sbabunle
08-23 06:24 PM
I think in 2000 some of the unused visa's are recaptured and allocated.
That would be the reason the numbers are not looking exact in each year
That would be the reason the numbers are not looking exact in each year
wallpaper Elizabeth I, Queen of England
GooblyWoobly
07-19 05:09 PM
Can someone give me answer for the second question:
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
milind70
11-08 05:58 PM
I don't think 655K is a lot. Remember, 655K is for both EB and FB.
Now every year USCIS approved about 700-800K AOS, that mean they
can clear the 655K in less one year, why 655K is a big number?
Which year USCIS approved 700K AOS???
Now every year USCIS approved about 700-800K AOS, that mean they
can clear the 655K in less one year, why 655K is a big number?
Which year USCIS approved 700K AOS???
2011 of Queen Elizabeth I of
lazycis
09-26 10:30 AM
If employer revokes I-140 (even after 180 days) and I-485 get denied, you lose your old PD. So it's not set in stone.
more...
immi2006
11-06 10:03 AM
What is new in your post ? It was like that for a few weekes now.
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
I see that for EB2 the PD is 01 APR 2004 now. I want to know if I-485 approvals is linked to this PD date or they will work independent to these days.
Thanks,
Sury
-------------------------------
PD : Feb'07
I-140 - Pending
I-131 - Approved
I-485 - Pending
Center: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER
Recieved EAD Card and FP done.
-------------------------------
furiouspride
08-13 08:18 PM
I have heard for short term consulting projects, they are supposed to provide the duration of a project and say, it is for 3 months, h1 gets approved for 3 months
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
and the client will most likely go belly up :D
Next project, get a new h1, so, if you add that up, they can collect 600 Mil
and the client will most likely go belly up :D
more...
CADude
01-12 01:20 PM
This is illegal to send passport across country. Talk to Attorney. I will suggest for India trip, if required or notirized copy of passport.
2010 1 2 3 4 5
GC08
01-28 04:16 PM
Yeah right... he wants your brain, but does not want your body. Got it? :rolleyes:
In case you did not, Americans only want you to come to work for them and then you will need to leave... so that they do not have to pay your social security down the road. Isn't that a good deal?
In case you did not, Americans only want you to come to work for them and then you will need to leave... so that they do not have to pay your social security down the road. Isn't that a good deal?
more...
kaisersose
05-07 01:26 PM
By virtue of your pending 485, you can stay unemployed for any length of time. But if/when CIS asks you for proof of a bonafide job offer, you should have one. Looking for a job at that time will not work.
hair Elizabeth I
gchopes
08-04 09:41 AM
The following message from murhy forum over 3 years ago is still true. Correct? I cannot mail the renewed parole to my wife if she stays beyond the expiry of current parole.
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
--
It is not permissable for an individual to leave the United States during the validity of one Advance Parole document and return upon the validity of a second Advance Parole document.
In such circumstances and after such travel, the USCIS may deem that the adjustment of status application has been abandoned.
---
more...
immidude
07-13 10:36 AM
ppl respond i think it is very important
hot Queen Elizabeth I: Biography,
gcformeornot
01-12 09:56 AM
^^^^
more...
house Queen Elizabeth I of England
mundada
11-06 04:30 PM
I did not want to start a new thread for this. But I had earlier last month contacted many senators with the official I-485 pending inventory as proof and asking them whether it was humane, ethical and moral to ask someone wait more than 15 years for a green card! And what they are doing to remedy the situation.
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
This is the reply I received today from Sen. Frank Lautenberg. May be this is very standard format, I am not sure but it does mention specific bill and recapture provision.
In Response to Your Message
From: Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (senator@lautenberg.senate.gov)
Sent: Fri 11/06/09 1:00 PM
To:
1 attachment
0A953776.gif (2.8 KB)
Dear Mr. Mundada:
Thank you for contacting me about employment-based immigrant visas. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The “Reuniting American Families Act” (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total.
This bill is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should this or other relevant legislation come before the full Senate. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
FRL: mts
tattoo queen elizabeth 1 of england.
morpheus
04-02 09:44 PM
So if (for example) an H1B worked in the US for a few weeks before their visa became available, are they technically eligible for this? Or perhaps they were out of status for a week or two between jobs? I'm sure many H1's might have been in this situation. It's unclear who this applies to.
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
more...
pictures Elizabeth 1 Queen of England
txh1b
05-07 12:02 AM
DOJ also has videos on other religions and cultures if anyone is interested. Links below.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pubs/diversity.html
http://bja.ncjrs.gov/diversity/flash.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pubs/diversity.html
http://bja.ncjrs.gov/diversity/flash.html
dresses Queen Elizabeth II of England
theperm
05-07 02:49 PM
since leaving the employer was not my intent but the employer`s decision
more...
makeup of Queen Elizabeth I.
chi_shark
07-07 11:00 AM
as i experienced, almost all attorneys will ask you to file ac21. some attorneys charge as much as $1000 each time you change jobs... its ka-ching for them...
as for not wasting time when pd is currrent... i absolve you of that crime :-) jk... but IMHO you really cannot influence the outcome of this process by being quick on your part except ensuring continuation of the process...
as for the original question: you need not have to convince anyone about EAD... as someone else pointed out, the first page of the I-9 form states clearly that its illegal to discriminate based on immigration status... if you are in IT, there are umpteen examples of what you are trying to do (yours truly included)... just play it easy... best of luck...
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
as for not wasting time when pd is currrent... i absolve you of that crime :-) jk... but IMHO you really cannot influence the outcome of this process by being quick on your part except ensuring continuation of the process...
as for the original question: you need not have to convince anyone about EAD... as someone else pointed out, the first page of the I-9 form states clearly that its illegal to discriminate based on immigration status... if you are in IT, there are umpteen examples of what you are trying to do (yours truly included)... just play it easy... best of luck...
with the lack of regulation on AC 21 law, each attorney's take different position when it comes to handling AC 21 cases, in my case the primary reason driven to file AC 21 is the small window of period available in getting I 485 adjudicated when the PD is current, so I don't want to loose time when the PD is current and get an RFE from USCIS and running back and forth to get the RFE responded before loosing PD, more over I took the 20 minute counselling with Murthy law firm and they advised to notify USCIS about employer change.Later I was fortunate that USCIS did not issue RFE(may be it helped USCIS by notifying them in advance and clear their doubt) and approve my I 485 when PD was current.
Cheers
Kris
girlfriend Queen Elizabeth II of England,
mayhemt
09-20 11:00 PM
If it is philosophical question, then it is something which takes away couple of years of life of some of those people born in India and China (wait and wait and wait and ...), who want to have it. In return it frees them from bond of slavery.
Wow it almost sounds like attaining Nirvana (moksha). May be USCIS/DOS/DHS/Us Govt should name it as Nirvana Card.
Wow it almost sounds like attaining Nirvana (moksha). May be USCIS/DOS/DHS/Us Govt should name it as Nirvana Card.
hairstyles Queen Elizabeth I of England
black_logs
04-13 08:47 AM
Guys please send your comments befor it is too late.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=584
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=584
black_logs
04-12 04:09 PM
Labor substitution is bad for those who can't find one and good for those who found one. I didn't find one so it's bad for me. But 1 thing the DOL came up with the substitution rule is that 45 days labor expiry rule. Just can't believe the administration can harrass people to that level. When labor substitution is in place what's the point of this 45 days rule ???
mammoy2k
11-13 08:04 AM
I would appreciate if any of you could shed light on the following scenario:
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment