pani_6
07-19 05:23 PM
1. My lawyer clearly said you can't, unless you file it together with AOS.
2. I765 and I131 forms. Everything else has already gone in with the AOS.
I spoke with the USICS immi officer...she mentioned that you cant apply Ead/ap without A#..they will rject it and you cant update them later with the #
2. I765 and I131 forms. Everything else has already gone in with the AOS.
I spoke with the USICS immi officer...she mentioned that you cant apply Ead/ap without A#..they will rject it and you cant update them later with the #
wallpaper funny mario videos.
Ramba
04-13 06:13 PM
Hello All,
I came across this site while researching for *urgent* solutions or options that my friend needs to pursue or has.
These are my friend's details --
EB3 -- India.
I140 approved in July 2007.
485 filed in July 2007.
MS in Engg from USA.
MBA in Finance from top ten school in USA.
Has applied for couple of patents in tech field.
Author of few papers in tech field.
My friend worked for his green card petitioning employer for 7 years in a technical position on H1 visa. He had to leave this job under some unfavorable circumstances around a month back. He has now taken a job as Marketing Manager for a big firm and is using his EAD. Two weeks back he has received an RFE on his 485 application. (Very curious and bad timing indeed too). This RFE needs a Employment Verification Letter. The current position that my friend works as does not match the position description on his labor petition. The RFE reply needs to be sent in within next 2 weeks.
What are his options to reply to the RFE? One of the lawyers that was consulted said that since Green Card is for a future position, he needs to get a legit letter from a future employer that the employer is willing to hire my friend after he gets his green card.
Also suggested were EB2-NIW and self-employment options.
What would you suggest -- best course of action? Would you know anybody who has gone through a similar situation. Any fallback options that my friend needs to evaluate?
I really appreciate all your replies. Pl treat this as very urgent.
Thanks.
Please post the occupation classification and the Onet code for the initial job for which GC applied. Also post the job descritipn/duties of the job; if known. Also post the currnt job dutiers and title. I can tro some lights.
I came across this site while researching for *urgent* solutions or options that my friend needs to pursue or has.
These are my friend's details --
EB3 -- India.
I140 approved in July 2007.
485 filed in July 2007.
MS in Engg from USA.
MBA in Finance from top ten school in USA.
Has applied for couple of patents in tech field.
Author of few papers in tech field.
My friend worked for his green card petitioning employer for 7 years in a technical position on H1 visa. He had to leave this job under some unfavorable circumstances around a month back. He has now taken a job as Marketing Manager for a big firm and is using his EAD. Two weeks back he has received an RFE on his 485 application. (Very curious and bad timing indeed too). This RFE needs a Employment Verification Letter. The current position that my friend works as does not match the position description on his labor petition. The RFE reply needs to be sent in within next 2 weeks.
What are his options to reply to the RFE? One of the lawyers that was consulted said that since Green Card is for a future position, he needs to get a legit letter from a future employer that the employer is willing to hire my friend after he gets his green card.
Also suggested were EB2-NIW and self-employment options.
What would you suggest -- best course of action? Would you know anybody who has gone through a similar situation. Any fallback options that my friend needs to evaluate?
I really appreciate all your replies. Pl treat this as very urgent.
Thanks.
Please post the occupation classification and the Onet code for the initial job for which GC applied. Also post the job descritipn/duties of the job; if known. Also post the currnt job dutiers and title. I can tro some lights.
Jim77
10-15 12:31 PM
You can buy a confirmed ticket to India, take an Infopass appointment, and tell the Immigration Officer of your urgency to travel to India. Give him a copy of the ticket, a copy of your AP LIN/SRC and he/she should be able to get it expedited for you hopefully. This is my experience, plus I feel you have enough time until January.
2011 Funny videos middot; A Super Mario
chintals
09-03 11:43 AM
I have got an LUD on 09/01/2009 for both the cases, but the status is still pending.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
I am worried, did any have similar experience?
