InTheMoment
07-11 10:37 PM
With all correct things said above: Yates Memo, Conditions of AC21 met (same/similar job, salary etc. 180+ days) and proof that you are regularly paid since joining the company (paystubs), EVL from new employer...
With all of the above supplied I can say from my own experience of joining a small company (50 employees) and submitting AC21 docs (to pre-empt any RFE - because I changed address and state of workplace; against my attorneys advise of waiting for an RFE) that it was the best thing I did. I had no RFE issued before I-485 approval.
So just send in the AC21 docs if you feel that there are redflags that may trigger an RFE for EVL (I-140 getting revoked, address change across state - diff from original employer, petition being very old)
With all of the above supplied I can say from my own experience of joining a small company (50 employees) and submitting AC21 docs (to pre-empt any RFE - because I changed address and state of workplace; against my attorneys advise of waiting for an RFE) that it was the best thing I did. I had no RFE issued before I-485 approval.
So just send in the AC21 docs if you feel that there are redflags that may trigger an RFE for EVL (I-140 getting revoked, address change across state - diff from original employer, petition being very old)
wallpaper Abstract valentines day colorful anner design element ackground.
abracadabra102
09-06 10:56 AM
USCIS receives around 7.5 million applications a year and mistakes happen. Cut them some slack here. Bad luck to OP. Contact USCIS and see what happens and please post here after your issue is resolved. Others will benefit from your experience.
dixie
07-18 06:28 PM
I have a few questions and much thanks for those who answer.
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
No, only contiguous H1-B renewals(after 3 years or yearly extensions after 6 years) are exempted from the cap. If you go back to school and apply for a fresh H1, then it is very much counted against the cap. Apart from falling back to H4 or F2(if you are married and your spouse is on H1/F1), i dont see too many options if you cannot get one of the masters quota H1. BTW, if you dont have an OPT and are out of school, then how are you still here ?
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
No, only contiguous H1-B renewals(after 3 years or yearly extensions after 6 years) are exempted from the cap. If you go back to school and apply for a fresh H1, then it is very much counted against the cap. Apart from falling back to H4 or F2(if you are married and your spouse is on H1/F1), i dont see too many options if you cannot get one of the masters quota H1. BTW, if you dont have an OPT and are out of school, then how are you still here ?
2011 The design for the anner
meridiani.planum
10-12 08:37 PM
Hi Friends/Gurus,
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
based on what you have said you are only eligible for an H1 until 2010 for now (because your current PERM application is not old enough to give you the 7th year). To me it looks like your lawyer appears to have screwed up. Even if you had gotten an extension till 2011, it could potentially have landed you in trouble later if USCIS ever goes over these dates again (485 approval time).
In the RFE response ask him to explain that the date should actually be 2010, and see if USCIS is willing to accept the petition as-is (the new period is smaller than the old one in your LCA, so I assume it should be ok).
Ask your lawyer on what basis he expected them to approve it upto 2011? Also, if he accepts it was his fault, ask him if he can make it up to you by making it premium processing and paying the $1k. This is a screwup on his side which is making things needlessly messy for you, thats the least he can do.
My attorney received an RFE on H1B extension last week.
The details of my case are
2004-Oct-01 -- My H1B started
2004-Nov-20 -- I entered the country on H1B for the first time
2008-Dec-25 -- Date till my current work authorization (I-797) is valid
2010-Sep-30 -- Date I complete 6 years under H1B. Since I entered only on 2004-Nov-20 my attorney said my 6 years is up to 2010 Nov 20th
2008-August-10th -- My attorney applied for my H1B extension under normal processing. He requested until 2011-Dec-25th (3 years from current I-797) expiration on the petition instead of 2010-Nov-20th
2008-Oct-8th -- Attorney received the RFE
When the petition for H1B extension was prepared on 2008 July, I asked the employer why the period of intended employment is put as 2011-Dec-25th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. The employer replied that its a usual practice to request 3 years of H1B extension and USCIS will only give the maximum possible
What's the RFE
Now we got the RFE and it says we have requested for an extension beyond 6 years and for getting that we should have a labor certification pending more than 365 days or an approved I-140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a labor cert with priority date of 2006 August which was approved but the I-140 was denied on EB2 category for not meeting 5 years of progressive experience. Earlier this year in 2008 April we have filed another EB3 I-140 for the same 2006 Aug Labor
On the H1B extension petition attorney had requested until 2011-Nov 20th instead of 2010 Nov 20th. I saw the H1B extension application and it says Dates of Intended employment as 12/25/2008 till 12/25/2011
Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period only until 11/20/2010?
