HRPRO
02-09 01:31 PM
You will have to file an amended petition to be in compliance.
The PW could be different and you can check that on the OES website at flcdatacenter.com
Hope this helps.
The PW could be different and you can check that on the OES website at flcdatacenter.com
Hope this helps.
wallpaper oat, Tattoo cover-up
logiclife
03-08 12:27 PM
I got 3 emails this morning. Need more volunteers to work on this...Please email me on jay@immigrationvoice.org,
I promise I wont spam your mailbox. Just want to send you a pdf document to get your started on helping with this. we want to broaden our base otherwise the same group of people will have to keep contributing repeatedly while thousands are unaware of immigration voice.
--logiclife.
I promise I wont spam your mailbox. Just want to send you a pdf document to get your started on helping with this. we want to broaden our base otherwise the same group of people will have to keep contributing repeatedly while thousands are unaware of immigration voice.
--logiclife.
eb2_immigrant
10-22 08:17 PM
I think this is what is happening in your cases,
If you efile for your AP and If your last fingerprinting was done 18 months before Then you will get Fingerprinting notice and you got to go n give new finger prints.
If you paper file, Whether or not your FP expired (18 months) you will never get finger printing notice. (unless your PD is current and they are adjudicating your case and sending a RFE).
Always better to paper file.
So to confirm if what you are thinking is true or not I called USCIS,
The guy in TSC said it is a mistake and they will clarify it. I wasn't very convinced with his response, I called back after sometime, this time since there was no response to TSC it was route to other service center
As earlier even this time the representative in this center was not able to answer as to why it says "interview reschedules” but she did transferred me to an officer.
After several identification questions, Officer said this is not related to finger prints and she was not sure if it is related to I-485 interview either as they put reschedule interview note on my I-131 application.
Finally she gave me a WTC-XXXXXXXX-TSC number, asked for my cell # and asked me to call back after 10 days if I don’t hear anything from the USCIS.
I really don’t know what is happening; I don’t have much choice either other than waiting for something “GOOD “ to happen
Any thoughts ......??????
If you efile for your AP and If your last fingerprinting was done 18 months before Then you will get Fingerprinting notice and you got to go n give new finger prints.
If you paper file, Whether or not your FP expired (18 months) you will never get finger printing notice. (unless your PD is current and they are adjudicating your case and sending a RFE).
Always better to paper file.
So to confirm if what you are thinking is true or not I called USCIS,
The guy in TSC said it is a mistake and they will clarify it. I wasn't very convinced with his response, I called back after sometime, this time since there was no response to TSC it was route to other service center
As earlier even this time the representative in this center was not able to answer as to why it says "interview reschedules” but she did transferred me to an officer.
After several identification questions, Officer said this is not related to finger prints and she was not sure if it is related to I-485 interview either as they put reschedule interview note on my I-131 application.
Finally she gave me a WTC-XXXXXXXX-TSC number, asked for my cell # and asked me to call back after 10 days if I don’t hear anything from the USCIS.
I really don’t know what is happening; I don’t have much choice either other than waiting for something “GOOD “ to happen
Any thoughts ......??????
2011 equation tattoos.jpg
indyanguy
11-07 08:58 AM
I think in the case you mentioned in your first post it will highly risky to use AC21 ,it would be advisable to be with the sponsoring employer till your 485 is approved. You have two labours and two 140s in different categories EB2 and EB3 processed .I think in your case please consult with a very good lawyer/attorney because immigrtaion laws are very complex and complicated,
not straight forward . If this was staright forward everyone who is EB3 would have converted or ported to EB2 and as I mentioned before documentation and employer support is a must . One of my friend went to his employer wanting to convert from EB3 to EB2 his employer( a reputed American Bank) refused point blank.
The point here is people reading this forum get mislead that porting is very easy and straightforward and simple . It is not ,if it was all would have filed in EB2 and not EB3 .EB2 has more checks and scrutinies and different requirements. Thats what I was told by my attorney. So consult an attorney before you go this route.
Thanks for the detailed reply. In my case, the company's lawyer suggested this option. I have a MS from US, have enough experience and the job profile justifies an EB2 application. Unfortunately, I got stuck with EB3.
I will keep in mind what you suggested and will do more research before taking any action.
not straight forward . If this was staright forward everyone who is EB3 would have converted or ported to EB2 and as I mentioned before documentation and employer support is a must . One of my friend went to his employer wanting to convert from EB3 to EB2 his employer( a reputed American Bank) refused point blank.
The point here is people reading this forum get mislead that porting is very easy and straightforward and simple . It is not ,if it was all would have filed in EB2 and not EB3 .EB2 has more checks and scrutinies and different requirements. Thats what I was told by my attorney. So consult an attorney before you go this route.
Thanks for the detailed reply. In my case, the company's lawyer suggested this option. I have a MS from US, have enough experience and the job profile justifies an EB2 application. Unfortunately, I got stuck with EB3.
I will keep in mind what you suggested and will do more research before taking any action.
more...
GCwaitforever
07-12 08:41 AM
I expected Rep. Ed Royce to come hard on Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to improve performance of USCIS, taking your question as a cue. Thats what I would expect from a true leader. Not any circumvoluted responses.
Next time, please ask a specific question which elicits yes/no response like his position on SKIL bill and if he would vote in support of it. No more spin on illegal immigration to not support legal immigration. Then it will show how supportive of he is for immigration.
After 9/11, former INS functions of border security went to Dept. of Homeland Security. USCIS is solely for immigration processing only. This reorganization should have improved performance of USCIS. Instead, we see the more delays, hear more stories, and fudged measurement criteria to show USCIS in good light to the Congress inspite of the poor performance.
Next time, please ask a specific question which elicits yes/no response like his position on SKIL bill and if he would vote in support of it. No more spin on illegal immigration to not support legal immigration. Then it will show how supportive of he is for immigration.
After 9/11, former INS functions of border security went to Dept. of Homeland Security. USCIS is solely for immigration processing only. This reorganization should have improved performance of USCIS. Instead, we see the more delays, hear more stories, and fudged measurement criteria to show USCIS in good light to the Congress inspite of the poor performance.
NikNikon
March 14th, 2006, 11:22 PM
Hi John, I don't consider myself a pro but I'll be more than happy to offer an opinion. I have the exact same set up as you - D70, SB600 speedlight, ect... The best way to get useable rodeo shots with our set up is to shoot rodeos held during daylight. I didn't mean that to sound like a smart ass remark, it's just you have three things working against you during night rodeo photography, the lack of light, the distance and freezing the action. I shot a rodeo that started out with daylight and went into the night. During the daylight hours I was using a 70-300mm zoom with a 2X extender, as it got darker I took the extender off and found a spot closer to the action. I also put my ISO at 1600 and put my SB600 on. If I remember right I was probably around 1/60 or 1/80 and was using the flash to stop the action and to my knowledge there isn't anyway of getting around the animal-flash-eye's syndrome. I just used photoshop to fix it during the post processing. But needless to say the ratio of useable photos during the night portion of the rodeo went way down. Even though I moved as close as possible (right up against the fence 90% from where the bulls were coming out) I had new problems to contend with, for one the dust kicked into the air would work against the flash and wash out the shot. So in that instance you have to rely on luck and timing. So I'd say move around and find your best vantage point and if you have photoshop learn how to use the "curves" function (clicking the white eyedropper on whats supposed to be white in your photo and black on whats supposed to be black). Probably not the solution you were looking for but a few ideas. The bigger fix would to get a camera that has 3200 ISO capabilities. I know there are a few Canon rodeo shooters here that can inform you about that here. Below are a couple links to a couple of my night shots. Good luck.
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/28685/cat/746
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/28686/cat/746
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/28685/cat/746
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showphoto.php/photo/28686/cat/746
more...
waitingonlc
02-13 03:50 PM
Immigration plan looms in Congress
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, February 12, 2006
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-immigdog_12nat.ART0.State.Edition1.3eb24c4.html
Washington -- As mid-term congressional elections draw closer, the window for action in Congress on a complex � and controversial � immigration package grows ever smaller.