I am in the same boat as you.. See SLUD on both bases on 09/01/09 with EAC08** pending at TSC. Waiting.
more...
anandrajesh
05-04 01:56 PM
wellwishergc..
looks like u have some more knowledge in these matters. My ex employer got a 45day letter filed in Oct2003 EB2 case. they replied to go ahead with the case. When the labor approves and in a scenario, that employer has no project at the point of time to hire me back, can he file my 140 and then the 485...??
That employer is not a consulting company and thus needs a position for me and is a big-big company. If I request them they will file the 140, but will taht be okay if I am not working at that time...??
thx
Yes, you dont have to be employed by the company to file for I-140. They can do GC as a "Prospective Employee" & for "future employment". The only downside to that is they look at lot of company's details, like ability to pay, returns for the last few years and so on. But if your company is a big company that shldnt be an issue.
looks like u have some more knowledge in these matters. My ex employer got a 45day letter filed in Oct2003 EB2 case. they replied to go ahead with the case. When the labor approves and in a scenario, that employer has no project at the point of time to hire me back, can he file my 140 and then the 485...??
That employer is not a consulting company and thus needs a position for me and is a big-big company. If I request them they will file the 140, but will taht be okay if I am not working at that time...??
thx
Yes, you dont have to be employed by the company to file for I-140. They can do GC as a "Prospective Employee" & for "future employment". The only downside to that is they look at lot of company's details, like ability to pay, returns for the last few years and so on. But if your company is a big company that shldnt be an issue.
belmontboy
11-09 06:02 PM
Dr. Balkrishna Matapurkar, a surgeon at New Delhi's Maulana Azad Medical College, has pioneered a stem cell based technique for the regeneration of tissues and organs. He already holds a patent for this innovative technique. Incidentally, he is of view that embryonic stem cell research is one of the lost sciences of ancient India.
But please note that I am not trying to propagate that indian culture is best or better etc. I just wanted to share that stem cell related view of mine.
A couple of the fellow members might be cursing me to have posted this in. I know its nowhere related to immigration, but just a thought share.
That would be the view of Dr BalKrishna Matapurkar.
There is no accepted literary evidence to support his views. If so, please point me to that
But please note that I am not trying to propagate that indian culture is best or better etc. I just wanted to share that stem cell related view of mine.
A couple of the fellow members might be cursing me to have posted this in. I know its nowhere related to immigration, but just a thought share.
That would be the view of Dr BalKrishna Matapurkar.
There is no accepted literary evidence to support his views. If so, please point me to that
more...
ab_tak_chappan
08-13 12:51 AM
looks like vldrao got his GC and took a hike ;)
2010 Best Funny Animal Videos FREE
gcseeker2002
08-14 02:24 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
more...
coopheal
11-26 03:11 PM
I am contributing $100 monthly. I will contribute additional $100 for the rally.
We are expecting our baby in March end so will not be able to come to DC.
We are expecting our baby in March end so will not be able to come to DC.
hair funny mario videos. funny
immi_seeker
09-13 12:46 PM
EB2 and EB3 at one point were in the same boat. Now that EB2 is advancing and is way ahead of EB3, the EB3 applicants are upset and angry. Their anger is very much justified. However, their anger should not be directed towards EB2 applicants.
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
Agree. Problem has been with some folks saying the spill over distribution should be changed. But nobody is sure whether it will help EB3I because on a vertical roll over scenario, the spill over will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog too. So attitude seems to be, we are in this boat, so why not we make sure you guys will also be in same boat eventhough the change doesnt help us. And thats where the problem lies
As I pointed out in another post, we are all players here and we are all playing by the rules. The system is not fair. Anger should be directed towards the system and not towards EB2s.
"hate the game, don't hate the playa....Chris Rock" is appropriate here.
Most of the EB2s, if not all, are supportive of reform and are supportive towards EB3 friends. The anger may lead to the disruption of this support.
We are all in this together. We all need to stay together.
