karanp25
07-30 01:45 PM
We are in exact same situation. Mine got approved 2 weeks back, even though i am on H1, but we are patiently for my wife's EAD approval.
To make things worse, this whole drama of EB2 current in August will screw me all the more, as she will get 1 yr EAD and then i have to go through this whole nightmare one more time next yr.
For me, it's been almost 3 months now...and they tell me the case is within processing dates published on their website. I've seen people who applied almost 1.5 months later than me get their approvals....
Same situation happened to me - My status shows as card production ordered while hers have no update.
The sad part is that I m continuing on H1 while she is working on her EAD and needs it approved soon
To make things worse, this whole drama of EB2 current in August will screw me all the more, as she will get 1 yr EAD and then i have to go through this whole nightmare one more time next yr.
For me, it's been almost 3 months now...and they tell me the case is within processing dates published on their website. I've seen people who applied almost 1.5 months later than me get their approvals....
Same situation happened to me - My status shows as card production ordered while hers have no update.
The sad part is that I m continuing on H1 while she is working on her EAD and needs it approved soon
wallpaper and Katie Holmes are still
slowwin
02-22 02:31 PM
Full time genrally means atleast 9 credit hours per semster (could be more).
If you are in the same job for the same employer and are performing your 40 hours , it's better to be on that H1-B or AOS(EAD) status. This might not be possible in every university and or every graduate program but some of them have evening classes mostly. so you just get into your program and take classes but your status is H1-B or EAD (some universities even consider you domestic or instate for tuition purposes if you were working in that state for more tan year prior to begining the program.
AOS in that case is not jeopardised. I am in your exact situation, and this is what I understand. Always consult your attorney before you proceed.
regards,
slowwin
If you are in the same job for the same employer and are performing your 40 hours , it's better to be on that H1-B or AOS(EAD) status. This might not be possible in every university and or every graduate program but some of them have evening classes mostly. so you just get into your program and take classes but your status is H1-B or EAD (some universities even consider you domestic or instate for tuition purposes if you were working in that state for more tan year prior to begining the program.
AOS in that case is not jeopardised. I am in your exact situation, and this is what I understand. Always consult your attorney before you proceed.
regards,
slowwin
perm2gc
01-07 03:17 AM
FYI:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/06/first.baby.ap/index.html
another reason to get a GC. although, toys r us reversed their decision, the whole incident kinda left a bad taste in the immigrant community. heck, they didn't ask for my GC when i bought toys in their store then why would they even bother about "citizenship" in their new year promotion. good thing they reversed it.
:(
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/06/first.baby.ap/index.html
another reason to get a GC. although, toys r us reversed their decision, the whole incident kinda left a bad taste in the immigrant community. heck, they didn't ask for my GC when i bought toys in their store then why would they even bother about "citizenship" in their new year promotion. good thing they reversed it.
:(
2011 Wedding Cake
GC_ASP
07-20 07:39 AM
If u r not married, its better to change the job using H1b transfer and use Ac21portability to continue the GC process ( new job should be similar). You don't have to use EAD. Once you start using ur EAD, you loose ur H1B status automatically and it would be hard to bring your wife on H4.
Here are the answers for ur three questions.
1. Your 485 will be in good standing as long as you change the job after 180 days of 485 receipt. You don't need any support from your ex-employer. But make sure your I-140 is approved before you leave and try to get the copy of it. If you leave before 140 approval, employer can revoke it and then your 485 will be denied. So chage the job after 180 days of 485 receipt using H1b transfer. (When using Ac21 portabilty you can inform USCIS proactively or wait for the RFE.) Don't use EAD if you are not married.
2. I think you can get H1B extension using 140 approval.
3.Yes, your wife can file the 485 when the PD is current. Her H1b doesn't have any effect on this.
I hope I answered the all your questions.
one misconception in the immigration community is that you need to use AC21 and EAD to change the job. This is not true. You don't have to use EAD to change the job. People use EAD just to avoid H1b transfer and other stuff.
Never use AP if you are unmarried.
This information is based on my research on this issue. For more accurate info, please contact the attorney!!!!
Here are the answers for ur three questions.