The attorney contacted me and said they are going to send a copy of my I-94 as of Nov 20th 2004 and a copy of my immigration port of entry stamp on my passport stamped on nov 20th 2004 and request to give the extension. The attorney mentioned that the I-94 and port of entry seal will help USCIS to determine the maximum period of H1B that can be granted
My worry
My worry is INS rejecting the petition saying these kinds of changes in dates (2010 nov instead of 2011 dec) cannot be done in the midde of the process and this will be rejected and we need to file again a new petition. I know that we can work until 240 days if we file for an extension on time. I want to get this extension obtained before 2008 dec 25th so that I don't have to go through a chance of denial after 2008 dec 25th which can put my status into illegal sometimes. I am thinking of premium processign also if the results of the RFE doesn't come by next month (November).
My questions
1) Do you think the attorney should have given the intended period of employment only until 11/20/2010 on the original petition?
2) Please advice me on how we should resopnd to the RFE and what date we should request for.
3) Should we ask USCIS to give extension until 2010 sep 30th if they don't agree for 2010 nov 20th? Does this has to be clearly mentioned in the RFE response letter?
Your help very much appreciated. Please reply to this as my legal stay is based on this.
based on what you have said you are only eligible for an H1 until 2010 for now (because your current PERM application is not old enough to give you the 7th year). To me it looks like your lawyer appears to have screwed up. Even if you had gotten an extension till 2011, it could potentially have landed you in trouble later if USCIS ever goes over these dates again (485 approval time).
In the RFE response ask him to explain that the date should actually be 2010, and see if USCIS is willing to accept the petition as-is (the new period is smaller than the old one in your LCA, so I assume it should be ok).
Ask your lawyer on what basis he expected them to approve it upto 2011? Also, if he accepts it was his fault, ask him if he can make it up to you by making it premium processing and paying the $1k. This is a screwup on his side which is making things needlessly messy for you, thats the least he can do.
more...
gc_on_demand
04-04 11:29 AM
Can pls add poll to this by month. We atleast know 3 cases..
i voted as sep 2007 from one lawyer posted that news.
i voted as sep 2007 from one lawyer posted that news.
GCwaitforever
07-20 07:01 PM
Please participate in the immigration lawyers conference call on 28th.
more...
icecreamy
08-28 01:18 PM
Has any one filed at TSC got FP notice lately?
I have a travel pending so any information on the recent development is appreciated!
My case:
485 RD - 07/02/2007 (Filed at TSC)
485 ND - 08/17/2007
FP -- ?
I have a travel pending so any information on the recent development is appreciated!
My case:
485 RD - 07/02/2007 (Filed at TSC)
485 ND - 08/17/2007
FP -- ?
2010 Banner Specifications. Email
lee.cook
May 26th, 2007, 08:39 AM
Hello,
I was thinking off purchasing a Rocket Blower from Jessops and also a small brush.
http://jessops.com/Store/s32860/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Rocket-Blower/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&comp=n
http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-(Small)/details.aspx?&comp=n (http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-%28Small%29/details.aspx?&comp=n)
Is the Rocket blower similar to the Bulb?
Can anybody recommend these products, thank you.
