ivvm
10-07 08:54 PM
My I-94 has expired becoz it was issued up to my passport validity. If I have to renew it, is it a good option to cross border and get a new I-94, like going to Mexico or Canada. Please advice. I am not sure how to proceed. No one knows the procedure. Please if anyone knows, advice.
Since your I-94 is already expired, you need to consult an attorney. Assuming that it wasnt expired..you could have re-entered from Canada/ Mexico using your new passport, assuming you have a valid visa, and they would have issued you a new I-94 at the border crossing.
Since your I-94 is already expired, you need to consult an attorney. Assuming that it wasnt expired..you could have re-entered from Canada/ Mexico using your new passport, assuming you have a valid visa, and they would have issued you a new I-94 at the border crossing.
little_willy
07-28 06:24 PM
My friend who is a contractor in the company where I am working, is right now on H1B. He is a very hard worker and cheerful fellow. My employer (among big5 tech companies in US) offered him fulltime position.
His EAD is going to be expired soon, as he is a july 07 filer. He is worried that if he joins my employer at this point, and if he doesn't get his EAD renewed in time, he would be in trouble.
He already sent papers for renew but haven't heard back. After six weeks, his current EAD will expire.
can anyone guide, what are his options? my employer will not file H1B. is there anything like interim EAD?
You can expedite his case as I consider this an emergency. Check this link for more details. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=179864#post179864
His EAD is going to be expired soon, as he is a july 07 filer. He is worried that if he joins my employer at this point, and if he doesn't get his EAD renewed in time, he would be in trouble.
He already sent papers for renew but haven't heard back. After six weeks, his current EAD will expire.
can anyone guide, what are his options? my employer will not file H1B. is there anything like interim EAD?
You can expedite his case as I consider this an emergency. Check this link for more details. http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=179864#post179864
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
waitforevergc
09-04 04:12 PM
Sadly, RFE's are the norm especially for folks in IT industry.
Also, when they submitted my H1 extension, our lawyer told us not to file under Premium as it might attract undue scrutiny, so we went normal process.
Also, when they submitted my H1 extension, our lawyer told us not to file under Premium as it might attract undue scrutiny, so we went normal process.
more...
vikramy
01-08 11:05 AM
Is Attorney coming today?
ArkBird
12-08 03:50 PM
I wish! :)
I am pretty sure Obama-Biden's team does not want to see the headlines like "Foreigners" on Obama-Biden's transition team!
Yes. We are foreigners no matter how much tax we pay or how law abiding we are...
We are legal immigrants and most importantly - tax payers, shouldn't that be enough??
I am pretty sure Obama-Biden's team does not want to see the headlines like "Foreigners" on Obama-Biden's transition team!
Yes. We are foreigners no matter how much tax we pay or how law abiding we are...
We are legal immigrants and most importantly - tax payers, shouldn't that be enough??
more...
Krishanpal
07-22 06:57 AM
I believe both are right. I do not think 123456mg is wrong. S/He is a law-abiding person like us and has a right to state his opinion. I agree, the statements were a bit harsher but so the truth is. Also, I guess we must stop discussing more on these matters as such since it is past and can not be changed now. Though you have my personal symphathies unlike 123456mg, I do not think the actions you chose were correct and you require a correction from that perspective. I suggest you talk to experts regarding your immigration matters since your looks like a difficult case to me.
indyanguy
01-14 09:14 PM
Thanks for all the replies.
All big cities have MIT Enterprise Forum chapters, you can meet and network with a lot of accomplished people there. There are plenty volunteer opportunities.
ampudhukode- I have sent you a PM.
All big cities have MIT Enterprise Forum chapters, you can meet and network with a lot of accomplished people there. There are plenty volunteer opportunities.
ampudhukode- I have sent you a PM.
more...
