JunRN
08-26 06:02 PM
Just thinking, is approval of EAD also meant that I-485 is accepted?
wallpaper Contemporary Abstract Art
starving_dog
09-27 01:10 PM
The large drop in competitiveness (is that a word?) in the U.S. is largely attributed to the immigrant population posting to message boards during work hours!
grupak
02-28 10:59 PM
Yes. my I-140 is Approved and 180 days has passed. How much time will i have to transfer H1B without loosing H1B status? Thanks for your response.
For H1B: use your vacation time to be associated with your current employer for as long as possible, try pay without leave if possible. No hard and fast rule how much gap is allowed. In principle, there can be no gap but lawyers claim 10days, 2weeks is okay. USCIS asks for recent pay stubs to check for gaps.
You are in much better shape with >180 days in AOS. Can work in EAD if needed.
Don't worry.
For H1B: use your vacation time to be associated with your current employer for as long as possible, try pay without leave if possible. No hard and fast rule how much gap is allowed. In principle, there can be no gap but lawyers claim 10days, 2weeks is okay. USCIS asks for recent pay stubs to check for gaps.
You are in much better shape with >180 days in AOS. Can work in EAD if needed.
Don't worry.
2011 Abstract Oil Painting
paskal
01-27 01:58 PM
macaca,
it's normal and healthy to agree and disagree
as longs as:
the tone is civil and respectful and
people don't forget the big picture
so i support your call for a change in tone
wish people would think before posting.
it's normal and healthy to agree and disagree
as longs as:
the tone is civil and respectful and
people don't forget the big picture
so i support your call for a change in tone
wish people would think before posting.
more...
number30
03-18 02:32 PM
Here is my situation, someone please suggest me:
I am using EAD to work for my GC sponsoring company and I got laid off. My HR says that they are going to inform USCIS that I am no longer working for them. HR also says that they won’t cancel my approved I-140 and going to rehire me once I get the new project.
My question:
When I joined them there is information to USCIS.I just filled I-9 form and gave it to the company, no information to USCIS. Now when I got terminated what is the need for the company to inform this to USCIS? Anyhow I am going to join them once I get the new project in couple of months. Is it a new law? Will there be any problem at the POE if travel outside US and come back using AP? Is there any chance that USCIS sends me RFE?
Thanks In Advance
If you are not on H1 there is no reason to inform the USCIS. Make sure that they are not including your I-140 receipt number or A#.
Actually informing that you do not have a job is sufficent to revoke your I-140.
I am using EAD to work for my GC sponsoring company and I got laid off. My HR says that they are going to inform USCIS that I am no longer working for them. HR also says that they won’t cancel my approved I-140 and going to rehire me once I get the new project.
My question:
When I joined them there is information to USCIS.I just filled I-9 form and gave it to the company, no information to USCIS. Now when I got terminated what is the need for the company to inform this to USCIS? Anyhow I am going to join them once I get the new project in couple of months. Is it a new law? Will there be any problem at the POE if travel outside US and come back using AP? Is there any chance that USCIS sends me RFE?
Thanks In Advance
If you are not on H1 there is no reason to inform the USCIS. Make sure that they are not including your I-140 receipt number or A#.
Actually informing that you do not have a job is sufficent to revoke your I-140.
vgayalu
01-03 03:26 PM
Thursday, Jan 4, 2007.
more...
lord_labaku
01-11 12:15 AM
I have been there. done that. As soon as ported labor applicant using AC21 moves on & finally gets his GC, his labor cannot be ported anymore; even though you filed to use his labor before he obtained his/her GC.
Mind you, I used labor substitute not from a shady consulting company but from a reputed nasdaq listed company & had top lawyers appealing and proving my case. No use.
I think AC21 & labor substitution fundamentally had these issues where they could not co-exist. Since labor substitution was prone to abuse anyway. It was done away with. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say. Just I had to spend 3 years in limbo. What can I say - only solace is that there are others who are worse of than me.