I was thinking off purchasing a Rocket Blower from Jessops and also a small brush.
http://jessops.com/Store/s32860/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Rocket-Blower/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&comp=n
http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-(Small)/details.aspx?&comp=n (http://jessops.com/Store/s7812/0/Cleaning--and--Maintenance/Jessops/Blower-Brush-%28Small%29/details.aspx?&comp=n)
Is the Rocket blower similar to the Bulb?
Can anybody recommend these products, thank you.
more...
VenuK
07-10 07:35 PM
Hi SDDesi,
That's a good point. i will talk to my attorney and senior attorney from other resources.
Thanks,
Hi raysaikat,
I talked to my attorney about the security clearance and he said my security clearance is done successfully. basically, FBI will do all that behind the scenes thats what my attorney said, they back check in bio-data since i came into US,
then
only i have received approved I-797 with company Y on Jun 5, 2008.
addition to it, i have a letter (from my attorney) from an expert opinion who is the Professor from University of Maryland on my Education and Work Experience. correct me if this is wrong.
coming to second point
i dont think my current client will give me that kinda luxury working from remote place,
what is TAL?
what information is provided there.
what do i need to look for in there.
do u have any link where i can look into it, if so pls email me at
kvenu135 at hotmail dot com
please email me anyone who reads this thread/post with your advices.
I would be more than happy to appreciate it
With Thanks,
Venu
That's a good point. i will talk to my attorney and senior attorney from other resources.
Thanks,
Hi raysaikat,
I talked to my attorney about the security clearance and he said my security clearance is done successfully. basically, FBI will do all that behind the scenes thats what my attorney said, they back check in bio-data since i came into US,
then
only i have received approved I-797 with company Y on Jun 5, 2008.
addition to it, i have a letter (from my attorney) from an expert opinion who is the Professor from University of Maryland on my Education and Work Experience. correct me if this is wrong.
coming to second point
i dont think my current client will give me that kinda luxury working from remote place,
what is TAL?
what information is provided there.
what do i need to look for in there.
do u have any link where i can look into it, if so pls email me at
kvenu135 at hotmail dot com
please email me anyone who reads this thread/post with your advices.
I would be more than happy to appreciate it
With Thanks,
Venu
hair of a Blank Banner Over An
hianupam
04-16 03:55 PM
get involved in your Texas state chapter when you finally make your move.
Flowermound is great, but Plano rocks! ;)
I will contact you as soon as we get settled. (that is if we decide to move)
Thanks.
Flowermound is great, but Plano rocks! ;)
I will contact you as soon as we get settled. (that is if we decide to move)
Thanks.
more...
NikNikon
July 27th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Ajp, your too hard on yourself, I think your version turned out great. Gary, how about a psd version for the nikon users, although I may be wasting my time since you've several nice results from those who have posted.
hot %Blog Banner %Stampin Up
donelson
January 7th, 2005, 03:28 PM
I picked up the 105 Micro Nikkor about a month ago to use with my D100, and while I haven't taken a lot of pictures with it, yet, I've been happy with the ones I have taken. I did quite a bit of research before I bought it and determined that this would be a little better for my needs than the 60mm. Hope this helps.
Don :)
I take macro photographs of gems and jewelry to be sold on the Internet. Currently, I use a coolpix 5000 and get some pretty good photos from it. I use a light box and different light sources (fluorescent & incandescent) to capture color and color-changes in the gems.
I just bought a d70 and now need a good macro lens for it. I tried the promaster 100mm macro (I think it is the vivitar lens) and it didn't work to well for me. My 1:1 macro images are all under exposed and not as clear as I have seen. They are actually blurry when blown up 100% on my monitor. I use a good tripod and stopped down to f22 to increase depth of field. If I pull back a bit, the images get better, but then I don't have the magnification I need.
I take the photos on extra white laser printer paper and most of the time, use indirect 5000K fluorescent lighting in a light box. I don't understand why my 1:1 photos seem to be underexposed. The white paper looks gray and the gem is dark and dull. Photos taken with my coolpix 5000 look great. The background is white, and the gems are lively.