Agree. Problem has been with some folks saying the spill over distribution should be changed. But nobody is sure whether it will help EB3I because on a vertical roll over scenario, the spill over will only help EB3 ROW as they have huge backlog too. So attitude seems to be, we are in this boat, so why not we make sure you guys will also be in same boat eventhough the change doesnt help us. And thats where the problem lies
more...
pkv
09-13 01:17 PM
What is this fight all about ??? eb3-->eb2 ... or spillover??? changing any/both of them will not solve underlying problem.. Grow up people
why not go for real problem??? if you want to ask congress/administration, ask for some real solutions which will help everyone. To name a few...
1. Capture lost Visa numbers
2. Get rid of country quota.. how does this country based quota makes sense in EB Category??
why not go for real problem??? if you want to ask congress/administration, ask for some real solutions which will help everyone. To name a few...
1. Capture lost Visa numbers
2. Get rid of country quota.. how does this country based quota makes sense in EB Category??
hot Super Mario amp; Marco Materazzi
dontcareaboutGC
03-19 11:24 AM
Ignore this if this is a repost!
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security,
and International Law
Hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Government Perspectives
on Immigration Statistics
Testimony of Charles Oppenheim
Chief, Immigrant Control and Reporting Division
Visa Services Office
U.S. Department of State
June 6, 2007
2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Chairman Lofgren, Ranking Member King, and distinguished members of
the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to answer
your questions and provide an overview of our immigrant visa control
and reporting program operated by the U.S. Department of State. The
Department of State is responsible for administering the provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) related to the numerical
limitations on immigrant visa issuances. At the beginning of each
month, the Visa Office (VO) receives a report from each consular post
listing totals of documentarily-qualified immigrant visa applicants in
categories subject to numerical limitation. Cases are grouped in three
different categories: 1) foreign state chargeability, 2) preference,
and 3) priority date.
Foreign state chargeability for visa purposes refers to the fact that
an immigrant is chargeable to the numerical limitation for the foreign
state or dependent area in which the immigrant's place of birth is
located. Exceptions are provided for a child (unmarried and under 21
years of age) or spouse accompanying or following to join a principal
to prevent the separation of family members, as well as for an
applicant born in the United States or in a foreign state of which
neither parent was a native or resident. Alternate chargeability is
desirable when the visa cut-off date for the foreign state of a parent
or spouse is more advantageous than that of the applicant's foreign
state.
As established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, preference is
the visa category that can be assigned based on relationships to U.S.
citizens or legal permanent residents. Family-based immigration falls
under two basic categories: unlimited and limited. Preferences
established by law for the limited category are:
Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their minor children, if any.
Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, and unmarried
sons and daughters of lawful permanent residents.
Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S.
citizens and their spouses and minor children.
Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens
and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at
least 21 years of age.
The Priority Date is normally the date on which the petition to accord
the applicant immigrant status was filed, generally with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). VO subdivides the annual
preference and foreign state limitations specified by the INA into
monthly allotments. The totals of documentarily-qualified applicants
which have been reported to VO are compared each month with the
numbers available for the next regular allotment. The determination of
how many numbers are available requires consideration of several
variables, including: past number use; estimates of future number use
and return rates; and estimates of USCIS demand based on cut-off date
movements. Once this consideration is completed, the cutoff dates are
established and numbers are allocated to reported applicants in order
of their priority dates, the oldest dates first.
If there are sufficient numbers in a particular category to satisfy
all reported documentarily qualified demand, the category is
considered "Current." For example: If the monthly allocation target is
10,000, and we only have 5,000 applicants, the category can be
"Current.� Whenever the total of documentarily-qualified applicants in
a category exceeds the supply of numbers available for allotment for
the particular month, the category is considered to be
"oversubscribed" and a visa availability cut-off date is established.
The cut-off date is the priority date of the first
documentarily-qualified applicant who could not be accommodated for a
visa number. For example, if the monthly target is 10,000 and we have
25,000 applicants, then we would need to establish a cut-off date so
that only 10,000 numbers would be allocated. In this case, the cut-off
would be the priority date of the 10,001st applicant.