Mindful of that, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has told Senate leaders that they must deliver a bill to the floor by March 27, an ambitious deadline for legislation that has yet to be written in committee.
A bigger hurdle looms: Reconciling sure-to-be competing visions from the House and Senate.
'Immigration is one of the most controversial issues in American society,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University. 'We all like individual immigrants who live near us and work with us, but we don't like illegal immigration as a whole. And trying to put together a package that will accommodate everyone's interest is very tough, indeed.'
The topic is fraught with economic, national security, social, diplomatic and political implications.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the U.S. illegally, swelling a population now estimated to exceed 11 million. The Southwest border is in crisis in places, overrun by illegal immigration and drug traffickers. There is also the threat that the porous border could serve as a gateway for terrorists. And the legal immigration system is beset by backlogs, problems and rules that vex employers and keep millions of people awaiting approval for green cards to join relatives already here.
The test for Congress is what to emphasize: enforcement, immigration liberalization or some combination of the two?
Choosing a direction
The House took the first crack at the question, passing a stringent enforcement-only bill that would fence more than a third of the 1,952-mile Southwest border, increase fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it a crime (instead of a civil penalty) to be in the country illegally. The legislation was silent on President Bush's call for a guest worker program that would grant visas for up to six years to millions of undocumented workers.
The debate now shifts to the Senate, which appears inclined to marry enhanced border security with a temporary worker program.
But the Senate's solution, particularly if it includes a pathway to legal permanent residence, is sure to set up a collision with the House, where national security hawks have dominated the debate.
'The big question becomes: Is it even possible for the two houses to reconcile their bills,' said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration. 'If it's not done by May, I can't see it getting done.'
The divisions may be too pronounced for Congress to act this year, Mr. Yale-Loehr said.
As the elections near, politicians will become increasingly skittish of taking up an issue that could anger Hispanic and conservative voters alike while also inflaming constituencies as diverse as big business and labor.
In some ways, it's no surprise that politicians are lurching in radically different directions, with one faction pushing get-tough prescriptions such as ending automatic citizenship to those born here of illegal immigrant parents, while another camp presses to legalize illegal immigrants and permit a stream of newcomers.
Public divided
The public is deeply conflicted.
Polls consistently show that Americans are troubled by illegal immigration and the federal government's failure to enforce the law. But those same polls also detect sympathy for illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes as they scrabble for a piece of the American dream.
A new Time/SRBI poll offered one snapshot of the public's ambivalence. Though 63 percent of respondents described illegal immigration as a very serious or extremely serious problem and 57 percent endorsed taking 'whatever steps are necessary' to halt migrant crossings, 73 percent favored granting temporary work visas to illegal immigrants already here.
So, how do policymakers thread the needle?
'That's the $64 million question,' said Migration Policy Institute senior fellow Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration.
'We definitely have to do something, and sooner than later,' she said. 'But I think that it's really important that this issue and this debate develops and evolves, because if we were to go ahead and enact what's now been passed by the House, it would be a terrible disservice.'
She, like others critical of the House's enforcement-only approach, contends that any immigration law rewrite must resolve the status of illegal immigrants and provide an outlet for future migrants drawn by jobs or the desire to be reunited with family.
'Enforcement-only is not going to work,' said Angelo Amador, head of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The chamber is loosely allied with immigrant-rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions and others who have rallied around a plan by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that tandems some tougher enforcement with a guest worker plan that would provide a path to legal permanent residence.
But supporters of the House approach say enforcement must be dealt with first, both at the border and within the country, and by implementing a mandatory employer verification system to check the legal status of would-be hires.
'A guest worker program would be an absolute disaster with our current enforcement because, of course, it wouldn't be a guest worker program if we can't make them go home,' said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for Numbers USA, a group seeking reduced immigration.