After my disappointment with the cheap promaster lens, I made the decision to purchase the Nikon 105 Micro, but when I called to order it (from expresscamera.com), they asked me why I was purchasing a 35mm lens for my digital camera. They suggested the Sigma 105mm EX DG lens and wanted to sell it to me for $650. They said that this sigma lens was better than the Nikon for digital cameras and that the Nikon would also take underexposed photos. This could be that they just didn�t want to sell me the Nikon lens for $500 and wanted to sell me a $400 sigma lens for $650.:mad:
I need a lens that will allow me to blow the photos up to 100% on my monitor and they will be clear and the gem needs to look like a gem and not a dark crystal.
Don :)
I take macro photographs of gems and jewelry to be sold on the Internet. Currently, I use a coolpix 5000 and get some pretty good photos from it. I use a light box and different light sources (fluorescent & incandescent) to capture color and color-changes in the gems.
I just bought a d70 and now need a good macro lens for it. I tried the promaster 100mm macro (I think it is the vivitar lens) and it didn't work to well for me. My 1:1 macro images are all under exposed and not as clear as I have seen. They are actually blurry when blown up 100% on my monitor. I use a good tripod and stopped down to f22 to increase depth of field. If I pull back a bit, the images get better, but then I don't have the magnification I need.
I take the photos on extra white laser printer paper and most of the time, use indirect 5000K fluorescent lighting in a light box. I don't understand why my 1:1 photos seem to be underexposed. The white paper looks gray and the gem is dark and dull. Photos taken with my coolpix 5000 look great. The background is white, and the gems are lively.
After my disappointment with the cheap promaster lens, I made the decision to purchase the Nikon 105 Micro, but when I called to order it (from expresscamera.com), they asked me why I was purchasing a 35mm lens for my digital camera. They suggested the Sigma 105mm EX DG lens and wanted to sell it to me for $650. They said that this sigma lens was better than the Nikon for digital cameras and that the Nikon would also take underexposed photos. This could be that they just didn�t want to sell me the Nikon lens for $500 and wanted to sell me a $400 sigma lens for $650.:mad:
I need a lens that will allow me to blow the photos up to 100% on my monitor and they will be clear and the gem needs to look like a gem and not a dark crystal.
more...
house A floral golden anner with
surabhi
10-17 12:28 PM
I am new to cnsulting jobs and was wondering if anyone can elaborate on what these terms mean ..
Contract - Corp-to-Corp ?
Contract - W2 ?
Contract to Hire - Independent ?
Contract to Hire - W2 ?
These are all tax terms on which the contract is signed
Corp-corp - Between 2 corporations. From your point of view, you are represented by a corporation. The corporation gets paid from other corporation. Your payment can be W-2
Contract - W2. The client pays you directly on W-2. Most of the times, this doesnt have benefits.
Contract to Hire - W2 : Initially you'll start as W-2 contract. the client has right to hire you full time after a period, normally 3 -6 months.
Contract to Hire - Independent: YOu are starting off on 1099, but company has right to offer you full time on W-2 basis after a period.
If you are on H1, your relation with your employer is always W-2. So only corp-corp is applicable.
If you use EAD, its debatabe whether you can be on 1099.
Being on W-2 contract, you should still ensure your job conforms to AC-21
Contract - Corp-to-Corp ?
Contract - W2 ?
Contract to Hire - Independent ?
Contract to Hire - W2 ?
These are all tax terms on which the contract is signed
Corp-corp - Between 2 corporations. From your point of view, you are represented by a corporation. The corporation gets paid from other corporation. Your payment can be W-2
Contract - W2. The client pays you directly on W-2. Most of the times, this doesnt have benefits.
Contract to Hire - W2 : Initially you'll start as W-2 contract. the client has right to hire you full time after a period, normally 3 -6 months.
