fide_champ
11-06 08:55 AM
Jet airways resumed new service to US recently. That's why you couldn't find many people traveling by Jet airways. I heard the flights are new, service is good and the travel is quite comfortable. I am travelling to chennai from EWR end of november and am looking forward to the trip.
wallpaper Hayden Christensen attending
Milind123
08-16 06:05 AM
I would like to share my experience with the immigration officer in India.
Way back in 2000 when I landed in India, the IE went thru my passport and asked me if I had overstayed my stay in US. (US Visa had expired for over a year my current H1 papers were in my travel bag which had to be checked in because the European Lufthansa staff thought the bag was too big to be used as a carry in). Anyways, I did not have the papers to show and I requested the office to let me go to the baggage claim area to retrieve my papers. I don't know why he was suspicious and he said and I paraphrase "I am going to impound your passport, If I don't see those papers as you have overstayed your visa".
to be continued.....
Way back in 2000 when I landed in India, the IE went thru my passport and asked me if I had overstayed my stay in US. (US Visa had expired for over a year my current H1 papers were in my travel bag which had to be checked in because the European Lufthansa staff thought the bag was too big to be used as a carry in). Anyways, I did not have the papers to show and I requested the office to let me go to the baggage claim area to retrieve my papers. I don't know why he was suspicious and he said and I paraphrase "I am going to impound your passport, If I don't see those papers as you have overstayed your visa".
to be continued.....
andy garcia
07-30 02:54 PM
but we do get the original FP notice , right?
That is correct. I meant Lawyers get copies. we get the originals.
That is correct. I meant Lawyers get copies. we get the originals.
2011 HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
HumJumboHathuJumbo
01-02 03:51 PM
presuming 3500 visas for EB3 from india per year, given about 350,000 were filed recently and presuming about half of that were EB3 india, that means 175,000 are in front of you from India on EB3. so my pd of jan 2006 would become current in about 48 years and yours in about 50. now, others may speculate and extrapolate and say that it's likely to be within a decade based on past experience - i.e RoW not using up its quota and hence spilling over to India, but India EB2 itself is backed up pretty badly & it gets a first shot at it so after these geniuses go green, we get to use that. But again, thats just speculation - so nothing is certain except that it wont be no longer than 50 years based on current law, that too presuming the current law stays as is. lets hope iv succeeds in the backlog efforts in which case the wait would probably be around 3/4 years.
You seem to be knowledgeable. can you tell anything about EB3 October, 2003 Priority Date?. when will people with that PD be able to file I-485(someone i know missed this year). thanks
You seem to be knowledgeable. can you tell anything about EB3 October, 2003 Priority Date?. when will people with that PD be able to file I-485(someone i know missed this year). thanks
bang
01-07 05:03 PM
Thank you all for your repiles. I have asked my wife to talk to their lawyer directly.
It is not a rule, but it depends on how the approval is given by USCIS. If you get a extended I94 along with the H1 approval then you are all set, if you get an approval with no I94 then you need to get a stamping before starting work. Consult lawyers they will explain it better.
My wife went through the H4 - H1 Conversion which got approved last week, we are still wating to see the approval document.
It is not a rule, but it depends on how the approval is given by USCIS. If you get a extended I94 along with the H1 approval then you are all set, if you get an approval with no I94 then you need to get a stamping before starting work. Consult lawyers they will explain it better.
My wife went through the H4 - H1 Conversion which got approved last week, we are still wating to see the approval document.
more...
kishdam
02-07 02:22 PM
Such agreement is not against the law. GC is for your benefit, not employer's.
So technically employer may ask you to reimburse I-485 filing fees (including attorney fees). Permanent residency is I-485 approval. What is the exact language? May be you can avoid paying you can just switch to another employer?
Thanks for all the responses. Yes, I am planning to move before my I-485 is approved (with current retrogession my EB2 PD of 05 may need another 3-4 years to get current unless there is a change in the rules). Infact I am changing jobs next month. What I am worried about is when I give notice my current employer will sure bring up this agreement and might ask me to repay. I will try to convince/negotiate in my own way and try to settle amicably. But if does not happen I am worried about what the employer can do with this agreement - since the exact wording in the agreement says that I have to stay at the employer for 2 years after the approval of permanent residence application. I am trying to find the legal definitionof "approval of permanent residency application" - my interpretation is approval of I485. I will try to reason that my "permanent residency" application is not yet approved and will try to repay some reasonable amount. Hope it works.
For others wondering why I am worried so much - the agreement simply says that all expenses incurred including fees, lawyer charges, other administrative/misc expenses. It worded so vaguely (I know I shoud not have signed) they can throw any bill at me.
So technically employer may ask you to reimburse I-485 filing fees (including attorney fees). Permanent residency is I-485 approval. What is the exact language? May be you can avoid paying you can just switch to another employer?
