140jibjab
01-08 04:36 PM
When you go to get social security # with I797 the Buddas/Buddis at the counter wil ask for the Passport and Stamping..... and just the 797 will not suffice....
laksmi
12-03 08:02 PM
I am also in same boat, I was gathering information on the same and found different solutions.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
1)To be on safer side you can transfer H1B and also invoke AC21 to the new employer, if the new employer is willing to support,
2)If H1B is not revoked by the old employer then Yes , you can work on EAD or H1B for the same old employer
3) since I140 is approved for more then 6 months, you are safe, he may not have options to revoke I140.
4)If you have validity of H1B stamping on your passport then no need of using AP as well to go in and out of country, even after using EAD.
please advice on the same, good questions synergy.
RLNY122004
06-15 10:09 PM
CaliGC,
Here is my interview experience which I attendend at NYC district office on Apr 4th 2006.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=208982
If your case is in service center then I think initiating the service request is as good as taking infopass and going to local office. becasue even if you take infopass and go to local office you will only talk to the information officer on infopass counter which is as good as calling the customre service. But if your case is in the local office then I would suggest you to take infopass and go there. If you are lucky you will get to talk to DAO (immigration officer who would be handling your case) and you may be able to find more info.
I am not sure why my case was transfered for interview. But mine was future employment based labor substitution case so that might be the reason.
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
Here is my interview experience which I attendend at NYC district office on Apr 4th 2006.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=208982
If your case is in service center then I think initiating the service request is as good as taking infopass and going to local office. becasue even if you take infopass and go to local office you will only talk to the information officer on infopass counter which is as good as calling the customre service. But if your case is in the local office then I would suggest you to take infopass and go there. If you are lucky you will get to talk to DAO (immigration officer who would be handling your case) and you may be able to find more info.
I am not sure why my case was transfered for interview. But mine was future employment based labor substitution case so that might be the reason.
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
shaikhshehzadali
12-28 02:04 PM
They were NOT. They just put DEC 14 as the post date but they were NOT available online until yesterday. Now where were you buddy ?
Look for the first news item posted today at : http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Why did u give a negative marking for that?
Look for the first news item posted today at : http://www.immigration-law.com/Canada.html
Why did u give a negative marking for that?
more...
amits
02-04 04:58 PM
I am in Phoenix/Tempe area.
akred
06-02 09:18 PM
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics....
Is Statistics included in "Mathematics"? It is clear that Engineering, Technology and Science cover a lot of majors.
Does anyone have a list of majors included or any other information on this issue?
Thanks.
I posted the list sometime ago. Do a search for "list of stem disciplines" on the forums.
Is Statistics included in "Mathematics"? It is clear that Engineering, Technology and Science cover a lot of majors.
Does anyone have a list of majors included or any other information on this issue?
Thanks.
I posted the list sometime ago. Do a search for "list of stem disciplines" on the forums.
more...
taxila
10-17 03:10 PM
Hi ArunAntonio,
I recently booked a visa appointment for my daughter at Chennai consulate. You need to fill both I-156 and I-157. The problem you are facing may be due to pop up blocking. Disable the pop up blocker for the vfs site. It may work. It worked for me.
All the best.
I recently booked a visa appointment for my daughter at Chennai consulate. You need to fill both I-156 and I-157. The problem you are facing may be due to pop up blocking. Disable the pop up blocker for the vfs site. It may work. It worked for me.
All the best.
lutherpraveen
09-19 06:42 PM
This is called Pork-Barrel politics. It refers to government spending that is intended to benefit a particular politicians view point in return for their political support on a non-related item.
It is unfortunate that we are put in a situation to support an unethical (not illegal though) practise, but bottom line, this ammendment (if passed) will help us.
My personal view is not to piggy-back our provisions with a bill that is either non-related (like the defense appropriation) or a moral opposite (illegal immigration).
It would be so nice that if we have the clout to influence the law makers to have "our own" bill with just our provisions.
I am sure we will achieve that goal with the progress IV is making in that area.
How come a bill which talks about " ....authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense......" can link an amendment which talks about different thing i.e. "..Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas..."
It is unfortunate that we are put in a situation to support an unethical (not illegal though) practise, but bottom line, this ammendment (if passed) will help us.