1. Your 485 will be in good standing as long as you change the job after 180 days of 485 receipt. You don't need any support from your ex-employer. But make sure your I-140 is approved before you leave and try to get the copy of it. If you leave before 140 approval, employer can revoke it and then your 485 will be denied. So chage the job after 180 days of 485 receipt using H1b transfer. (When using Ac21 portabilty you can inform USCIS proactively or wait for the RFE.) Don't use EAD if you are not married.
2. I think you can get H1B extension using 140 approval.
3.Yes, your wife can file the 485 when the PD is current. Her H1b doesn't have any effect on this.
I hope I answered the all your questions.
one misconception in the immigration community is that you need to use AC21 and EAD to change the job. This is not true. You don't have to use EAD to change the job. People use EAD just to avoid H1b transfer and other stuff.
Never use AP if you are unmarried.
This information is based on my research on this issue. For more accurate info, please contact the attorney!!!!
more...
new_gc
01-24 05:20 PM
guys,
does texas service center still accept phone calls using the old method?...i tried calling today and it said no iio available at 2p.m texas timing....i tried till 4 ...no luck...should i drive all the way to the uscis office?or can i try tomorrow?anybody called today and got response?
does texas service center still accept phone calls using the old method?...i tried calling today and it said no iio available at 2p.m texas timing....i tried till 4 ...no luck...should i drive all the way to the uscis office?or can i try tomorrow?anybody called today and got response?
kumar1
12-27 12:02 PM
I would say, you will be unemployed during that search period.
what if i want to join a company(like Teksystems,GCI,etc,...) on an hourly basis on their W2.What will be my status when an assignment is over and i have to search for another project.
what if i want to join a company(like Teksystems,GCI,etc,...) on an hourly basis on their W2.What will be my status when an assignment is over and i have to search for another project.
more...
BharatPremi
11-08 11:30 PM
Dear IV members,
The Design and Publicity work group is an active task force dedicated to creating materials to spread IV's message. We are engaged in creating posters, fliers, Cartoons and Videos, and will also be producing web related material, informational handouts and power point presentations. We are looking for active volunteers with specific related skills to work with us on these projects. If you are working in design/media/advertising etc or simply have design/drawing/writing skills and are interested in being a part of this group, please answer to this thread. We are specifically looking for someone with knowledge of the media/advertising and an understanding of web searches especially google search rankings.
We are also looking for volunteers for media contacts and content creation/analysis (needs good writing and analytical skills), work groups.
If you live in the DC area (or even within reasonable driving distance) and would like to participate in lawmaker meetings, please let us know.
Please also see Pappu's request for a volunteer to work as iv-coordinator in a separate thread.
Remember that we cannot accept anonymous members. All these groups will be privy to sensitive information and we must be able to trust our volunteers. So please complete your profiles so that we can contact you.
Sending you a PM.
The Design and Publicity work group is an active task force dedicated to creating materials to spread IV's message. We are engaged in creating posters, fliers, Cartoons and Videos, and will also be producing web related material, informational handouts and power point presentations. We are looking for active volunteers with specific related skills to work with us on these projects. If you are working in design/media/advertising etc or simply have design/drawing/writing skills and are interested in being a part of this group, please answer to this thread. We are specifically looking for someone with knowledge of the media/advertising and an understanding of web searches especially google search rankings.
We are also looking for volunteers for media contacts and content creation/analysis (needs good writing and analytical skills), work groups.
If you live in the DC area (or even within reasonable driving distance) and would like to participate in lawmaker meetings, please let us know.
Please also see Pappu's request for a volunteer to work as iv-coordinator in a separate thread.
Remember that we cannot accept anonymous members. All these groups will be privy to sensitive information and we must be able to trust our volunteers. So please complete your profiles so that we can contact you.
Sending you a PM.
2010 katie holmes tom cruise
harish
08-20 07:53 PM
Application was mailed on 06/25/07 to NSC, but my case got transfered to TSC. My receipt number begins with SRC....
485 RD: 06/26/2007
485 ND: 08/06/2007
FP ND: Waiting..........
FP Date: Waiting.........
FP ND: Aug 14th 2007
FP Notice Received Date: Aug 20th 2007
FP Date: Sep 4th 2007
485 RD: 06/26/2007
485 ND: 08/06/2007
FP ND: Waiting..........