Blog Feeds
04-28 08:40 AM
From Politico.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/reid-considering-bringing-immigration-bill-directly-to-floor.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/04/reid-considering-bringing-immigration-bill-directly-to-floor.html)
satyasrd
05-19 07:37 AM
Pappu/IV Seniors,
This sounds totally outrageous ! I mean if the company is genuine and no one is on bench etc. what was the ground for deportation ? And what is this about intimidating the immigrant ? What can we do to bring these cases to light and ask for explanations ?
Thanks.
I fear a backlash as by now ewr would have made my company to be marked for secondary scrutiny. this is how the story unfolded
CBP --who is your manager
XYZ -- Mr ABC who is based in atlanta ..
CBP. hmmm.. can i have his phone #
CBP calls Mr ABC .. we r deporting XYZ hs papaers r not in order ..
no call back # nothing ..
meanwhile XYZ is asked to sign papers ..
I know we can refuse but those people r so intimidating and I guess if you dont sign ICE agents come in and tell you that it could take months to send you back
so poor xyz has no option but to sign and get a stamp on his passport that he is being deported
Councilor access is a myth and so is trying to call and talk to the CBP officers
and this is not a small body shop .. it has atleast 500 people working on various projects across US and those people were not on bench
i can field any questions ...
This sounds totally outrageous ! I mean if the company is genuine and no one is on bench etc. what was the ground for deportation ? And what is this about intimidating the immigrant ? What can we do to bring these cases to light and ask for explanations ?
Thanks.
I fear a backlash as by now ewr would have made my company to be marked for secondary scrutiny. this is how the story unfolded
CBP --who is your manager
XYZ -- Mr ABC who is based in atlanta ..
CBP. hmmm.. can i have his phone #
CBP calls Mr ABC .. we r deporting XYZ hs papaers r not in order ..
no call back # nothing ..
meanwhile XYZ is asked to sign papers ..
I know we can refuse but those people r so intimidating and I guess if you dont sign ICE agents come in and tell you that it could take months to send you back
so poor xyz has no option but to sign and get a stamp on his passport that he is being deported
Councilor access is a myth and so is trying to call and talk to the CBP officers
and this is not a small body shop .. it has atleast 500 people working on various projects across US and those people were not on bench
i can field any questions ...
more...
smarth
10-25 12:11 AM
Hello,
recently i got my H1B extension. Going to India for visa stamping in my passport.
Can you please tell me if I book tickets suppose Lufthansa which halts @ Frankfurt, will I be getting any problems because I am not having visa stamping? Do I need transit visa?
Do I need to book direct flight to India?
Thanks
recently i got my H1B extension. Going to India for visa stamping in my passport.
Can you please tell me if I book tickets suppose Lufthansa which halts @ Frankfurt, will I be getting any problems because I am not having visa stamping? Do I need transit visa?
Do I need to book direct flight to India?
Thanks
hdos
06-11 09:31 PM
Hi,
I found from lawyer that there is no such thing called 10 days grace period after your last date of your H1. That is a big misconception. You can stay only in this country if you travel outside US and stayed more than 60 days. and that is also that rule applys to for first 6 years only.
for example, if somebody travels to outside country for 3 months within the first 6 years of their h1. and if his/her h1 is completing today than thay can use their 3 monthns period after 3 months form today. and they can only this at end of their first 6 years expiration of their h1. thay cannot use this period if they are on 7th or more years on extension.
after end of your h1 (does not matter after 6 years or 10 years), if you stay in US for 179 days than, your overstay is considered as illigal stay but there do not consider as violation and that does not count if you try to come back in US again. if your overstay is more than equals to 180 but less than a year than you are baan form entering US for 3 years. and if overstay is more thatn 1 year than you are baan from enterting US for 10 years.