Move on. Theres no point appealing this denial of I140.
Mind you, I used labor substitute not from a shady consulting company but from a reputed nasdaq listed company & had top lawyers appealing and proving my case. No use.
I think AC21 & labor substitution fundamentally had these issues where they could not co-exist. Since labor substitution was prone to abuse anyway. It was done away with. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say. Just I had to spend 3 years in limbo. What can I say - only solace is that there are others who are worse of than me.
Move on. Theres no point appealing this denial of I140.
2010 Modern Art Paintings
bombay_masala
05-13 02:19 PM
Dude,
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
There are MS Access database files for each year.Depending on which year your labor is filed, download the Access db.
For eax, mine was Dec 2002.I downlaoded 2002,03,04.My record was found in 2004 database.
If you open the Access db (You need to have MS Access to view these files.If you dont have it, downlaod the free trail version from microsoft.com)
If you open the file, it is the database of all the Labors that are filed in that year.One of the attribute is the Employee name.You can also search on Attorney name.
If I were you, i would first filter on Employee State and then search for the Employee name.
Its simple.Try it and let me know if you need further help.
Good luck
Hello cool_desi_gc,
I downloaded the access database but could not find employee name in there. Is there any other way to get the labor record? Also I don't have the labor case number to match to this record.
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
There are MS Access database files for each year.Depending on which year your labor is filed, download the Access db.
For eax, mine was Dec 2002.I downlaoded 2002,03,04.My record was found in 2004 database.
If you open the Access db (You need to have MS Access to view these files.If you dont have it, downlaod the free trail version from microsoft.com)
If you open the file, it is the database of all the Labors that are filed in that year.One of the attribute is the Employee name.You can also search on Attorney name.
If I were you, i would first filter on Employee State and then search for the Employee name.
Its simple.Try it and let me know if you need further help.
Good luck
Hello cool_desi_gc,
I downloaded the access database but could not find employee name in there. Is there any other way to get the labor record? Also I don't have the labor case number to match to this record.
more...
inskrish
08-17 12:37 AM
Got the receipt numbers already, was worried about the physical receipt notice.
"Physical receipt notice" is not necessary. As long as you have the receipt numbers, it is fine.
Regards,
IK
"Physical receipt notice" is not necessary. As long as you have the receipt numbers, it is fine.
Regards,
IK
hair Images Abstract
go_guy123
12-14 01:45 PM
Well they will ask for police clearence form every country where u have stayed for 6 months or more after age of 18.
So if he/she stayed for less than 6 months in singapore then its not even needed
So if he/she stayed for less than 6 months in singapore then its not even needed
more...
ss_col
04-04 12:30 PM
Hi everybody,
I fail to understand how L1's are getting Green cards in 6-8 months. I have done my masters here and am waiting forever for my GC and here I met someone who has come here as a BPO devlpt manager for an Indian company and in 1 year after coming to the US gets his GC after 6 months of application. He is just a BCOM from India. On top of it he told me many of his friends in the same company and other Indian companies have got GC's in less than 6 months. I dont get it. On top of it his wife can work here on L2. How can they file under EB1 - isnt that meant for doctors and Phds? He is not even intelligent which is the saddest part. Here we are with education and exp and contributed much more to the govt here than they have and we wait for bulletins every month hoping it would move at least 15 days, getting our h1's extended everytime and dreading to go to India because of visa stamping each year. This is such a sad situation. Should not the DOL do something about this.
Regards
I fail to understand how L1's are getting Green cards in 6-8 months. I have done my masters here and am waiting forever for my GC and here I met someone who has come here as a BPO devlpt manager for an Indian company and in 1 year after coming to the US gets his GC after 6 months of application. He is just a BCOM from India. On top of it he told me many of his friends in the same company and other Indian companies have got GC's in less than 6 months. I dont get it. On top of it his wife can work here on L2. How can they file under EB1 - isnt that meant for doctors and Phds? He is not even intelligent which is the saddest part. Here we are with education and exp and contributed much more to the govt here than they have and we wait for bulletins every month hoping it would move at least 15 days, getting our h1's extended everytime and dreading to go to India because of visa stamping each year. This is such a sad situation. Should not the DOL do something about this.
