dingudi
10-25 09:33 PM
But has this happened to anyone where first online status says card ordered and then it reverts back to previous status of received and pending application. And this is only for my spouse.
wallpaper Gift box cake for Anu
EkAurAaya
03-20 10:12 AM
if you are foreign national selling a house, 10 % of your sale price may be held in escrow account till you pay the taxes. This is the case in atleast some states. This is what your real estate lawyer might be referring to. The rest 10 % is released after you have shown proof that you have paid your taxes.
Thanks for your response... do you know what states by any chance?
Thanks for your response... do you know what states by any chance?
cahimmihelp
07-15 12:56 PM
Hi,
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
2011 Sara#39;s Hantaran Gift Box Cake
Mayra75
12-31 08:16 AM
YES. I believe that will certainly be re-introduced as one of the measures in 2006
Indio ;
Do you know that is this will be in next Feb. ? and which bill that will include this issue ?
Thanks so much for your reply,,
Indio ;
Do you know that is this will be in next Feb. ? and which bill that will include this issue ?
Thanks so much for your reply,,
more...
nikdevid
11-24 01:08 AM
Hey all, I have PayPal Account and i have 200$ in that account, now what happen i wanna transfer in my indian bank account.. What the procedure i have to follow.. Please suggest me right way.
smisachu
05-21 11:06 AM
Thanks guys. I am going to Lake George by NY-Canada border and this seems like good info. But I am from NJ and we have the new tamper proof Drivers licenses which show immigration status and you need to produce all immigration papers to get one. Isn't that enough??
more...
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
2010 Standard Cake Designs/Square
learning01
05-22 12:48 PM
It is their level of competence and their best.
Who are you (or we) to label them otherwise. LOL.
No mention on incompetence on part of DOL?
Who are you (or we) to label them otherwise. LOL.
No mention on incompetence on part of DOL?
more...
jsb
01-23 11:17 AM
.... If the receipt date shown on your receipt notice is prior to the processing date shown below, you may call USCIS Customer Service at 1-800-375-5283. ...
Although reference in the text above refers to "receipt date shown on your receipt", I doubt if they really mean that. As per latest processing status, all cases with RD = July 2 should have been processed by now. Is that true? I doubt.
True Receipt Date (what service centers make reference to) perhaps is the date when they enter data in the system. In normal circumstances it should be same or close to RD printed on receipts. However, in July/Aug '07 filings several cases (including mine) were shuffled around for months, before they were entered in the system. I am a July2 filer, but my online status says "...case was received on Oct 11, 2007...". My ND is a few days later. Most likley, dates you see in your online status is what they refer to as Receive Date when publishing processing dates.
Although reference in the text above refers to "receipt date shown on your receipt", I doubt if they really mean that. As per latest processing status, all cases with RD = July 2 should have been processed by now. Is that true? I doubt.
True Receipt Date (what service centers make reference to) perhaps is the date when they enter data in the system. In normal circumstances it should be same or close to RD printed on receipts. However, in July/Aug '07 filings several cases (including mine) were shuffled around for months, before they were entered in the system. I am a July2 filer, but my online status says "...case was received on Oct 11, 2007...". My ND is a few days later. Most likley, dates you see in your online status is what they refer to as Receive Date when publishing processing dates.
hair Fairy Girl Cake Topper Ideas
jr8rdt
11-23 09:18 PM
How to get a notarized experience letter?
should the exp letter be signed in front of the notary (this can be difficult because the person is overseas)? or can I just give the copy of the experience letter to the notary for him to notarized it? what is the process? anybody??
thanks
should the exp letter be signed in front of the notary (this can be difficult because the person is overseas)? or can I just give the copy of the experience letter to the notary for him to notarized it? what is the process? anybody??
thanks
more...
mjdup
01-24 11:41 AM
dionsys> How much have you contributed thus far? May be you should involve in one lobbying effort and see what the core goes through, walk the talk please !
hot cake box /cake package
kaisersose
04-16 04:38 PM
What is an "MTR"?
Motion To Reopen. Basically having the IO re-examine the case by pointing out that the original application + evidence was correct, but the decision was not.
Motion To Reopen. Basically having the IO re-examine the case by pointing out that the original application + evidence was correct, but the decision was not.
more...
house This grand gift box cake takes
Appu
07-09 02:38 PM
Both my wife and I applied for our AOS together during the July fiasco. My wife received a RFE for another medical exam today. We both did our medical at the same time and were submitted with the AOS application but only my wife received the RFE for medical. I did receive another RFE but not for medical.
Why would she receive the RFE for medical? Does the medical exam also expire as the finger print does? If it does expire then why would only one of us receive the medical RFE and not the other?
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
Why would she receive the RFE for medical? Does the medical exam also expire as the finger print does? If it does expire then why would only one of us receive the medical RFE and not the other?
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
tattoo chocolate-ox-cake-03
legal_la
06-25 03:39 PM
Guys,
here's my thoughts on this; If her h1 gets stamped she doesn't need AP. however if H1 gets rejected for some reason, in that case she can stay back in India until I recieve the AP documents. I send it to her then she can travel back on AP. ??
Any Suggestions or gyan on this !!!
-shree
I dont think you will be able to do this, I am not sure but I think one should be present in US at the time of AP approval only then they can use that Advance parole to leave and re enter.
May be converting back to H4 and attend for visa as dependent is an option. Ask your lawyer.
here's my thoughts on this; If her h1 gets stamped she doesn't need AP. however if H1 gets rejected for some reason, in that case she can stay back in India until I recieve the AP documents. I send it to her then she can travel back on AP. ??
Any Suggestions or gyan on this !!!
-shree
I dont think you will be able to do this, I am not sure but I think one should be present in US at the time of AP approval only then they can use that Advance parole to leave and re enter.
May be converting back to H4 and attend for visa as dependent is an option. Ask your lawyer.
more...
pictures 100%cotton delicious cake
psvk
08-06 12:08 PM
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
Congrats
Congrats
dresses Tags: Gift Box Cake
ikass
05-29 08:18 AM
Hello IV members and leadership team,
I applaud you all for your time and effort in addressing issues that concern our eligibility to work legally and mutually benefit from this country. As we strive to get CIR passed, which has been elusive for years and still struggling at various levels, I was wondering why can`t we work to get small wins. I would like to mention four known ideas that we can push forward and that I believe can be accomplished via small amendments:
1) Temporarily remove Per country quota for Employment -Based Green Card
2) Do not count dependents towards numerical visa count
3) Issue EAD to candidates who have I-140 approved and renew it until Green Card number becomes available.
4) Do not tie EAD to specific company or wait six months in a position to change jobs
This four things can have a quick impact and give us all a temporary relief.
We can try and build advocacy effort to get this done. Especially for the June 7th and 8th advocacy days.
"SMALL CHANGE BIG IMPACT"
Thanks,
Giri
I applaud you all for your time and effort in addressing issues that concern our eligibility to work legally and mutually benefit from this country. As we strive to get CIR passed, which has been elusive for years and still struggling at various levels, I was wondering why can`t we work to get small wins. I would like to mention four known ideas that we can push forward and that I believe can be accomplished via small amendments:
1) Temporarily remove Per country quota for Employment -Based Green Card
2) Do not count dependents towards numerical visa count
3) Issue EAD to candidates who have I-140 approved and renew it until Green Card number becomes available.
4) Do not tie EAD to specific company or wait six months in a position to change jobs
This four things can have a quick impact and give us all a temporary relief.
We can try and build advocacy effort to get this done. Especially for the June 7th and 8th advocacy days.
"SMALL CHANGE BIG IMPACT"
Thanks,
Giri
more...
makeup Tags: Gift Box Cake
lp2007
11-01 05:31 PM
I think she should not have any problem with her future visits.
My mother visits every year and spends 6 months with us since the last 6 yrs and never had an issue. She extended her stay one time.
One of my friends mother was given a 3 month stamp one yr during b'coz she had extended her previous visit and stayed 3 months already in the same year. So the officer told her she could only stay for 6 months in any given yr, but later she extended and stayed longer and has visited US 2 times after that without any issues.
USCIS takes between 6 weeks to <nn> weeks to process the request.
One important thing you want to take care is, U need to send original i-94 card while requesting extension of stay and when u leave i-94 has to be returned at the airport. If your mom-in-law leaves before the application is approved, you want to be sure to save the extention documnets and mail the i-94 card back. And make sure to carry the extension approvals next time she travels so there is no confusion about unauthorized over stay. This happened with my mom. We received her approval after she had already left. So I mailed her approval to her prior to her next visit and she was fine.
I hope this helps.
My mother visits every year and spends 6 months with us since the last 6 yrs and never had an issue. She extended her stay one time.
One of my friends mother was given a 3 month stamp one yr during b'coz she had extended her previous visit and stayed 3 months already in the same year. So the officer told her she could only stay for 6 months in any given yr, but later she extended and stayed longer and has visited US 2 times after that without any issues.
USCIS takes between 6 weeks to <nn> weeks to process the request.
One important thing you want to take care is, U need to send original i-94 card while requesting extension of stay and when u leave i-94 has to be returned at the airport. If your mom-in-law leaves before the application is approved, you want to be sure to save the extention documnets and mail the i-94 card back. And make sure to carry the extension approvals next time she travels so there is no confusion about unauthorized over stay. This happened with my mom. We received her approval after she had already left. So I mailed her approval to her prior to her next visit and she was fine.
I hope this helps.
girlfriend Baby Carriage Cold
samuel5028
04-11 02:48 AM
You should apply neither Fiance visa (K1) or Tourist visa (B2) I guess that is the best and fastest way as far as I know.
Why he wants to apply for fiance visa? Is that his problem? did you read his situation?
Why he wants to apply for fiance visa? Is that his problem? did you read his situation?
hairstyles She likes gift box cakes.
Better_Days
10-19 09:43 PM
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
The quoted post above describes my situation. I140 and I485 were pending. I140 got denied and ended up with AAO. Second I140 got approved and I485 is linked with this 2nd approved I140 even though the priority date was not current.
Called USCIS twice to get the receipt number of the 140 underlying my 485 and got the receipt number for the second, approved 140 everytime.
The company has received an RFE from the AAO and they simply are in no mood to respond to it. They are going to withdraw the first 140. The lawyer retained by my company is absolutely clueless about how and why the second,approved 140 got linked with the pending 485 without the priority date being current. He is trying to play it safe by covering his own behind by saying statements like "USCIS made a mistake and if they every discovered this mistake in future, I will be regarded as being out of status from the day I used any EAD based on this pending 485", He is suggesting that we file a new 485 when the dates being current ( I am EB3/ROW).
Now I know that there are a lot of people who have had their 485s linked to their second, approved 140 automatically. Did this happen to any of you without the PD being current? Please do respond if you are in this boat.
Also, is there a policy or memo that explicitly refers to it? Can anyone please provide me a reference?
If the first 140 is withdrawn? Will it have ANY impact on the second 140 or the pending 485? The reason I ask this question is that after the AAO issed an RFE, the status on both my 140's changed to "Post Decisioon Activity". This is what worries me the most.
Any comment on any of the above questions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for you time.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
The quoted post above describes my situation. I140 and I485 were pending. I140 got denied and ended up with AAO. Second I140 got approved and I485 is linked with this 2nd approved I140 even though the priority date was not current.
Called USCIS twice to get the receipt number of the 140 underlying my 485 and got the receipt number for the second, approved 140 everytime.
The company has received an RFE from the AAO and they simply are in no mood to respond to it. They are going to withdraw the first 140. The lawyer retained by my company is absolutely clueless about how and why the second,approved 140 got linked with the pending 485 without the priority date being current. He is trying to play it safe by covering his own behind by saying statements like "USCIS made a mistake and if they every discovered this mistake in future, I will be regarded as being out of status from the day I used any EAD based on this pending 485", He is suggesting that we file a new 485 when the dates being current ( I am EB3/ROW).
Now I know that there are a lot of people who have had their 485s linked to their second, approved 140 automatically. Did this happen to any of you without the PD being current? Please do respond if you are in this boat.
Also, is there a policy or memo that explicitly refers to it? Can anyone please provide me a reference?
If the first 140 is withdrawn? Will it have ANY impact on the second 140 or the pending 485? The reason I ask this question is that after the AAO issed an RFE, the status on both my 140's changed to "Post Decisioon Activity". This is what worries me the most.
Any comment on any of the above questions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for you time.
arkie2916
July 15th, 2004, 07:52 PM
Anders these are just fantastic!! Keep up the great work.
Bev
Bev
kisana
04-11 10:16 PM
Sorry i keep on asking same questions again and again. I could not find any answer for that. What should I fill in "date of application" for priviously applied I-765, it should be date from EAD when they approved it or should it be the the date on which they received my application.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.
Also what should I fill in the
"Please provide information concerning your eligibility status"
Please suggest.