I found from lawyer that there is no such thing called 10 days grace period after your last date of your H1. That is a big misconception. You can stay only in this country if you travel outside US and stayed more than 60 days. and that is also that rule applys to for first 6 years only.
for example, if somebody travels to outside country for 3 months within the first 6 years of their h1. and if his/her h1 is completing today than thay can use their 3 monthns period after 3 months form today. and they can only this at end of their first 6 years expiration of their h1. thay cannot use this period if they are on 7th or more years on extension.
after end of your h1 (does not matter after 6 years or 10 years), if you stay in US for 179 days than, your overstay is considered as illigal stay but there do not consider as violation and that does not count if you try to come back in US again. if your overstay is more than equals to 180 but less than a year than you are baan form entering US for 3 years. and if overstay is more thatn 1 year than you are baan from enterting US for 10 years.
more...
shreekarthik
07-17 03:04 PM
!!!!. Hopefully you'll be still around encouraging others.
GCTorture
12-10 08:13 AM
So 22nd Jan 02 to 01 Feb 02. What the hell this means? After how much of time it moved 10 days? Is all the technology they boast about, just a hypocrisy?
more...
vxg
03-17 04:52 PM
Insurance did not pay for mine and my wife however my employer reimbursed me.
If your primary physician "advises" you to go through the "same" tests then insurance companies will have to pay.
If your primary physician "advises" you to go through the "same" tests then insurance companies will have to pay.
ItIsNotFunny
11-06 04:57 PM
Glad to see your initiatives. But our focus should be different.
The Economy is in very bad shape. Unemployement is rising. At this moment any bill that ask for GC number increase won't pass. We need to wait for atleast few months.
In the meantime as a temprory releif we should push the "Country quoto elimination bill" that does not increase GC numbers.
Also please take a look at my plan that I presented couple of weeks earlier. It is a compromise bill and I feel it has the best chance to pass during lameduck session. My plan gives at least some releif to people waiting for 7 years or waiting for months with PD current.
Please keep the spirit alive. Thanks.
You are right. I guess GC for House concept may fly. Guys, think over it!
The Economy is in very bad shape. Unemployement is rising. At this moment any bill that ask for GC number increase won't pass. We need to wait for atleast few months.
In the meantime as a temprory releif we should push the "Country quoto elimination bill" that does not increase GC numbers.
Also please take a look at my plan that I presented couple of weeks earlier. It is a compromise bill and I feel it has the best chance to pass during lameduck session. My plan gives at least some releif to people waiting for 7 years or waiting for months with PD current.
Please keep the spirit alive. Thanks.
You are right. I guess GC for House concept may fly. Guys, think over it!
more...
krishnam70
05-06 11:52 AM
Here is my story, Immigration experts are requested to suggest.......
My H1 started from Oct 05 with Employer A.
Applied Labor in Feb 07, Approved in Feb 07.
I-140 approved in May 07.
Applied I-485 in July 07, still pending.
EAD, AP received in Oct 07 - Expired in Oct 08 (Never Used)
Renewed EAD in Oct 08, valid till Oct 2010.
In Oct 08 H1 expired (3 years), Employer A filed for extension in Sep 08.
The project with Employer A finished on Nov 22, 08. (on H1)
Started new project with Employer B on EAD from Nov 24, 08.
(AC21 was not filed)
Employer A responded an RFE for H1 extension in Jan 09. (3years of Tax
Returns, W2, etc)
Due to miscommunication between me and Employer A, he was notified of my
new job on EAD with Employer B in march 09.
H1 Extension with Employer A got REJECTED on April 26, 09. Reason - End client
contract not submitted. (It was not mentioned in RFE)
Never filed an AC21.
What should I do now ? Will this H1 extension rejection become an
obstable in getting I-485 approved ? Will there be any problem in getting
third extension of EAD if I-485 is still pending ?
Should I appeal this case by submitting all the end client contracts ? But I have
used EAD ...........I have good relation with Employer A and am assuming he will
not revoke my I-140.
Experts please suggest........
Here is my observation
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
My H1 started from Oct 05 with Employer A.
Applied Labor in Feb 07, Approved in Feb 07.
I-140 approved in May 07.
Applied I-485 in July 07, still pending.
EAD, AP received in Oct 07 - Expired in Oct 08 (Never Used)
Renewed EAD in Oct 08, valid till Oct 2010.