Regards
hot Abstract Art Face
pappu
02-23 08:07 AM
Even mighty economist prints article saying that immigration reform is knocking at the door , am not sure without a paid subscription whether u can read this , am positng the link and cannot copy paste the article as that will surely be a copyright violation . http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8746356
Immigration
One more shove
Feb 22nd 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Congress is once again preparing to deal with the immigration mess
THE most dismal failure of the dismal 109th Congress was the non-reform of immigration. This is one of America's most chronic problems, with 12m illegal immigrants living in the shadows, more streaming over the border every day and many border towns buckling under the strain of so many non-citizens. Public pressure to “do something” is intense.
George Bush pushed hard for “comprehensive” immigration reform (meaning a combination of a path to citizenship for illegals and tougher border enforcement). John McCain and Teddy Kennedy crafted a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate by 62 to 36. But then the Republican-dominated House wrecked the whole thing in a fit of crude nativism.
Thankfully, the reformers have not been deterred. There has been a great deal of “scurrying about” behind the scenes, according to one insider. An odd coalition of business groups, trade unions and civil-rights organisations is pushing hard for reform under the umbrella of the Alliance for Immigration Reform 2007. An equally odd coalition of White House operatives, Democratic leaders and reform-minded Republicans is also working in the same direction. A new version of the McCain-Kennedy bill could be launched as early as mid-March. And Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the two parties' leaders in the Senate, have said that immigration will be one of the first ten bills they will consider. This time the chances of success are higher than last.
The main reason is the new Democratic majority in the House. The most virulent opposition to reform came from Republican House members who were obsessed with cracking down on illegals and building a 700-mile (1,125km) fence along the border with Mexico. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, Zoe Lofgren, the head of the sub-committee on immigration, thinks a deal is at least a possibility.
The reformers are also adopting a tougher tone. The new McCain-Kennedy bill will put more emphasis on beefing up the border, punishing errant employers, enforcing the law and assimilating new immigrants. It will also try to rebut Republican charges that it rewards lawbreaking and offers amnesty. Two current ideas are to impose a hefty fine (up to $5,000) on illegal immigrants who want to become legal, and to make illegals return to their countries of origin (“touching base”, in the jargon) in order to apply for legal entry.
The reason for this toughness is that comprehensive reform has little chance of passing both Houses on the backs of Democrats alone. A significant number of so-called blue-dog Democrats from conservative districts have every reason to steer clear of such controversial legislation. There is also a strong undercurrent of protectionism in the Democratic Party, which suspects immigrants of holding down American wages and stealing American jobs. Insiders calculate that they need about 20 Republican votes in the Senate and 40 in the House.
The reformers will have to overcome some big political and practical problems. Why should Democrats co-operate with Mr Bush on immigration, when they can wait until they capture the White House in 2008 and solidify their lead among immigrants for a generation to come? And why should congressional Republicans change their minds on this most emotive of issues? The vast majority of these members represent white conservative voters who regard immigration reform as a reward for breaking the law and a guarantee of the “Mexification” of American culture. The minority who represent more mixed districts are well aware that 70% of Latinos voted Democratic in 2006.
The practical problem is that the proposed bill will become so tough that it is self-defeating. Why should illegal immigrants come out of the shadows if they have to “touch base” and put themselves in the hands of America's notoriously slow and inept bureaucracy? And why, for that matter, should liberal interest groups support a bill that might seem punitive?
AP
Still, it would be a mistake to write the reformers off. The Democratic leadership risks provoking a backlash if it refuses to put its weight behind the bill, particularly among Latinos, who desperately want the mess cleared up. And the Republican Party also contains some powerful pro-immigration forces. American business strongly favours immigration reform: parts of the economy such as hotels and agribusiness depend on immigrant labour. “Big tent” Republicans also favour reform.