FP Date: Waiting.........
FP ND: Aug 14th 2007
FP Notice Received Date: Aug 20th 2007
FP Date: Sep 4th 2007
more...
NKR
10-28 02:27 PM
This is the first time I came across.
Yep, when I asked God for GC, he gave me USCIS...
Yep, when I asked God for GC, he gave me USCIS...
hair and Katie#39;s wedding cake
indianindian2006
06-14 02:17 PM
you can file for 485 and change employers later, I guess you should ask an attorney.
more...
highertruth
07-30 04:01 PM
YouTube - AAH - AAJA RE AB MERA DIL PUKARA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW2J7zLZwLU)
This is fun. Lets vote the best entry.
This is fun. Lets vote the best entry.
hot katie holmes wedding cake.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
house katie holmes wedding. Katie Holmes, Tom Cruise
WeShallOvercome
08-01 05:23 PM
Bump!!
Old filing fee and form if filed by 8/17
No negative side other than a few days delay for them to match it up against your I-485
Old filing fee and form if filed by 8/17
No negative side other than a few days delay for them to match it up against your I-485
tattoo images katie holmes wedding
gondalguru
06-20 12:14 AM
I am in the same boat. I have outlined my case in a similar thread posed today.
more...
pictures katie holmes wedding cake.
sodh
07-27 04:39 PM
Did you put in your A# OR THE Petition Number 3 in that form. Please respond.
Sorry for answering out of turn,
Allien# none, that is if you dont have it, this dose'nt matter.
Petetion # will be your I-140 number, that is if you have applied for one,
Sorry for answering out of turn,
Allien# none, that is if you dont have it, this dose'nt matter.
Petetion # will be your I-140 number, that is if you have applied for one,
dresses katie holmes wedding ring.
rockstart
05-04 09:25 AM
I changed my address using online AR11 on friday May 1st. I checked my case portfolio next day and saw a soft LUD on my I 485 application. Same with my wife. I think it is always better to get the address change done in the system because later it can be a big headache to solve. I will update forum if I hear anything from CIS.
more...
makeup marries Katie Holmes
samrat_bhargava_vihari
01-21 11:39 PM
Kirshana_2001,
Did you verified with Attorney? If they offer you permanent employment I think they should file your I-140, then only they can transfer H1. In that case if you get I-140 approval then move to the permanent employment else stick with your company. ( Think of EB2 and Priority date transfer also).
Best of Luck...
Did you verified with Attorney? If they offer you permanent employment I think they should file your I-140, then only they can transfer H1. In that case if you get I-140 approval then move to the permanent employment else stick with your company. ( Think of EB2 and Priority date transfer also).
Best of Luck...
girlfriend tom cruise katie holmes
akhilmahajan
04-23 09:41 AM
Thanks a lot guys for your inputs. I hope everything goes fine.......
heard these days it is taking more then 6 months for I140 approval...........
mine was filed in marcha, 07 in the Texas processing center...........
heard these days it is taking more then 6 months for I140 approval...........
mine was filed in marcha, 07 in the Texas processing center...........
hairstyles tom cruise and katie holmes
sankar_203
04-01 05:54 PM
Why did you not stick with the approved labor with company A, thus retaining the priority date of Nov 2006???
If you used substitution labor just to get ahead of others who are in the line, then I hope no one answers your query. I won't be as critical as zCool but substitute labor cases are repulsive.
Company A has variety of legal problems with USCIS..not paying for people on bench and due to that my H1-B extension got affected and denied..it is a long list of 12 page denial..already filed ac21 with the other company..
If you used substitution labor just to get ahead of others who are in the line, then I hope no one answers your query. I won't be as critical as zCool but substitute labor cases are repulsive.
Company A has variety of legal problems with USCIS..not paying for people on bench and due to that my H1-B extension got affected and denied..it is a long list of 12 page denial..already filed ac21 with the other company..
ken
10-05 01:04 PM
Do you have any LUD's on your case ? What about your wife case did you see any soft LUD's. From my experience if you have soft LUD's continuous for 2 or 3 days then its a sign of getting a decesion in a day or two.
smiledentist
06-14 02:23 PM
Anybody else, please advice.