Only persons with a priority date earlier than a cut-off date are
entitled to allotment of a visa number. The cut-off dates are the 1st,
8th, 15th, and 22nd of a month, since VO groups demand for numbers
under these dates. (Priority dates of the first through seventh of a
month are grouped under the 1st, the eighth through the 14th under the
8th, etc.) VO attempts to establish the cut-off dates for the
following month on or about the 8th of each month. The dates are
immediately transmitted to consular posts abroad and USCIS, and also
published in the Visa Bulletin and online at the website
www.travel.state.gov. Visa allotments for use during that month are
transmitted to consular posts. USCIS requests visa allotments for
adjustment of status cases only when all other case processing has
been completed. I am submitting the latest Visa Bulletin for the
record or you can click on: Visa Bulletin for June 2007.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE SYSTEM AND CLARIFICATION OF SOME
FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS:
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified
at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every
applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date
been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, visa allotments
are made only on the basis of the total applicants reported
�documentarily qualified� (or, theoretically ready for interview) each
month. Demand for visa numbers can fluctuate from one month to
another, with the inevitable impact on cut-off dates.
If an applicant is reported documentarily qualified but allocation of
a visa number is not possible because of a visa availability cut-off
date, the demand is recorded at VO and an allocation is made as soon
as the applicable cut-off date advances beyond the applicant's
priority date. There is no need for such applicant to be reported a
second time.
Visa numbers are always allotted for all documentarily-qualified
applicants with a priority date before the relevant cut-off date, as
long as the case had been reported to VO in time to be included in the
monthly calculation of visa availability. Failure of visa number
receipt by the overseas processing office could mean that the request
was not dispatched in time to reach VO for the monthly allocation
cycle, or that information on the request was incomplete or inaccurate
(e.g., incorrect priority date).
Allocations to Foreign Service posts outside the regular monthly cycle
are possible in emergency or exceptional cases, but only at the
request of the office processing the case. Note that, should
retrogression of a cut-off date be announced, VO can honor
extraordinary requests for additional numbers only if the applicant's
priority date is earlier than the retrogressed cut-off date. Not all
numbers allocated are actually used for visa issuance; some are
returned to VO and are reincorporated into the pool of numbers
available for later allocation during the fiscal year. The rate of
return of unused numbers may fluctuate from month to month, just as
demand may fluctuate. Lower returns mean fewer numbers available for
subsequent reallocation. Fluctuations can cause cut-off date movement
to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly
possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches
the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7 percent is a
cap, which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed.
Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The
country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the
annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This
limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled,
however. A portion of the numbers provided to the Family Second
preference category is exempt from this per-country cap. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21) removed the
per-country limit in any calendar quarter in which overall applicant
demand for Employment-based visa numbers is less than the total of
such numbers available.
Applicability of Section 202(e): When visa demand by
documentarily-qualified applicants from a particular country exceeds
the amount of numbers available under the annual numerical limitation,
that country is considered to be oversubscribed. Oversubscription may
require the establishment of a cut-off date which is earlier than that
which applies to a particular visa category on a worldwide basis. The
prorating of numbers for an oversubscribed country follows the same
percentages specified for the division of the worldwide annual
limitation among the preferences. (Note that visa availability cut-off
dates for oversubscribed areas may not be later than worldwide cut-off
dates, if any, for the respective preferences.)
The committee submitted several questions that fell outside of VO�s
area of work, therefore, I have provided in my written testimony today
the answers only to those questions that the Department of State can
answer. Thank you for this opportunity.
more...
house funny mario videos.
Rakson
02-28 10:25 PM
A. Since the law is unclear, to be on the safe side, you can have the new company file H1 extension in premium processing and resign/leave the current employer only after extension is approved
B. Yes, new company can start a new PERM and port your earlier PD during I-140 process
C. PD can be ported even if old employer revokes I-140, provided the revocation was not due to fraud.
Also, I am sure all IV members would really appreciate if you could tell us the name of this company which is offering a life long stability..:-)
roseball & "meridiani.planum" thanks to both of you on this confirmation. I will make sure to resign only after getting 3 years approval by new company.
roseball, "life long stability" is relative term as I am seeing new job much more stable than where I am as of today. ..