My personal view is not to piggy-back our provisions with a bill that is either non-related (like the defense appropriation) or a moral opposite (illegal immigration).
It would be so nice that if we have the clout to influence the law makers to have "our own" bill with just our provisions.
I am sure we will achieve that goal with the progress IV is making in that area.
How come a bill which talks about " ....authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense......" can link an amendment which talks about different thing i.e. "..Recapture of Unused Employment-Based Immigrant Visas..."
more...
new_horizon
10-26 07:20 AM
Can someone give the website where I can check the case status? thanks.
glus
10-19 08:18 AM
What do the people in the following circumstance do:
1) Family emergency and they have to travel to India? Is there any way to expedite the advance parole??
2) They get married say in October and return with spouse then? IF they file for I-485 now, isnt the spouse left out unless she/he can come in H1B or F-1 herself?
Hi:
According to the rules, you need to have I485 original receipt at the time of re-entry if you enter on H1, H4 or L1. Even though this rule was not very much enforced, it may be a reason for I485 abandonment if you don't have it at the time your re-enter. It is very risky to leave without I485 receipt. If you really need to leave without I485 receipt, you would need to get emergency approval of AP, which can be done under some circumstances. Not you can apply for AP based on proof of mailing and delivery I485 if you don't have one.
Reportedly, USCIS is working on a rule, that would eliminate the need of having I485 at re-entry, but as of now, an IO may request I485 receipt at re-entry.
1) Family emergency and they have to travel to India? Is there any way to expedite the advance parole??
2) They get married say in October and return with spouse then? IF they file for I-485 now, isnt the spouse left out unless she/he can come in H1B or F-1 herself?
Hi:
According to the rules, you need to have I485 original receipt at the time of re-entry if you enter on H1, H4 or L1. Even though this rule was not very much enforced, it may be a reason for I485 abandonment if you don't have it at the time your re-enter. It is very risky to leave without I485 receipt. If you really need to leave without I485 receipt, you would need to get emergency approval of AP, which can be done under some circumstances. Not you can apply for AP based on proof of mailing and delivery I485 if you don't have one.
Reportedly, USCIS is working on a rule, that would eliminate the need of having I485 at re-entry, but as of now, an IO may request I485 receipt at re-entry.
more...
roseball
02-25 12:58 PM
I started talking to new employer about my joining and I requested for preparing PERM stuff before I join. This is the only this I want the new employer to do on behalf me before I join with him. The employer said Prevailing Wage determination takes 2 months. And the new employer mentioned that he can not do Prevailing Wage determination without joining. Is this right?
PWD has nothing to do with you joining them. All DOL does in PWD is it assigns a salary range based on the location of the job and the minimum requirements defined for the position. BTW, it is infact taking 2-3 months to get PWD these days.
PWD has nothing to do with you joining them. All DOL does in PWD is it assigns a salary range based on the location of the job and the minimum requirements defined for the position. BTW, it is infact taking 2-3 months to get PWD these days.
peekay
06-29 03:03 PM
Hi,
I dont have a direct answer to your question but I do know that insurance has to be taken within the 30 days of your wife's arrival in US. I had the same situation where I applied for insurance on 32nd day and got a reply from the insurance company that I have to apply within 30 days. I finally was able to convince them and take the insurance. Try your luck by talking to some insurance company like BCBS or Humana. They should be able to provide more info. I cant be of more help than this.
Peekay
I dont have a direct answer to your question but I do know that insurance has to be taken within the 30 days of your wife's arrival in US. I had the same situation where I applied for insurance on 32nd day and got a reply from the insurance company that I have to apply within 30 days. I finally was able to convince them and take the insurance. Try your luck by talking to some insurance company like BCBS or Humana. They should be able to provide more info. I cant be of more help than this.
Peekay
more...
chaks7
01-20 11:24 AM
My wife is the primary on the insurance and I am the dependent. My employer does not offer insurance. It is a consulting co. I checked with him; he said there were not enough people to go with Group policy and people have to find Individual Insurance. So COBRA may be the only option if something changes with her job.
Jbpvisa
07-07 12:33 PM
I give highest rating.
more...
cagedcactus
05-03 06:59 PM
"senator_levin@levin.senate.gov" to me
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
show details Apr 30 (3 days ago)
Dear Mr. Amin:
Thank you for contacting me regarding immigration and border security. I appreciate receiving your views on these important issues.
Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. I believe an effective immigration policy must include comprehensive border security and comprehensive immigration reform. We must secure our borders against real threats from terrorism and protect U.S. workers, while preserving the freedoms and principles on which our nation was founded. We must address reforms realistically, stem the tide of illegal immigrants entering the country and be fair to those who are here legally.
I support comprehensive border security reform. I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act (P.L.109-289) that appropriated $1.83 billion to construct 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border of our country. I also supported an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief (P.L.109-13) that provided $390 million to hire an additional 650 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents and deportation officers, as well as to fund an additional 2,000 detention beds for immigration enforcement purposes.
I believe any reform must protect U.S. workers. For this reason, I voted in favor of an amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R.2) that would bar employers who violate immigration laws by hiring undocumented workers from receiving federal government contracts for up to 10 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act passed the Senate on February 1, 2007, and must now be considered by a House-Senate conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. I believe it is important to ensure that employers hire only those legally eligible to work and that employees are treated fairly. I support a broad-based Electronic Employment Verification (EEV) system, which builds upon the existing voluntary pilot program, to increase the reliability of employment authorization checks. In the 109th Congress, I supported a number of worker protection amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S.2611). I voted in favor of an amendment that would have established a true prevailing wage for all occupations to ensure that U.S. workers� wages are not lowered as a result of the guest worker program, and I supported an amendment that would have required employers to make good faith efforts to recruit U.S. workers first. S.2611 passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 62-36. Unfortunately, S.2611 was blocked by the House because of opposition to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill. The bill was not passed before the end of the 109th Congress.
Comprehensive immigration reform must remove the �magnet� that has attracted millions of people to cross the border illegally. We should not provide amnesty, but instead permit currently undocumented workers to earn the right to obtain legal status over a long period of time, under restrictive conditions, including being required to pay fees and back taxes. These individuals would be required to apply through the same immigration process as everyone else and take their place in line behind all those whose applications are pending. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate toward effective solutions that address our nation�s real immigration problems. Without a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, our current problems with illegal immigration will likely continue.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
CC to senator_levin
show details 7:36 pm (1 minute ago)
Respected Sir,
I wanted to bring to your attention the woes of immigrants who are legally here in U.S. Specifically, the high-skilled workers who are experiencing decade-long waits to get Green Cards (the employment based Green Cards). There are approximately half a million such people in U.S. today whose lives are in limbo as they wait to get their Green Cards. I encourage you to visit http://immigrationvoice.org, an organization comprising of such people who are lobbying the Congress to help get some relief urgently.
The focus of immigration reform has solely been on illegal immigration. What is not so well understood is that the fate of legal immigrants has been tied with that of the illegal immigrants (because there is just one bill that the Congress will debate - CIR/STRIVE). It is ironic that if this bill does not pass, legal immigrants would be left hanging in the dark again, even when there is bi-partisan support for their cause!
The waiting times for getting an employment-based (EB) Green Card (GC) are increasing each day for nationals of all countries. But especially hard-hit are people from India and China, whose waiting times are expected to increase to 10-15 years, if the current trend continues. The demand for EB-GC keeps increasing because over the last decade an average of about 100,000 skilled workers have joined the U.S. work-force each year (using H-1B visa, and graduating foreign students), but only 50,000 new employment-based Green Cards are issued. U.S. issues 140,000 EB GC but even family members are counted-off from this quota, which thus effectively reduces to about one-third. Therefore, each year about 50,000 skilled workers join the queue for a Green Card.
Once the wait for a Green Card starts, all major life-decisions are influenced by the Green Card application process. Decisions about traveling abroad, marrying, investing, kids' education, and changing cities are then based on the stage in which one's GC application is. The biggest impact of the wait is on the person's professional career. Once the process starts, changing jobs usually means re-filing for a GC, implying that the person starts from the end of the line again. Even promotions within the same company are not without risks, as any change in job descriptions necessitates refilling the application. So a person waiting for a GC is expected to remain in the same job with the same company and without any substantial increase (or decrease) in pay! The skilled worker therefore lives life in constant limbo.
The psychological impact of being stuck and being treated as less than equal, even while paying all taxes (including SS and Medicare, to which they are not even entitled to without becoming permanent residents) is immense.