Pollster Sergio Bendixen said that the policy debate has been skewed by the 'echo chamber' of radio talk shows and cable TV programs that fixate on immigration's negatives rather than looking at the whole picture.
'It has become an emotional issue with emotional buzzwords, and there's very little rationality in the debate,' Mr. Bendixen said. 'Unfortunately, we are close to making it impossible on people who have to get elected' to deal with the issue.
2010 dog tags tattoo
pa_arora
07-17 12:32 PM
A federal judge has ordered USCIS to pay attorney Kip Evan Steinberg $25,000 in legal fees after the lawyer's client sued the agency to force it to complete processing in an adjustment of status green card case. USCIS tried to point the finger at the FBI for delays in the name check process, but the judge wasn't buying. The judge found the 151 hours the lawyer put in to the case to be reasonable. So 151 attorney hours were wasted, an individual waited years unnecessarily and America's taxpayers are out $25,000.
- From Greg Siskind blog
- From Greg Siskind blog
more...
Berkeleybee
04-26 12:01 PM
All,
I want to make sure we acknowledge every contribution our members make, monetary and in terms of ideas.
As I said in the main thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=9780&postcount=33) it was posts on the forum by virtual55, jkays94 and cpolisetti that set the WaPo ball rolling.
Thank you to them and every member who does his or her part in big and small ways.
best,
Berkeleybee
I want to make sure we acknowledge every contribution our members make, monetary and in terms of ideas.
As I said in the main thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=9780&postcount=33) it was posts on the forum by virtual55, jkays94 and cpolisetti that set the WaPo ball rolling.
Thank you to them and every member who does his or her part in big and small ways.
best,
Berkeleybee
hair oat tattoo. viking oat tattoo aw,; viking oat tattoo aw,. katie ta achoo
chantu
02-28 08:40 PM
Hi,
Today I received I140 RFE. I do not know whether it is serious issue or not? It states that my employer has to:
Submit evidence to establish that the petitioner (i.e my employer) had the financial ability to pay the proffered wage as of "Some Date", priority date and continues to have such ability. Such evidence must include annual US federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. You may also include additional evidence, such as profit/loss statements, bank account records, personnel records. If you employ 100 workers or more, you may submit a statement from the financial officer of the organization, establishing your ability to pay the proffered wage.
Can somebody please tell me whether it is serious issue or it happens generally? My employer said he will send all the documents next week to USCIS.
Today I received I140 RFE. I do not know whether it is serious issue or not? It states that my employer has to:
Submit evidence to establish that the petitioner (i.e my employer) had the financial ability to pay the proffered wage as of "Some Date", priority date and continues to have such ability. Such evidence must include annual US federal tax returns, or audited financial statements. You may also include additional evidence, such as profit/loss statements, bank account records, personnel records. If you employ 100 workers or more, you may submit a statement from the financial officer of the organization, establishing your ability to pay the proffered wage.
Can somebody please tell me whether it is serious issue or it happens generally? My employer said he will send all the documents next week to USCIS.
more...
gcdreamer05
08-11 11:23 AM
Here you go!
Ok we have the poll, now can we start guessing when our dates will be current.
possibly we need another poll with these options asking when do you think your PD will be current
1) 10-12 years
2) 12-15 years
3) 15 - 20 years
:(
Ok we have the poll, now can we start guessing when our dates will be current.
possibly we need another poll with these options asking when do you think your PD will be current
1) 10-12 years
2) 12-15 years
3) 15 - 20 years
:(
hot fishin tattoo#39;s
qualified_trash
12-12 03:43 PM
You really do not have to say good bye to GC. If your labor has been cleared, you can apply I-140 Premium processing with your present company. Apply perm and I-140 with this new mid sized company. Transfer PD to new I-140 with new company. Go to India to start your company have them outsource to you. GC is for future anyways, work on your new enterprise in India for 1-2-3 years untill your pd becomes current (whenever that happens). At that point you have an option to file I-485. You can still continue in India, with an option to returning or decide at that point if you want to stay in the USA for 2-3 months every-year to maintain GC for 5 years to become US Citizen.
very true!!
very true!!
more...
house tattoo machines from
gc_kaavaali
06-27 02:20 PM
Can you please provide below details
when did u file for your EAD renewal? Is it e-file or paper based file? what is the service center?