Again thanks for your help..
B. Yes, new company can start a new PERM and port your earlier PD during I-140 process
C. PD can be ported even if old employer revokes I-140, provided the revocation was not due to fraud.
Also, I am sure all IV members would really appreciate if you could tell us the name of this company which is offering a life long stability..:-)
roseball & "meridiani.planum" thanks to both of you on this confirmation. I will make sure to resign only after getting 3 years approval by new company.
roseball, "life long stability" is relative term as I am seeing new job much more stable than where I am as of today. ..
Again thanks for your help..
tattoo funny mario videos.
alien2006
06-13 01:44 PM
My guess is you will be current in September 2006, may be October latest. But keep your fingers crossed. Logic does not apply too well with these things.
more...
pictures funny mario videos.
jungalee43
09-16 04:27 PM
Whatever problems you have today :- RFE, NOID, TAXES.. You have 4 weeks to 12 weeks time.
For the most important task today, you have barely a few hours left. So leave everything else for tomorrow and it would not be too late.
If you don't call today it would be too late.
For the most important task today, you have barely a few hours left. So leave everything else for tomorrow and it would not be too late.
If you don't call today it would be too late.
dresses Funny Mario Cat
santb1975
02-17 11:13 PM
Thanks to everyone who participated today. We are looking to have another signing event next week. A big Thankyou to everyone who drove from SanDiego to Artesia to take part in this.
more...
makeup Funny Mario Movies
desi3933
02-04 04:47 PM
My sister got her H-1B in 2008 but didn't work for her employer due to health problems. After about 3 to 4 months she left for India and recovered......
Did she ever report for work for H-1B employer in 1998?
Was her original H1 visa cancelled or revoked?
Are 60 days up since her B1 visa entry?
Does she has valid job offer along with recent LCA?
If her H-1B visa number was re-used, she my be subject to H-1B visa cap.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
Did she ever report for work for H-1B employer in 1998?
Was her original H1 visa cancelled or revoked?
Are 60 days up since her B1 visa entry?
Does she has valid job offer along with recent LCA?
If her H-1B visa number was re-used, she my be subject to H-1B visa cap.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend ALL FUNNY MARIO VIDEOS
eb3_nepa
07-29 05:42 PM
As far as I know we HAVE NO STAND on the issue.
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
Our goal is simple, to seperate ourselves from "undocumented immigrants", we do not call it "illegal immigration" as per our initial IV discussions.
IV stands as an organization for Employment Based Legal Immigration and nothing BUT that. So, again, in short we HAVE no stand on "illegal immigration".
hairstyles funny mario videos.
NikNikon
May 24th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Cool, I learned something new today. I guess I knew the concept of the polarizer but had yet to learn all of the ins and outs. Thanks Josh.
Linear vs. Circular has mainly to do with whether it works with metering and autofocus sensors in modern cameras. Both polarizers rotate and function similarly (I'm not sure if there is any difference in the effect shown in the image, but I doubt it).
Anyway, an unevenly polarized sky happens not because the polarizer is not rotated properly / enough, but rather because the camera is not quite at a 90 degree angle to the sun; this uneven polarization becomes more noticeable with wide angle lenses (to a point, then as even wider lenses are used, the sky will get dark in the middle and lighter on the edges even right at 90 degrees from the sun).
Linear vs. Circular has mainly to do with whether it works with metering and autofocus sensors in modern cameras. Both polarizers rotate and function similarly (I'm not sure if there is any difference in the effect shown in the image, but I doubt it).
Anyway, an unevenly polarized sky happens not because the polarizer is not rotated properly / enough, but rather because the camera is not quite at a 90 degree angle to the sun; this uneven polarization becomes more noticeable with wide angle lenses (to a point, then as even wider lenses are used, the sky will get dark in the middle and lighter on the edges even right at 90 degrees from the sun).