Thanks for all the responses. Yes, I am planning to move before my I-485 is approved (with current retrogession my EB2 PD of 05 may need another 3-4 years to get current unless there is a change in the rules). Infact I am changing jobs next month. What I am worried about is when I give notice my current employer will sure bring up this agreement and might ask me to repay. I will try to convince/negotiate in my own way and try to settle amicably. But if does not happen I am worried about what the employer can do with this agreement - since the exact wording in the agreement says that I have to stay at the employer for 2 years after the approval of permanent residence application. I am trying to find the legal definitionof "approval of permanent residency application" - my interpretation is approval of I485. I will try to reason that my "permanent residency" application is not yet approved and will try to repay some reasonable amount. Hope it works.
For others wondering why I am worried so much - the agreement simply says that all expenses incurred including fees, lawyer charges, other administrative/misc expenses. It worded so vaguely (I know I shoud not have signed) they can throw any bill at me.
2010 Hayden-christensen Wallpaper
mnq1979
06-26 10:58 AM
You may need 2 affidavits each. More over you need additional supporting documents such as school certificate, medical record any other similar documents stating your birth date and your parents "full names". This what I was asked provide on my rfe. Wait for your rfe. They will tell you in that what need to be done. Good luck
Well i have documents which states my fathers name next to mine but i dont have any document which states my mother name !!!!! i m soo confused and tense !!!!
Well i have documents which states my fathers name next to mine but i dont have any document which states my mother name !!!!! i m soo confused and tense !!!!
more...
arihant
03-14 04:43 PM
http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/consular_services/visa/transit.html
after a legal stay in the USA (this includes holders of valid approval notices), Canada or Switzerland- return to the country whose citizenship they hold
do not need an airport transit visa
I presume the above is what you are referring to. My wife (on H4) and I (on H1B) are planning to fly to India later this year on Lufthansa. Both of our Visas have expired although we hold valid H extension approval notices. Will we need transit visas or will the above rule apply? Any body with experience of similar situation?
after a legal stay in the USA (this includes holders of valid approval notices), Canada or Switzerland- return to the country whose citizenship they hold
do not need an airport transit visa
I presume the above is what you are referring to. My wife (on H4) and I (on H1B) are planning to fly to India later this year on Lufthansa. Both of our Visas have expired although we hold valid H extension approval notices. Will we need transit visas or will the above rule apply? Any body with experience of similar situation?
hair Hayden-christensen Wallpaper
a_yaja
07-12 03:39 PM
Are you exempted from cap if you were on H1B in last 6 years or your received your H1 B in past 6 years?
I was on H1B from feb 2001 to Aug 2004 and then moved to F2 and then H4 Will I still be exempted from cap though my initial H1 has been more than 6 years old.
Thanks for help
You may ne able to get H1B for additional 2 1/2 yrs.
I was on H1B from feb 2001 to Aug 2004 and then moved to F2 and then H4 Will I still be exempted from cap though my initial H1 has been more than 6 years old.
Thanks for help
You may ne able to get H1B for additional 2 1/2 yrs.
more...
go_guy123
03-12 09:42 PM
My friend is in the I-140 stage of green card processing
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
She needs to choose between Counselor Processing or I485
Which one is better Counselor Processing or I485 ?
Your feedback is greatly appreciated
hot Movies/Star_Wars: Celebrity
sanjay02
08-04 03:00 PM
Dude whats the consulting company name? If you want to land your employer in soup send his details to Dept of labor at "info@dol.gov"
more...
house View Hayden Christensen#39;s Nude
continuedProgress
07-31 11:27 AM
I'm taking chances as well..... switching to EAD on day 10, if not earlier.
If probable causes of AOS denial aren't discussed elsewhere, maybe some one knowledgeable can throw some light on the subject.
If probable causes of AOS denial aren't discussed elsewhere, maybe some one knowledgeable can throw some light on the subject.
tattoo hayden christensen fporn
a_yaja
10-05 11:07 PM
yep .. that was my thinking.
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
I think there is some confusion in the way you have asked your question. Your question is really about AC21 and not EAD. AC21, among many things, allows one to change employers 180 days after the filing of the I-485 as long as the new job is same or similar to the job description in your Labor Certification. If this is what you are asking - then this has nothing to do with EAD. You can invoke AC21 even on H1B.
EAD stands for Employment Authorization Document. It is a means by which a person can work legally in the U.S. Students who have completed requirement for a degree are eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for I-485 is eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for refugee status is eligible for EAD. Anyone who has an EAD is not restricted to a job category or classification which is unlike the H1B which is specific to a job, its classification, its location, employer, wage requirements, etc. If your I-485 is employment based and you have an EAD, you can quit your job and work in McDonalds as a cashier. The EAD will not prevent you from doing this. However, your I-485 application is no longer approvabe and it will be denied (this does not mean that you should quit your job and take up a waiter's job to see if the above statement is true - if you do - you are doing so at your own risk). And once your I-485 is denied, then your EAD is automatically invalid.