Just got �Card Production Ordered� LUD for EAD for both myself and my wife. Wish it could have happened on the next working day, which is Monday - June 30th, we could have got 2 year EAD, unlucky!!!
when did u file for your EAD renewal? Is it e-file or paper based file? what is the service center?
Just got �Card Production Ordered� LUD for EAD for both myself and my wife. Wish it could have happened on the next working day, which is Monday - June 30th, we could have got 2 year EAD, unlucky!!!
tattoo Mermaid Boat Tattoo
smiledentist
06-21 12:37 AM
I am a dentist in state of CA,and filed for EB2 green card.In April
2006 applied for my
PERM from MD Dental, a dental group with 5 offices and about 30
employs and owned by 2
partners.Also in April 2006 they applied for my H1b visa.Further PERM and H1b
both were approved
and in may 2006 I filed for I-140 from the same company.I-140 had a
RFE but was approved
in Feb 2007.Meanwhile in Oct 2006 both partners had a misunderstanding
and they split the
company into 2 companies with one partner getting 2 offices and the
other partner getting
3 offices.Originally my perm was filed from the MD dental Van-Nuys
office, which was
given to partner A who then told me to file for a new H1b as tax ID
number for the
employer has changed but my job location would not change.I filed for
a new H1 visa from
partner A which was also approved and started to work for him till Feb
2007.In feb 2007 I
found a new job again as a dentist with a different company and moved
to that company.I
am still in good contact with both partner A and partner B of the old
company.
My question is if I could file for I485 from MD dental which is
already split with
approved I140, or I could file it from partner A or partner B`s new
company showing
either of them as succesor of interest.Also can I invoke AC21 in 6 months and move to my current employer..
Please advice.
2006 applied for my
PERM from MD Dental, a dental group with 5 offices and about 30
employs and owned by 2
partners.Also in April 2006 they applied for my H1b visa.Further PERM and H1b
both were approved
and in may 2006 I filed for I-140 from the same company.I-140 had a
RFE but was approved
in Feb 2007.Meanwhile in Oct 2006 both partners had a misunderstanding
and they split the
company into 2 companies with one partner getting 2 offices and the
other partner getting
3 offices.Originally my perm was filed from the MD dental Van-Nuys
office, which was
given to partner A who then told me to file for a new H1b as tax ID
number for the
employer has changed but my job location would not change.I filed for
a new H1 visa from
partner A which was also approved and started to work for him till Feb
2007.In feb 2007 I
found a new job again as a dentist with a different company and moved
to that company.I
am still in good contact with both partner A and partner B of the old
company.
My question is if I could file for I485 from MD dental which is
already split with
approved I140, or I could file it from partner A or partner B`s new
company showing
either of them as succesor of interest.Also can I invoke AC21 in 6 months and move to my current employer..
Please advice.
more...
pictures Apparently, this tattoo says
ImmigrationAnswerMan
06-30 12:36 PM
Changingjobs:
You can begin working for company B on your H as soon as company B files an H petition for you, since the H1B is portable. You can also begin working on your EAD for company B, although that will result in you no longer being in H1B status.
Any employment with company B is a violation of your H1B with company A. If the petition from company B is denied, you will no longer be in H1B status.
You could then go back to work for company A on the EAD. If you wanted to work for company A on the H1B you would have to leave the US and reenter on an H1B visa.
I am assuming your EAD is from an I-140/I-485 filed by employer A. You will want to make sure that your I-140 is portable under AC21, otherwise company A could pull your I-140 causing your I-485 and EAD to be denied.
You can begin working for company B on your H as soon as company B files an H petition for you, since the H1B is portable. You can also begin working on your EAD for company B, although that will result in you no longer being in H1B status.
Any employment with company B is a violation of your H1B with company A. If the petition from company B is denied, you will no longer be in H1B status.