Your help is very much needed to eliminate this unfair backlog and reform the system, so that no innocent and law abiding person should suffer anymore. Your kind reply is very valuable to me.
I appreciate your time and help.
Regards,
CC
Above is the email conversation beween me and Senetor Levine. He seems to be in support for Legal immigration, but is against Amnesty.
My reply here is basically a nice written post by a fellow member here (Eternal_hope).
So credit for writing goes to him.
A similar reply was sent to senetor Debbie Stabenow (Michigan too)
Please comment......
harikris
12-05 10:19 AM
Hi,
Thanks for your response.
AFAIK, there is no tatkal or emergency type of service for PIO card - atleast not at Washington DC which is our jurisdiction.
My company surprised all it's employees with a 2 week of paid X-Mas holidays. Hence the need for PIO card asap. Hence the reasoning for going and applying in person. So, do i absolutely need to take the kid? I don't see any reason why i should. But better to check with ppl that have first hand experience in submitting the application in person at the Embassy counter.
Thanks for the idea on the thumb impressions. That helps.
Thanks for your response.
AFAIK, there is no tatkal or emergency type of service for PIO card - atleast not at Washington DC which is our jurisdiction.
My company surprised all it's employees with a 2 week of paid X-Mas holidays. Hence the need for PIO card asap. Hence the reasoning for going and applying in person. So, do i absolutely need to take the kid? I don't see any reason why i should. But better to check with ppl that have first hand experience in submitting the application in person at the Embassy counter.
Thanks for the idea on the thumb impressions. That helps.
more...
forever_waiting
03-06 10:44 PM
Deadline added to this initiative to decide whether to proceed or not.
please see post below for details.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum14-members-forum/1599353-want-to-file-485-when-pd-is-not-current-gather-here-104.html#post2412248
Since this is a brand new initiation why don't we make a fresh thread for it? Right now this thread is so full of bumps that many may not actually read this message.
Also, should we at some point agree on what letter must be written?
[QUote = ashwin_27]
As suggested by several members on this thread, IV has set a goal of April 30th, 2011 to determine if there is even enough appetite within the EB community to proceed with this USCIS Admin Fix initiative or not.
As we know the initial goal was to use this survey to determine how many members will be benefitted by I-485 filing without current priority date. Rough calculations using PERM data showed that at least 50-70K folks are waiting to file I-485 since July 2007 (around 5K-6K out of this number are those with PDs prior to June/July 2007 missed the July 2007 boat).
So far we have had around 1200 such members respond. We need to see support of at least 5000 members in order for IV to launch the public action items. These action items include, but are not limited to, writing en-masse (i.e. in thousands) over 2-3 weeks to several concerned departments about the need for this USCIS administrative fix. Few other very interesting proposals/ideas are also being considered. All we need is our folks to BELIEVE that this initiative is worth investing in.
The IV forum is the best place for the impacted EB community to gather and that is why the number of votes on the survey is a great indication of our frustration and motivation to work with IV for this important admin fix.
So, we now have a Deadline and an Objective. It is up to our impacted members to decide on whether to still stick to silly excuses (why should I become a member, why should i vote on survey etc etc.) or DO something about getting this admin fix. It is surprising that we are not more desperate for this fix and are not convincing and pushing IV harder and harder to start working with USCIS to allow I485 filing with current PD (and all the benefits like EAD, AP that go with it).
Are we more comfortable with the alternative - Waiting endelesslly to file I-485 (at least 2-5 years for post July 2007 folks from any category), keep depending on H1B extensions in an uncertain immigration scenario where H1B RFE's, rejections, visa denials due to "admin processing" etc are on a steep rise? The choice is ours to make.
As a final reminder - please act and convince your friends/colleagues to participate in this initiative and send ivcoordinator@gmail.com the details requested below.
Please keep following and participating on this thread to show your desperation for this fix.
please see post below for details.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum14-members-forum/1599353-want-to-file-485-when-pd-is-not-current-gather-here-104.html#post2412248
Since this is a brand new initiation why don't we make a fresh thread for it? Right now this thread is so full of bumps that many may not actually read this message.
Also, should we at some point agree on what letter must be written?
[QUote = ashwin_27]
As suggested by several members on this thread, IV has set a goal of April 30th, 2011 to determine if there is even enough appetite within the EB community to proceed with this USCIS Admin Fix initiative or not.
