designserve
01-27 02:42 PM
Testing to see if this appears.Go to this page :
Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee Jurisdiction (http://judiciary.house.gov/about/subcommittee.html)
Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee Jurisdiction (http://judiciary.house.gov/about/subcommittee.html)
wallpaper Short Cocktail Dress
485Mbe4001
06-13 02:24 PM
We had a discussion with our company lawyers about this. We wanted to know if it was possible to file for EB2 after a promotion. They told us the following and said we cannot change (dont know if its bs, you talk to your lawyer.)
a) EB is based on your previous job not the current one. So even when i have worked in my current company for 8 years, the current experience is not counted.
b) The new job/position should have activities more than 50% different to your previous position ( even tho i was eligible for EB2 then, i was suggested EB3, still suffering for that blunder). Unfortunately Software engineer is a position where the job activities include everybody uncle and more.
i think its a different story if you change your job, if you like your job and want to stay then there is little you can do.
Folks:
I am one of the frustrated ones under EB-3 (India) with a PD of Jul 2003. My case is as follows:
I had 3.5 years of experience + MBA from India when I joined the current Job in 2001.
I applied for my GC in 2003 and the lawyer said since my MBA was not relevant for the current job (software engineer) and since my experience before the current job was less than 5 years, I should apply EB-3.
Currently, I have 11 years of experience (out of which 7.5 is with the current employer from whom I have applied for GC) and I have moved to Business Development that uses my MBA quals.
Can I change to EB-2? What do I need to do? What are the risks?
Any/all pointers will be appreciated
a) EB is based on your previous job not the current one. So even when i have worked in my current company for 8 years, the current experience is not counted.
b) The new job/position should have activities more than 50% different to your previous position ( even tho i was eligible for EB2 then, i was suggested EB3, still suffering for that blunder). Unfortunately Software engineer is a position where the job activities include everybody uncle and more.
i think its a different story if you change your job, if you like your job and want to stay then there is little you can do.
Folks:
I am one of the frustrated ones under EB-3 (India) with a PD of Jul 2003. My case is as follows:
I had 3.5 years of experience + MBA from India when I joined the current Job in 2001.
I applied for my GC in 2003 and the lawyer said since my MBA was not relevant for the current job (software engineer) and since my experience before the current job was less than 5 years, I should apply EB-3.
Currently, I have 11 years of experience (out of which 7.5 is with the current employer from whom I have applied for GC) and I have moved to Business Development that uses my MBA quals.
Can I change to EB-2? What do I need to do? What are the risks?
Any/all pointers will be appreciated
gcnirvana
02-05 12:16 PM
I have two 797s: one which is current valid till June 2007 and the other from July '07 till July '10 (using my approved I140). I am going for visa stamping this March at Chennai consulate. Can they combine both my 797s and stamp me till 2010 or they'll do it only till June 2007?
2011 Vancl Blue White Check Pattern
mrsr
03-09 02:29 PM
Pd_recapturing,
Do you have any update from Infopass about your interfiling case?
Do you have any update from Infopass about your interfiling case?
more...
ramaonline
07-10 02:15 PM
This part refers to family benefits, i.e. payments to spouse based on your SS contributions.
The family benefits are explained on the ss website but there is no clear information about how the worker will get the benefits. On further digging, I found a document which indicates that the worker must be in the US to get the benefits.
The family benefits are explained on the ss website but there is no clear information about how the worker will get the benefits. On further digging, I found a document which indicates that the worker must be in the US to get the benefits.
mhtanim
09-25 01:59 PM
When I check onlin Status of my AP, I see it says "The document has been mailed on Sep 10th". In reality, I got the AP in mail on Sep 19th. The envelope was postmarked on Sep 17th.
My understanding is that the approved documents go to the mail room. It may wait in the mailroom till someone puts it in an envelope and add postage on it. I guess they are mailing thousands of envelopes everyday, so it may take some time at the mailing room.
My understanding is that the approved documents go to the mail room. It may wait in the mailroom till someone puts it in an envelope and add postage on it. I guess they are mailing thousands of envelopes everyday, so it may take some time at the mailing room.
more...
kondur_007
08-13 04:20 PM
Hi guys,
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
I just put it here so that everyone would not have to try the link and may be this information is useful to someone.
Good Luck.
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
I just put it here so that everyone would not have to try the link and may be this information is useful to someone.
Good Luck.
2010 mens business shirts, dress
paritpatel
08-26 01:57 PM
the number on the back of my check is a 10 digit number.9030******........but it is not same as the number on my EAD card
SRC07********...............
i have read that man ppl have put SRC or LIN in fronnt of the umber on the cashed checks.........?
can someone theow light on that?
SRC07********...............
i have read that man ppl have put SRC or LIN in fronnt of the umber on the cashed checks.........?
can someone theow light on that?
more...
gccovet
11-05 09:57 AM
wheather you use AC21 or not, please support fight against AC21 cases getting denied.
Please send letters. For reference,
check out http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182
"RED or GREEN" dots don't bother me, so save yourself some and instead divert the energy towards sending letters.
Thank you for your support.
GCCovet
Please send letters. For reference,
check out http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22182
"RED or GREEN" dots don't bother me, so save yourself some and instead divert the energy towards sending letters.
Thank you for your support.
GCCovet
hair dress patterns 2011. Sweetheart dress patterns prom
pbojja
03-18 04:28 PM
I did a blunder by not renewing my passport and travelled to India in August 2007, while returning to US , CBP officer in Chicago issued my I94 only till the expiration of Passport , which is March 2008 . My VISA was valid till Jan 2010
I tried to argue but no use his quote "You can not stay in this country with expired passport" as if there is definitive rule
Irony is I travelled to Canada in July 2007 and at that time my I94 was issued till Jan 2010 . It depends on the officer .
Moral of the Stroy "Renew your passports as soon as you can"
I went to Chicago airport after renewing my passport to renew my I94 , but the officer bluntly denied and asked me to visit USCIS local office . Again just few months back my friend was able to change his I94 in the same airport , looks like I m not that lucky
I contacted my Lawyer on the situation and he suggested either to apply for I94 extension with CIS or travel to Canada . Applying with CIS with 300$ fee doesnt make much sense to me so I decided to fly to Canada and got my new I94 -- Yahoooo atlast valid till Jan 2010
Again in the Tornoto airport officer offered me to keep the same I94 as I did not leave US for more than 30 days , After few scary moments I requested that I needed the new I94 and explained my situation and got it.
I tried to argue but no use his quote "You can not stay in this country with expired passport" as if there is definitive rule
Irony is I travelled to Canada in July 2007 and at that time my I94 was issued till Jan 2010 . It depends on the officer .
Moral of the Stroy "Renew your passports as soon as you can"
I went to Chicago airport after renewing my passport to renew my I94 , but the officer bluntly denied and asked me to visit USCIS local office . Again just few months back my friend was able to change his I94 in the same airport , looks like I m not that lucky
I contacted my Lawyer on the situation and he suggested either to apply for I94 extension with CIS or travel to Canada . Applying with CIS with 300$ fee doesnt make much sense to me so I decided to fly to Canada and got my new I94 -- Yahoooo atlast valid till Jan 2010
Again in the Tornoto airport officer offered me to keep the same I94 as I did not leave US for more than 30 days , After few scary moments I requested that I needed the new I94 and explained my situation and got it.
more...
gc_aspirant_prasad
07-05 05:41 PM
Emailed my congresssman , have already called my state and neighboring state senators.
hot full-dress pattern of the
seattleGC
02-22 10:29 AM
Lou Doubbs is not a conservative but an idiot and a crook. He is a protectionist like the unions in America.
When it comes to skilled immigration, conservatives have been good. Sen John Coryn, Ex-sen George Allen, Sen. Sam Brownback etc. have been the sponsors of SKIL bill and like. We can depend on them to fight to get SKIL bill included into CIR when it comes up.
Our problem has mainly been with rabid anti-immigrationists like Sen Sessions and also protectionists like some in the Democratic party.
It not between Conservatives and liberals in general.
Wash Times is as conservative as your Lou Doubbs... I dont trust them...
When it comes to skilled immigration, conservatives have been good. Sen John Coryn, Ex-sen George Allen, Sen. Sam Brownback etc. have been the sponsors of SKIL bill and like. We can depend on them to fight to get SKIL bill included into CIR when it comes up.
Our problem has mainly been with rabid anti-immigrationists like Sen Sessions and also protectionists like some in the Democratic party.
It not between Conservatives and liberals in general.
Wash Times is as conservative as your Lou Doubbs... I dont trust them...
more...
house men#39;s clothing patterns.
copsmart
01-08 08:55 AM
PWC says they followed the auditing standards and they have appropriate evidence.
http://in.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idINDEL00235820090108
Probably, Raju & Co planned this carefully to even fool the auditors.
Its hard to believe.... but if it is really true then PWC is equally culpirit.
20 years gone in 20 minutes.
I'm sorry about employees and investors.
http://in.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idINDEL00235820090108
Probably, Raju & Co planned this carefully to even fool the auditors.
Its hard to believe.... but if it is really true then PWC is equally culpirit.
20 years gone in 20 minutes.
I'm sorry about employees and investors.
tattoo formal wear prom
lecter
September 17th, 2004, 08:44 PM
Sushi, are you referring to the lens system working across the board? Interestingly they are now making similar lenses to the others that are for their "clipped" sensors. (i.e. small)