Karl Rove, Mr Bush's chief strategist, has long pointed out that it is stupid to alienate America's fastest-growing minority—particularly one as culturally conservative as the Latinos. In a swathe of states that Republicans need to retain the presidency, their numbers are crucial: New Mexico is 43% Latino, Texas 35%, Nevada 24%, Florida and Colorado 20%.
The November elections have also strengthened the hand of the big-tent Republicans. Several high-profile immigrant-bashers, such as Arizona's J.D. Hayworth and Indiana's John Hostetler, lost their elections. And John Boehner, who was one of only 17 House Republicans to vote against the party's border-protection act, has become minority leader.
Over the next few months everything will depend on the delicate politics of bipartisanship. Immigration reform gives both sides the chance to blame the other for failure. But it also gives both sides a chance to share the praise for a wrenching but necessary reform. The stakes for everybody involved, not least 12m illegal immigrants, could hardly be higher.
===
Letters to the editor
Send an e-mail to letters@economist.com to comment on this article you have read in The Economist or on Economist.com requesting them to cover IV and its issues
Immigration
One more shove
Feb 22nd 2007 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Congress is once again preparing to deal with the immigration mess
THE most dismal failure of the dismal 109th Congress was the non-reform of immigration. This is one of America's most chronic problems, with 12m illegal immigrants living in the shadows, more streaming over the border every day and many border towns buckling under the strain of so many non-citizens. Public pressure to “do something” is intense.
George Bush pushed hard for “comprehensive” immigration reform (meaning a combination of a path to citizenship for illegals and tougher border enforcement). John McCain and Teddy Kennedy crafted a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate by 62 to 36. But then the Republican-dominated House wrecked the whole thing in a fit of crude nativism.
Thankfully, the reformers have not been deterred. There has been a great deal of “scurrying about” behind the scenes, according to one insider. An odd coalition of business groups, trade unions and civil-rights organisations is pushing hard for reform under the umbrella of the Alliance for Immigration Reform 2007. An equally odd coalition of White House operatives, Democratic leaders and reform-minded Republicans is also working in the same direction. A new version of the McCain-Kennedy bill could be launched as early as mid-March. And Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the two parties' leaders in the Senate, have said that immigration will be one of the first ten bills they will consider. This time the chances of success are higher than last.
The main reason is the new Democratic majority in the House. The most virulent opposition to reform came from Republican House members who were obsessed with cracking down on illegals and building a 700-mile (1,125km) fence along the border with Mexico. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, Zoe Lofgren, the head of the sub-committee on immigration, thinks a deal is at least a possibility.
The reformers are also adopting a tougher tone. The new McCain-Kennedy bill will put more emphasis on beefing up the border, punishing errant employers, enforcing the law and assimilating new immigrants. It will also try to rebut Republican charges that it rewards lawbreaking and offers amnesty. Two current ideas are to impose a hefty fine (up to $5,000) on illegal immigrants who want to become legal, and to make illegals return to their countries of origin (“touching base”, in the jargon) in order to apply for legal entry.
The reason for this toughness is that comprehensive reform has little chance of passing both Houses on the backs of Democrats alone. A significant number of so-called blue-dog Democrats from conservative districts have every reason to steer clear of such controversial legislation. There is also a strong undercurrent of protectionism in the Democratic Party, which suspects immigrants of holding down American wages and stealing American jobs. Insiders calculate that they need about 20 Republican votes in the Senate and 40 in the House.
The reformers will have to overcome some big political and practical problems. Why should Democrats co-operate with Mr Bush on immigration, when they can wait until they capture the White House in 2008 and solidify their lead among immigrants for a generation to come? And why should congressional Republicans change their minds on this most emotive of issues? The vast majority of these members represent white conservative voters who regard immigration reform as a reward for breaking the law and a guarantee of the “Mexification” of American culture. The minority who represent more mixed districts are well aware that 70% of Latinos voted Democratic in 2006.