As we know the initial goal was to use this survey to determine how many members will be benefitted by I-485 filing without current priority date. Rough calculations using PERM data showed that at least 50-70K folks are waiting to file I-485 since July 2007 (around 5K-6K out of this number are those with PDs prior to June/July 2007 missed the July 2007 boat).
So far we have had around 1200 such members respond. We need to see support of at least 5000 members in order for IV to launch the public action items. These action items include, but are not limited to, writing en-masse (i.e. in thousands) over 2-3 weeks to several concerned departments about the need for this USCIS administrative fix. Few other very interesting proposals/ideas are also being considered. All we need is our folks to BELIEVE that this initiative is worth investing in.
The IV forum is the best place for the impacted EB community to gather and that is why the number of votes on the survey is a great indication of our frustration and motivation to work with IV for this important admin fix.
So, we now have a Deadline and an Objective. It is up to our impacted members to decide on whether to still stick to silly excuses (why should I become a member, why should i vote on survey etc etc.) or DO something about getting this admin fix. It is surprising that we are not more desperate for this fix and are not convincing and pushing IV harder and harder to start working with USCIS to allow I485 filing with current PD (and all the benefits like EAD, AP that go with it).
Are we more comfortable with the alternative - Waiting endelesslly to file I-485 (at least 2-5 years for post July 2007 folks from any category), keep depending on H1B extensions in an uncertain immigration scenario where H1B RFE's, rejections, visa denials due to "admin processing" etc are on a steep rise? The choice is ours to make.
As a final reminder - please act and convince your friends/colleagues to participate in this initiative and send ivcoordinator@gmail.com the details requested below.
Please keep following and participating on this thread to show your desperation for this fix.
DSLStart
03-30 10:00 PM
Congrats :)
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
webm
09-25 03:02 PM
If spouse apply for Social Security card, will she lose her H4 status. Or the status changes after she starts using the EAD for work.
After she starts using the EAD for work then only lose H4 status ....
After she starts using the EAD for work then only lose H4 status ....
fromnaija
07-18 06:41 PM
I am in the same situation. I have read through the 485 Adjudicator's Manual and would infer that if you are working for the petitioning employer, the employment letter may be RFE. I am still searching for more information on this issue and will post if I find anything.
Hi Gurus,
I filed my 485 application on July 2nd. But my employer/lawyer did not attach the employment verification letter in the package. Is USCIS going to reject my application because of that or they will send an RFE. Please advise..
Hi Gurus,
I filed my 485 application on July 2nd. But my employer/lawyer did not attach the employment verification letter in the package. Is USCIS going to reject my application because of that or they will send an RFE. Please advise..
neha_garg123
01-07 09:04 PM
I did my MBA in one of the premium university in USA.
My OPT was ending in May 2008, However since I was in cap-gap, I got a new I-20 from my school till 30-Sep-2008 and I continued working on my I-20 with my previous employer.
I applied for H1-B in FY 2008 under master quota from a small consulting company B.
My case went into RFE so I left USA on 30-Sep-2008.
I got a approved petition on 23-Nov 2008 . I went to New Delhi consulate for H1-B stamping. However I got a Blue 221 G slip. I never submitted any document as the consultant who applied for my visa , needs lots of time to process the documents. In the mean time I got another offer from one of the fortune 500 companies in USA. I am just exploring the possibility of H1-B transfer in this case. Ofcourse they will file a new H1-B application but would I be cap-exempt in this case?
Thanks,
Neha
My OPT was ending in May 2008, However since I was in cap-gap, I got a new I-20 from my school till 30-Sep-2008 and I continued working on my I-20 with my previous employer.
I applied for H1-B in FY 2008 under master quota from a small consulting company B.
My case went into RFE so I left USA on 30-Sep-2008.
I got a approved petition on 23-Nov 2008 . I went to New Delhi consulate for H1-B stamping. However I got a Blue 221 G slip. I never submitted any document as the consultant who applied for my visa , needs lots of time to process the documents. In the mean time I got another offer from one of the fortune 500 companies in USA. I am just exploring the possibility of H1-B transfer in this case. Ofcourse they will file a new H1-B application but would I be cap-exempt in this case?
Thanks,
Neha