You could then go back to work for company A on the EAD. If you wanted to work for company A on the H1B you would have to leave the US and reenter on an H1B visa.
I am assuming your EAD is from an I-140/I-485 filed by employer A. You will want to make sure that your I-140 is portable under AC21, otherwise company A could pull your I-140 causing your I-485 and EAD to be denied.
dresses zelda tattoo.jpg
wandmaker
02-24 02:49 PM
For those who think that this is good and will not affect them -
What we are hearing now in the news is just the tip of the iceberg. It is just ground work to justify tougher measures against employment based immigration. If it continues, CIR will be passed giving path to citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants without any measure for employment based immigration. Remember, the only folks who have been in influential position to support EB immigration has been big businesses (like Microsoft, Oracle) and AILA. With the rising unemployment rate, nobody will listen to these businesses. With the indictment of (even a few) cases of H-1B fraud, AILA will not be able to fight the impending tsunami against legal employment based immigrants.
If we don't do anything, illegals will be citizens while people with H-1 and even EAD will be forced to go back. This is the beginning of the end to employment based immigration.
For those who can't read normal font.
BTW, update your profile when you get time, it will help IV and you.
What we are hearing now in the news is just the tip of the iceberg. It is just ground work to justify tougher measures against employment based immigration. If it continues, CIR will be passed giving path to citizenship to ILLEGAL immigrants without any measure for employment based immigration. Remember, the only folks who have been in influential position to support EB immigration has been big businesses (like Microsoft, Oracle) and AILA. With the rising unemployment rate, nobody will listen to these businesses. With the indictment of (even a few) cases of H-1B fraud, AILA will not be able to fight the impending tsunami against legal employment based immigrants.
If we don't do anything, illegals will be citizens while people with H-1 and even EAD will be forced to go back. This is the beginning of the end to employment based immigration.
For those who can't read normal font.
BTW, update your profile when you get time, it will help IV and you.
more...
makeup like my sail oat tattoo?
eager_immi
02-12 10:51 PM
it will at some point of time but not in this months bulletin or in the near future. Folks , for someone with March 2004 Eb3 India PD , is converting to Eb2 really going to help in any way at all ? Please suggest.
girlfriend More Meat Tattoos!
gcdreamer05
11-19 12:55 PM
The vermont service center says 2 months for h1b extensions, mine has been pending for 75 days, so i called the uscis today and guess what they told me, the processing times have been updated on teh web site but it is very difficult for us to follow them, i would suggest you wait for 90 days and see if there is any change in your online status if not call me back.
Then why do these people keep updating monthly processing dates if they cannot stick to their words.
I believe the processing times are just a gimmick to show progress to press....:mad:
Then why do these people keep updating monthly processing dates if they cannot stick to their words.
I believe the processing times are just a gimmick to show progress to press....:mad:
hairstyles oat tattoo. Tattoo ideas. Tattoo ideas. JackAxe. Mar 1, 03:44 PM
Siddharta
03-11 09:16 PM
We were talking about taxes at work and someone mentioned that all bank accounts in home country should be reported to IRS. I opened a bank account(NRE) in India before I came to US and get minimal interest income from it. Should I be declaring the income to IRS? The income is so low that I don't have to declare it in India so I didn't bother. I do not have a green card (am on H1B). Can you confirm if I am supposed to provide this info in tax returns. I did do some research on this and from news articles it seems like what my colleague mentioned is true. How do I go about providing all the info now? Is this going to impact my GC process?
spouse485
01-10 05:18 PM
Thanks so much for all the replies.
I'm going to follow the links provided.
Should your bank statements reflect specific minimun balance ?
Thank you.
does anyone have an answer
I'm going to follow the links provided.
Should your bank statements reflect specific minimun balance ?
Thank you.
does anyone have an answer
gc_on_demand
07-14 10:47 AM
I am aware of that backlog but just want to apply as a backup. I just want to know if applying for I 130 while I 140 is approved is there any conflict ?
No comments:
Post a Comment