What you really need to look up is the American Competitiveness In the Twenty-first Century Act (in short - AC21). This is the one that governs if your I-485 is approvable (a.k.a "getting a Green Card") or not after you change your job. Again, this applies to only if you are the primary applicant for an Employment Based I-485. If your I-485 application is based on marriage to a US citizen or is based on Family Ties to a US citizen or is based on application for Refugee Status (or any other category like finishing 4 year degree or higher in a US university), then the job you take up will not affect your I-485 application. Even dependents like spouse and children of an employment based I-485 applicatant can take up any job with an EAD and it will not affect the I-485 process.
Have seen a lot of posts where people insist that on EAD the job that you do needs to match the one you did on h1 .. at least 50%.
So am looking for documentation on what the exact rules are related to an EAD.
Any weblinks on this?
I think there is some confusion in the way you have asked your question. Your question is really about AC21 and not EAD. AC21, among many things, allows one to change employers 180 days after the filing of the I-485 as long as the new job is same or similar to the job description in your Labor Certification. If this is what you are asking - then this has nothing to do with EAD. You can invoke AC21 even on H1B.
EAD stands for Employment Authorization Document. It is a means by which a person can work legally in the U.S. Students who have completed requirement for a degree are eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for I-485 is eligible for EAD, anyone who has applied for refugee status is eligible for EAD. Anyone who has an EAD is not restricted to a job category or classification which is unlike the H1B which is specific to a job, its classification, its location, employer, wage requirements, etc. If your I-485 is employment based and you have an EAD, you can quit your job and work in McDonalds as a cashier. The EAD will not prevent you from doing this. However, your I-485 application is no longer approvabe and it will be denied (this does not mean that you should quit your job and take up a waiter's job to see if the above statement is true - if you do - you are doing so at your own risk). And once your I-485 is denied, then your EAD is automatically invalid.
What you really need to look up is the American Competitiveness In the Twenty-first Century Act (in short - AC21). This is the one that governs if your I-485 is approvable (a.k.a "getting a Green Card") or not after you change your job. Again, this applies to only if you are the primary applicant for an Employment Based I-485. If your I-485 application is based on marriage to a US citizen or is based on Family Ties to a US citizen or is based on application for Refugee Status (or any other category like finishing 4 year degree or higher in a US university), then the job you take up will not affect your I-485 application. Even dependents like spouse and children of an employment based I-485 applicatant can take up any job with an EAD and it will not affect the I-485 process.
more...
pictures Actor Hayden Christensen and
sertasheep
07-26 09:55 PM
Nice.
dresses Hayden Christensen - Portrait
indianindian2006
10-09 08:34 PM
My RFE is with regards to Employer's ability to pay. Somehow, my employer hasn't submitted anything yet and the deadline is on Thurs Oct. 11. What will happen if we are not able to submit anything by the deadline? Will the app automatically get denied?
According to what I have read,if the additional evidence is not sent out by the deadline then they will decide the case with the evidence that they have on hand,which is most likely not enough for them to approve the case.After they decide the case and if it goes against you then your option is motion to reopen the case or an appeal.Contact your employer and attorney to send the papers ASAP.
Good luck.
According to what I have read,if the additional evidence is not sent out by the deadline then they will decide the case with the evidence that they have on hand,which is most likely not enough for them to approve the case.After they decide the case and if it goes against you then your option is motion to reopen the case or an appeal.Contact your employer and attorney to send the papers ASAP.
Good luck.
more...
makeup Hayden Christensen wallpapers
hebron
06-21 12:23 PM
suggestions? ^^^^^^^
girlfriend hayden christensen star wars.
rayen
05-19 12:36 PM
You can definitely efile. I did not apply for EAD with my I-485 during July VB fiasco, but I efiled with the new filing fee in September 07 and got it approved in 2 months.
Dear Desertfox: Can you please advice me on the below 2 questions while efile (756 - EAD)
1. Q 14 - Manner of Last Entry into the U.S.:
(Visitor, Student, etc.) - Which option has to select from List of Values. ( DA: ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)?.
2. What do I mention for this : For (c)(9) eligibility status only
Please select the location where your
I-485 is pending:
Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:
Thanks,
Dear Desertfox: Can you please advice me on the below 2 questions while efile (756 - EAD)
1. Q 14 - Manner of Last Entry into the U.S.:
(Visitor, Student, etc.) - Which option has to select from List of Values. ( DA: ADVANCE PAROLE (DISTRICT AUTH)?.
2. What do I mention for this : For (c)(9) eligibility status only
Please select the location where your
I-485 is pending:
Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:
Thanks,
hairstyles Hayden Christensen
little_willy
09-14 03:45 PM
The interview with Jay about the rally just started.
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
dealsnet
09-09 04:53 PM
You are talking about this company.?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
No comments:
Post a Comment