In Oct 08 H1 expired (3 years), Employer A filed for extension in Sep 08.
The project with Employer A finished on Nov 22, 08. (on H1)
Started new project with Employer B on EAD from Nov 24, 08.
(AC21 was not filed)
Employer A responded an RFE for H1 extension in Jan 09. (3years of Tax
Returns, W2, etc)
Due to miscommunication between me and Employer A, he was notified of my
new job on EAD with Employer B in march 09.
H1 Extension with Employer A got REJECTED on April 26, 09. Reason - End client
contract not submitted. (It was not mentioned in RFE)
Never filed an AC21.
What should I do now ? Will this H1 extension rejection become an
obstable in getting I-485 approved ? Will there be any problem in getting
third extension of EAD if I-485 is still pending ?
Should I appeal this case by submitting all the end client contracts ? But I have
used EAD ...........I have good relation with Employer A and am assuming he will
not revoke my I-140.
Experts please suggest........
Here is my observation
1. Since your H1 with your original employer A was rejected the next step from your employer would be to revoke the H1 petition ( i am not sure if rejection means automatic revocation)
2. You implicitly used AC21 by moving to a new employer and working on an EAD
3. You could have an issue if, employer A revokes your I140. There is some evidence to suggest that lot of such cases are getting NOID and getting rejected. This is based on readings on this forum in other threads.
4. On the contrary if employer A is not withdrawing your I140 which means he is still willing to support your GC ( implicit meaning is that you will work for him in future). You might get an RFE next time you apply for some renewal or just like that on your 485 asking you for 'proof of employment'. In which case you submit the necessary documentation.
The key here really is to make sure your Employer A does not revoke your I140. I know the advocates of AC21 have been arguing in the other threads that it beats the purpose of Ac21 if USCIS is rejecting such cases but its a grey area and certainly a cause for concern.
- cheers
kris
logiclife
05-03 05:00 PM
Sadly Immigration voice is giving importance to the � number of posts� rather than �number of valuable posts� .
Some people are more interested to upgrade in their title by putting more number of comments, which will have no information.
I request every one to understand that these are just somebody thoughts/comments some time they may be correct and some times
they are just garbage.
Janakp Can you tell us how many valuable posts you posted in here.
IV doest evaluate posts of members or give more or less importance to quantity or quality of posts.
The software we use for forums (Joomla) is preconfigured to make a person "Senior member" when he/she posts 100 messages.
IV core group or leadership doesnt have any interest in rating the quantity or quality of any posts from any members.
Some people are more interested to upgrade in their title by putting more number of comments, which will have no information.
I request every one to understand that these are just somebody thoughts/comments some time they may be correct and some times
they are just garbage.
Janakp Can you tell us how many valuable posts you posted in here.
IV doest evaluate posts of members or give more or less importance to quantity or quality of posts.
The software we use for forums (Joomla) is preconfigured to make a person "Senior member" when he/she posts 100 messages.
IV core group or leadership doesnt have any interest in rating the quantity or quality of any posts from any members.
pady
09-28 04:12 PM
Guys, Suggest me a good consulting company. My employer is OK until now and he just started demanding money even for H1 extensions. I am seriously thinking of moving. Please suggest good desi consulting companies who can support my GC and keep min billing. I have a very good project in hand
LloydsApple
11-12 04:39 PM
The passport is valid but the visa inside it is not. I suppose you are saying this is not a problem!?:)
Sorry, it's just that she is nervous about buying a $700 plane ticket and running into trouble.
Sorry, it's just that she is nervous about buying a $700 plane ticket and running into trouble.
damialok
04-10 01:05 PM
I work and live in CA. My employer is also in CA and we are July 2nd filers. Our 485 got transferred to TSC and then we received this letter stating that TSC has completed the initial processing and transferred it to the local office in Lincoln,NE. It also mentioned that they might schedule an interview if needed. This was about 4 months back and nothing again after that.
No comments:
Post a Comment