The practical problem is that the proposed bill will become so tough that it is self-defeating. Why should illegal immigrants come out of the shadows if they have to “touch base” and put themselves in the hands of America's notoriously slow and inept bureaucracy? And why, for that matter, should liberal interest groups support a bill that might seem punitive?
AP
Still, it would be a mistake to write the reformers off. The Democratic leadership risks provoking a backlash if it refuses to put its weight behind the bill, particularly among Latinos, who desperately want the mess cleared up. And the Republican Party also contains some powerful pro-immigration forces. American business strongly favours immigration reform: parts of the economy such as hotels and agribusiness depend on immigrant labour. “Big tent” Republicans also favour reform.
Karl Rove, Mr Bush's chief strategist, has long pointed out that it is stupid to alienate America's fastest-growing minority—particularly one as culturally conservative as the Latinos. In a swathe of states that Republicans need to retain the presidency, their numbers are crucial: New Mexico is 43% Latino, Texas 35%, Nevada 24%, Florida and Colorado 20%.
The November elections have also strengthened the hand of the big-tent Republicans. Several high-profile immigrant-bashers, such as Arizona's J.D. Hayworth and Indiana's John Hostetler, lost their elections. And John Boehner, who was one of only 17 House Republicans to vote against the party's border-protection act, has become minority leader.
Over the next few months everything will depend on the delicate politics of bipartisanship. Immigration reform gives both sides the chance to blame the other for failure. But it also gives both sides a chance to share the praise for a wrenching but necessary reform. The stakes for everybody involved, not least 12m illegal immigrants, could hardly be higher.
===
Letters to the editor
Send an e-mail to letters@economist.com to comment on this article you have read in The Economist or on Economist.com requesting them to cover IV and its issues
more...
house Organic Abstract Art Paintings
WeShallOvercome
07-19 03:20 PM
Yes this a legit reason to get receipts. But if you have been denied receipts by employer/lawyer in recent past. Give this reason a little time, if you know what I mean. Else this reason would also go to waste.
My Lawyer has been good in this regard and usually scans a copy and emails to my HR/Supervisor and Myself as soon as she get any notices/rfe's etc. I think this would be the pattern of most employers if not all.
I have my canadian PR approved and have until Octber 1st to land. I hope my lawyer will get the receipt notice by then. I don't want to lose my Canadian PR and will have to travel to Canada before Oct 1st.
I'll send my employer the proof of my Canadian PR. He kinda already knows that I have Canadian PR and have to land shortly.
Hopefully they'll give it to me on that request.
My Lawyer has been good in this regard and usually scans a copy and emails to my HR/Supervisor and Myself as soon as she get any notices/rfe's etc. I think this would be the pattern of most employers if not all.
I have my canadian PR approved and have until Octber 1st to land. I hope my lawyer will get the receipt notice by then. I don't want to lose my Canadian PR and will have to travel to Canada before Oct 1st.
I'll send my employer the proof of my Canadian PR. He kinda already knows that I have Canadian PR and have to land shortly.
Hopefully they'll give it to me on that request.
tattoo Abstract Art paintings.
chanduv23
09-19 11:10 AM
I was very impressed by the guy who sang the national anthem...who was he?? He was too good!!
He is a physician and flew all the way from WA state
He is a physician and flew all the way from WA state
more...
pictures Abstract landscape painting by
Jeff Wheeler
03-18 12:51 AM
I don't at all like what it implies, but "Have you?" is rather beautifully designed. Got my vote.
dresses abstract art, paintings for
ItIsNotFunny
11-13 04:25 PM
Bump.... Someone - atleast 1?
more...
makeup Abstract art Butterflies
fromnaija
10-05 11:02 AM
I vaguely remember a discussion several months ago on the forum about people that have gone back to their home countries after having waited for their green cards.
We have a media interview opportunity and need to find such examples. I remember an instance about a person going back to Bombay after he had immigration issues. He had set up his company there. Such people who could have helped US economy and growth will make a compelling story.
