Whom should send I the
complaint about this. What they are doing is a complete violation
of law.
So please guide and share you experience.
P.S. If you dont have any information, please stay away. Do not
start the H1 vs L1, Anti-immis troll alert. Thanks for your
understanding. This has nothing to do with the L1 employees.
Dear Friend I totally agree with you. I was with one of these employers and have moved away from them. As suggested by some members you can report about these fraudulent activities to DOL. I know it is dufficult to leave these employers as they make the employees to sign bonds and try to capture all the money that they have acquired in PF etc back in the native country.
These employers are to be blamed for the current economy condition of this country and the condition of immigrants like us.
I know there are some members in this forum who will try to shout you down and make you quite.
But I feel if one believe in what is right then one should go ahead irrespective of what others think.
private Indian company. They start bringing more and more L1B
people and post them in client location. Their LCA is for 55K and they
are paid only 30K even though the billing is in three digit. All the
accomodation, per diem are paid by the client. We are into one of
the XXX product and there is no custom product from our company.
Whats the best way to deal with this guys. Whom should send I the
complaint about this. What they are doing is a complete violation
of law.
So please guide and share you experience.
P.S. If you dont have any information, please stay away. Do not
start the H1 vs L1, Anti-immis troll alert. Thanks for your
understanding. This has nothing to do with the L1 employees.
Dear Friend I totally agree with you. I was with one of these employers and have moved away from them. As suggested by some members you can report about these fraudulent activities to DOL. I know it is dufficult to leave these employers as they make the employees to sign bonds and try to capture all the money that they have acquired in PF etc back in the native country.
These employers are to be blamed for the current economy condition of this country and the condition of immigrants like us.
I know there are some members in this forum who will try to shout you down and make you quite.
But I feel if one believe in what is right then one should go ahead irrespective of what others think.
nousername
05-06 07:36 PM
update your profile first
nhfirefighter13
October 25th, 2004, 10:00 PM
I have a really hard time focusing on the fence in the first two. I would pick three as my favorite but only with a slight lead over four. I actually like the grean in four as it adds a nice variation is color...but I don't like the ceramic thingy.
Nice texture in all of them though.
Nice texture in all of them though.
dingudi
02-20 02:36 PM
Eb2 - India. We filed I140 and then I-485 in July 2007. PD May 2007. Got I-140 approved. EAD / AP approved for me / spouse and Kids. They soft LUD on I-485 after one week of I-140 approval. and My spouse got the RFE.
We just submitted a affidavit during my i485 filing in July as dont have her birth certificate at that time. Now we got RFE for my spouse saying that they need the birth certificate or Non-availability certificate. When we checked with the Birth Registration office, They have the birth certificate but with different Birth date(Her parents changed her Date of Birth during pre-school admission) - Now new DOB is reflected in all her Officical Documents(school vertificate, Passports, Driving License etc) whereas her birth certificate has the original date. Shall I submit the original Birth Certificate alongwith the Affidavit saying the mistake made by her Parents as the response this RFE. Since the Birth certificate is available in the registration office at different date, they refused to provide the non-availability certificate.
Gurus - Please advise.
rbalaji,
If you don't mind sharing can you please give info like, your priority date, which service center your application is being processed.
Looks like they have begun processing applications filed in July 07.
We just submitted a affidavit during my i485 filing in July as dont have her birth certificate at that time. Now we got RFE for my spouse saying that they need the birth certificate or Non-availability certificate. When we checked with the Birth Registration office, They have the birth certificate but with different Birth date(Her parents changed her Date of Birth during pre-school admission) - Now new DOB is reflected in all her Officical Documents(school vertificate, Passports, Driving License etc) whereas her birth certificate has the original date. Shall I submit the original Birth Certificate alongwith the Affidavit saying the mistake made by her Parents as the response this RFE. Since the Birth certificate is available in the registration office at different date, they refused to provide the non-availability certificate.
Gurus - Please advise.
rbalaji,
If you don't mind sharing can you please give info like, your priority date, which service center your application is being processed.
Looks like they have begun processing applications filed in July 07.
roseball
01-07 02:20 PM
I want to apply for my OPT extension. I am currently on 12-month OPT.
I am too close to my deadline. So guys please reply ASAP.
I found 2 contradicting information on USCIS website.. Please help..
USCIS - Instructions for Electronically Filing Form I-765 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c646065d85cee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=9059d9808bcbd010VgnVCM100000d1f1d6a1 RCRD)
Who Is Eligible to e-File This Form
Except for those categories listed above, applicants falling in the categories described in Part 2 of Form I-765 Instructions are eligible for electronic filing.
Category 274a.12(a)
.. Blah Blah Blah
(18) L Spouses
Category 274a.12(c)
(2) Dependent of TECRO E-1 Nonimmigrant
(3)(a) Pre-Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(b) Post Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(c) 17-Month STEM Extension
Allright so this says WE CAN
Now look at this link
USCIS - Application for Employment Authorization (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
Electronic Filing:
Please note that the option to file Form I-765 electronically for the eligibility category (c)(3)(i) has been disabled. The option to file Form I-765 electronically for the new eligibility categories (c)(3)(A), (c)(3)(B), and (c)(3)(C) is currently not available but will be available shortly. When this option becomes available, an update will be posted to this page. The option to file the Form I-765 for the eligibility codes (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) remains in effect.
From above it says, WE CAN'T
Any ideas any one ??
Also my another question is with Form I-765
Question 11. Date you applied for previous EAD ??
OPTIONS:
Notice Date
Receipt Date
StartDate of Previous OPT
ExpiryDate of Previos OPT
Granted Date(How do i know that??)
Received Date
Thank you..
From the above, it seems the option to file F-1 based OPT was available online at some point but for some reasons currently is disabled. So you cannot file online.
I am too close to my deadline. So guys please reply ASAP.
I found 2 contradicting information on USCIS website.. Please help..
USCIS - Instructions for Electronically Filing Form I-765 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c646065d85cee010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=9059d9808bcbd010VgnVCM100000d1f1d6a1 RCRD)
Who Is Eligible to e-File This Form
Except for those categories listed above, applicants falling in the categories described in Part 2 of Form I-765 Instructions are eligible for electronic filing.
Category 274a.12(a)
.. Blah Blah Blah
(18) L Spouses
Category 274a.12(c)
(2) Dependent of TECRO E-1 Nonimmigrant
(3)(a) Pre-Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(b) Post Completion Opt 12 Months
(3)(c) 17-Month STEM Extension
Allright so this says WE CAN
Now look at this link
USCIS - Application for Employment Authorization (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=7d316c0b4c3bf110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD)
Electronic Filing:
Please note that the option to file Form I-765 electronically for the eligibility category (c)(3)(i) has been disabled. The option to file Form I-765 electronically for the new eligibility categories (c)(3)(A), (c)(3)(B), and (c)(3)(C) is currently not available but will be available shortly. When this option becomes available, an update will be posted to this page. The option to file the Form I-765 for the eligibility codes (c)(3)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii) remains in effect.
From above it says, WE CAN'T
Any ideas any one ??
Also my another question is with Form I-765
Question 11. Date you applied for previous EAD ??
OPTIONS:
Notice Date
Receipt Date
StartDate of Previous OPT
ExpiryDate of Previos OPT
Granted Date(How do i know that??)
Received Date
Thank you..
From the above, it seems the option to file F-1 based OPT was available online at some point but for some reasons currently is disabled. So you cannot file online.
No comments:
Post a Comment