Contract to Hire - Independent: YOu are starting off on 1099, but company has right to offer you full time on W-2 basis after a period.
If you are on H1, your relation with your employer is always W-2. So only corp-corp is applicable.
If you use EAD, its debatabe whether you can be on 1099.
Being on W-2 contract, you should still ensure your job conforms to AC-21
tattoo Images anner-design
Laasya05
01-22 05:10 PM
No you don't need to be on payroll before filing the PERM. That is what I did. GC can be applied for future employment.
so can we file LC perm with an employer while on H4 and move to H1 little bit later?
----------------------------
Contribute $320
signed up for monthly contribution $20
PD:-August 2003 (EB3)
LC approved
I-140 approved
I-485 did not file
Spouse on H4.
so can we file LC perm with an employer while on H4 and move to H1 little bit later?
----------------------------
Contribute $320
signed up for monthly contribution $20
PD:-August 2003 (EB3)
LC approved
I-140 approved
I-485 did not file
Spouse on H4.
more...
pictures Grunge anner design with red
satishku_2000
08-10 05:05 PM
may be he is not from india :D
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
May be he or she has a spouse whose birth country is non retrogressed .. :)
dresses Background Banner or tshirt
new_horizon
05-26 08:45 PM
I had an error message in the past few days. But when I tried it today, and I was able to schedule an appointment. There are dates available from June 1-12 (week days).
more...
makeup Free Design Tutorials
sledge_hammer
12-03 04:59 PM
Per the exerpt below, the spouse and children of a legal alien are eligible for benefits, and it will NOT effect the GC process of the primary applicant -
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/public_cqa.pdf
Q21: If a member of an alien's family is receiving or has received public benefits, but the individual alien hasn’t, will INS or State hold this against the alien for public charge purposes?
A21: In most cases, no. As a general rule, receipt of benefits by a member of an alien’s family is not attributed to the alien who is applying to INS or State for admission or to INS for adjustment of status to determine whether he or she is likely to become a public charge. The only time this general rule would not apply would be if the family were reliant on their family member’s cash public benefits as its sole means of support.
In particular, alien parents do not have to worry that the INS or State will consider them to be public charges if they enroll their children in programs for which they are eligible, unless these are cash programs which provide the sole financial support for the family. This is true whether the children are U.S. citizens or non-citizens.
If a parent enrolls in TANF for cash benefits for the “child only,” this could be used by INS or State for a public charge determination concerning the parent if this cash is the sole support for the family. However, if there are other sources of support or a parent is working, then the cash assistance would not represent the family's sole source of support.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/public_cqa.pdf
Q21: If a member of an alien's family is receiving or has received public benefits, but the individual alien hasn’t, will INS or State hold this against the alien for public charge purposes?
A21: In most cases, no. As a general rule, receipt of benefits by a member of an alien’s family is not attributed to the alien who is applying to INS or State for admission or to INS for adjustment of status to determine whether he or she is likely to become a public charge. The only time this general rule would not apply would be if the family were reliant on their family member’s cash public benefits as its sole means of support.
In particular, alien parents do not have to worry that the INS or State will consider them to be public charges if they enroll their children in programs for which they are eligible, unless these are cash programs which provide the sole financial support for the family. This is true whether the children are U.S. citizens or non-citizens.
If a parent enrolls in TANF for cash benefits for the “child only,” this could be used by INS or State for a public charge determination concerning the parent if this cash is the sole support for the family. However, if there are other sources of support or a parent is working, then the cash assistance would not represent the family's sole source of support.
girlfriend Banner Design Ornament
msyedy
01-12 06:57 PM
I understand this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, so I'm not raising this issue per se. I do not know where we stand on the likelihood of this provision getting passed by Feb 15th, but I do know that the Core group must be trying their best to get some provisions along these lines.
But just in case the "AOS without current PD" is seen as too big a change by the law makers or its sponsors in the undustry, I think it might be worthwhile to consider some of its watered-down alternatives. The law makers themselves may have a perception of this provision "creating a log jam at the AOS stage", not unlike the (mis)perception of some of IV members themselves!