Pls. let me know urgently of any such cases and I will follow it up. This is required today and we have a short time window.
I know a fellow countryman of mine who left but did not go back home. He is now in the UK on the HSMP (Highly Skilled Migrant Program). What information do you need? I may have to contact him for his approval, so let me know.
We have a media interview opportunity and need to find such examples. I remember an instance about a person going back to Bombay after he had immigration issues. He had set up his company there. Such people who could have helped US economy and growth will make a compelling story.
Pls. let me know urgently of any such cases and I will follow it up. This is required today and we have a short time window.
I know a fellow countryman of mine who left but did not go back home. He is now in the UK on the HSMP (Highly Skilled Migrant Program). What information do you need? I may have to contact him for his approval, so let me know.
girlfriend Freedom of Abstract Art
rajenk
03-24 07:04 PM
I also did switch job back in July 08. Immediately after the switch the new company had sent all documents necessary for AC21 with the help of their lawyer. USCIS have reviewed my application in October and in February for pre-adjudication. How I am sure about that is because in Feb my wife got an RFE for Medical and mine was fine. Unless the primary is fine they will not touch dependent.
So here is what you should do.
1. Contact your current company lawyers.
2. Educate them what AC21 is, I guess there was an updated AC21 Memo in May 08. My lawyer included the whole memo highlighting the clause under which I am eligible to switch job (Same or similar , I was a Senior Software Engineer, now I am Software Engineer IV, each company has its own classification).
3. Submit EVL (Employment Verification Letter) from your current employer.
4. Submit a letter explaining your eligibility for AC21.
*****Very important******
5. Submit a G28 (Change of representation) for you and all your dependents. Along with that submit the AC21 documents only then the AC21 documents will reach your file. The same is recommended by attorney Murthy.
*****Very important******
<EDIT>
Forgot your RFE in the first submission. You can include all of these as a RFE response.
</EDIT>
You should be all fine then. In my experience and what people had seen it is best to report it.
Good luck.:)
So here is what you should do.
1. Contact your current company lawyers.
2. Educate them what AC21 is, I guess there was an updated AC21 Memo in May 08. My lawyer included the whole memo highlighting the clause under which I am eligible to switch job (Same or similar , I was a Senior Software Engineer, now I am Software Engineer IV, each company has its own classification).
3. Submit EVL (Employment Verification Letter) from your current employer.
4. Submit a letter explaining your eligibility for AC21.
*****Very important******
5. Submit a G28 (Change of representation) for you and all your dependents. Along with that submit the AC21 documents only then the AC21 documents will reach your file. The same is recommended by attorney Murthy.
*****Very important******
<EDIT>
Forgot your RFE in the first submission. You can include all of these as a RFE response.
</EDIT>
You should be all fine then. In my experience and what people had seen it is best to report it.
Good luck.:)
hairstyles Painting is an expression of a
rsdang
07-16 09:31 AM
What is Ron basing his prediction on... I am not sure the trend says so... Can anyone please share his logic?
illusions
02-21 12:26 PM
With the new rule on FBI name checks, a potential 47K with current PDs could get their GS's soon. I wonder how much of a shift we will see in the PD's from now, after the 47K is not taken into account. I would predict a minimum of atleast a year jump, or am I being optimistic. :confused:
GCard_Dream
05-06 07:00 PM
You are exactly right. Both H1 and L1 are dual intent visa so why would one be considered resident while the other one non-resident? I don't see how L1 can fulfil the requirement while H1s can't.
I was wondering how L1 can be allowed instate tuition while H1-B's have to pay out of state according to the Arizona list. What exactly is the fundamental difference between the 2 which results in L1's fulfilling the requirements?
I was wondering how L1 can be allowed instate tuition while H1-B's have to pay out of state according to the Arizona list. What exactly is the fundamental difference between the 2 which results in L1's fulfilling the requirements?