Some alternatives are:
(a) Ability to file I-485 if the I-140 has been approved for X years, or if the I-140 has been pending for Y years (this is similar the provision of the ability to file H1 extensions beyond 6 years if a labor is pending). The advantage of this provision is that this will sound familiar with an already existing law; and will let the floodgates to AOS slowly and in a more controlled manner.
(b) Ability to file I-485 if the PD is within N years of the published PD in the Visa Bulletin. For example, assuming N = 2 years, India EB3 with PD 5/11/03 and India EB2 01/08/05 can file. Again this has the advantage of a more controlled entry via the Visa Bulletin, but at least it'll start clearing the queue and people can get their EAD, FBI name check, while waiting for the visa numbers to be available.
(c) If an Labor has been approved for X years
(d) If the alien has been on H1 for Y years
or a combination of any of the above
Please understand that I whole heartedly support the "AOS without current PD" provision; it's just that it would be wise to be ready with some alternatives should the need arise.
Why are you making it more complicated. People here want to get things done faster and relief for everyone.
According to your statement .(New formulas). people with I-140 approved for x years can file I-485 and so on......
If we are fighting for something nice, why not fight and say that we need everyone to be able to file I-485 like it was earlier. Reducing jam in USCIS is not a simple issue.By decreasing the number of I-485 filing the amount of time cannot be accuratly estimated that would take it to clear a case. USCIS can increase filling fees which they are thinking of doing to handle the current log jam they have, so I think we stick to and follow IV core.
But just in case the "AOS without current PD" is seen as too big a change by the law makers or its sponsors in the undustry, I think it might be worthwhile to consider some of its watered-down alternatives. The law makers themselves may have a perception of this provision "creating a log jam at the AOS stage", not unlike the (mis)perception of some of IV members themselves!
Some alternatives are:
(a) Ability to file I-485 if the I-140 has been approved for X years, or if the I-140 has been pending for Y years (this is similar the provision of the ability to file H1 extensions beyond 6 years if a labor is pending). The advantage of this provision is that this will sound familiar with an already existing law; and will let the floodgates to AOS slowly and in a more controlled manner.
(b) Ability to file I-485 if the PD is within N years of the published PD in the Visa Bulletin. For example, assuming N = 2 years, India EB3 with PD 5/11/03 and India EB2 01/08/05 can file. Again this has the advantage of a more controlled entry via the Visa Bulletin, but at least it'll start clearing the queue and people can get their EAD, FBI name check, while waiting for the visa numbers to be available.
(c) If an Labor has been approved for X years
(d) If the alien has been on H1 for Y years
or a combination of any of the above
Please understand that I whole heartedly support the "AOS without current PD" provision; it's just that it would be wise to be ready with some alternatives should the need arise.
Why are you making it more complicated. People here want to get things done faster and relief for everyone.
According to your statement .(New formulas). people with I-140 approved for x years can file I-485 and so on......
If we are fighting for something nice, why not fight and say that we need everyone to be able to file I-485 like it was earlier. Reducing jam in USCIS is not a simple issue.By decreasing the number of I-485 filing the amount of time cannot be accuratly estimated that would take it to clear a case. USCIS can increase filling fees which they are thinking of doing to handle the current log jam they have, so I think we stick to and follow IV core.
hairstyles Create your own anner image.
newuser
05-05 12:23 PM
Subscription Date: May 5, 2009
Time: 09:02:11 PDT
Status: Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription Terms:
$25.00 USD
Time: 09:02:11 PDT
Status: Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription Terms:
$25.00 USD
gcformeornot
12-31 02:20 PM
there are about 40%..... so lots of them....
webm
06-09 02:50 PM
"Processing Date current with respect to Receipt Date" in May VB,even then IO not picked in my case atleast...so its all matter of luck!! back to U-turn..
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar