binadh
07-05 10:20 AM
Hey Gurus,
What are the chances for ROW-EB2 to go backlog in OCT 2007. My wife's employer is filing for the LABOR this month. We are keeping our finger's crossed that it will be current in OCT this year.
What do you guys think about that? Thanks.
What are the chances for ROW-EB2 to go backlog in OCT 2007. My wife's employer is filing for the LABOR this month. We are keeping our finger's crossed that it will be current in OCT this year.
What do you guys think about that? Thanks.
cool_guy_onnet1
02-21 09:37 AM
This is the EB1 the usage for the last 14 years
06 = 36,960
05 = 64.731
04 = 31,291
03 = 14,544
02 = 34,452
01 = 41,801
00 = 27,706
99 = 14,898
98 = 21,408
97 = 21,810
96 = 27,501
95 = 17,339
94 = 21,053
93 = 21,114
The limit was at least 40.040 for each FY. In FY 06 it was 41,170. As you can see the limit has been reached twice in the last 14 years.
I went to REC (one of the top 20 schools in India) did my Mastrs in Full scholarship and have International papers for IEEE + Few Algorithms that have been presented at Int. Conferences,( I could not attend the conf. in Paris since I did not want to go and get stamped and go through all the hassel- Go figure). I am an Ideal candidate for EB1 but my lawyer said there is a 50/50 chance for further enquiry and it will only delay the process.
I know, I know but trust me, I was a University topper in Probablity and AI theories and I decided to chicken-out.
Not because I am afraid of enquiries, I just dont want to raise any flags. I want to keep working, Hopefully get my GC within few* years and then prove myself .
I applied under EB2 only because I don't want any enquiries and I know these POS lawyers will only delay the RFE's.
Anyway, I was just frustated, sorry about this rage but just needed an outlet.
People will only file under EB1 when A) They are not from India/China and They are not afraid to go and face any flags.
& /OR B) They have good lawyer, who is very much prudent and willing to take chances.
Any other theories and welcome
*CONDITIONS APPLY LOL
06 = 36,960
05 = 64.731
04 = 31,291
03 = 14,544
02 = 34,452
01 = 41,801
00 = 27,706
99 = 14,898
98 = 21,408
97 = 21,810
96 = 27,501
95 = 17,339
94 = 21,053
93 = 21,114
The limit was at least 40.040 for each FY. In FY 06 it was 41,170. As you can see the limit has been reached twice in the last 14 years.
I went to REC (one of the top 20 schools in India) did my Mastrs in Full scholarship and have International papers for IEEE + Few Algorithms that have been presented at Int. Conferences,( I could not attend the conf. in Paris since I did not want to go and get stamped and go through all the hassel- Go figure). I am an Ideal candidate for EB1 but my lawyer said there is a 50/50 chance for further enquiry and it will only delay the process.
I know, I know but trust me, I was a University topper in Probablity and AI theories and I decided to chicken-out.
Not because I am afraid of enquiries, I just dont want to raise any flags. I want to keep working, Hopefully get my GC within few* years and then prove myself .
I applied under EB2 only because I don't want any enquiries and I know these POS lawyers will only delay the RFE's.
Anyway, I was just frustated, sorry about this rage but just needed an outlet.
People will only file under EB1 when A) They are not from India/China and They are not afraid to go and face any flags.
& /OR B) They have good lawyer, who is very much prudent and willing to take chances.
Any other theories and welcome
*CONDITIONS APPLY LOL
calboy78
07-28 01:59 PM
Kewl, so, its a dead mass update, No worries, thanks, Thread can be closed
What does "dead mass update" mean ? btw I am EB2 with PD in APR 04 and I got soft LUD on my approved 140, and APs on July 27.
What does "dead mass update" mean ? btw I am EB2 with PD in APR 04 and I got soft LUD on my approved 140, and APs on July 27.
nb_des
09-27 02:31 PM
According to Rajiv Khanna's web site PD can be ported without any other condition (except for fraud). I have seen several postings from other members saying the PD can be ported only when previous employer does not revoke petition which does not seem to be the case as per text below from FAQ in immigration.com
1. Can you please explain if priority dates can be transferred?
2. What If I-140 Is Denied?
A29 1. Sure. Here is the law:
CHANGING EMPLOYER BEFORE I-140 APPROVAL
If a person changes employers before obtaining I-140 approval, they can carry NOTHING forward to the next employer. They have to start their labor certification all over again with the new employer. There are some very limited exceptions to this rule (for example, in general, a change in employers requires a new application for certification by the new employer unless the same job opportunity and the same area of intended employment are preserved. International Contractors, Inc., and Technical Programming Services, Inc., 89-INA-278 (June 13, 1990). A change in employers does not necessitate a reapplication for certification where the alien is working in the exact same position, performing the same duties, and in the same area of intended employment for the same salary or wage). Neverthless, you can discuss your case specifically with your own lawyers. If you wish to get a second opinion from us, we expect a paid consultation.
2. That situation is legally the same as changing employers before I-140 employer.
CHANGING EMPLOYER AFTER I-140 APPROVAL
If a person has received an I-140 approval through an employer, the priority date then permanently belongs to him or her. Under very limited circumstances (such as fraud) INS may revoke the I-140 thus causing a loss of priority date.
If such a person changes employers, their priority date will remain the old one, even though they have to process their labor certification and I-140 again with the new employer. It does not matter where in USA the new job is located, what the new job title is or whether the new job falls under EB-2 or EB-3. The priority date is still transferable.
We recommend that an applicant keep at least a copy of the I-140 approval notice.
1. Can you please explain if priority dates can be transferred?
2. What If I-140 Is Denied?
A29 1. Sure. Here is the law:
CHANGING EMPLOYER BEFORE I-140 APPROVAL
If a person changes employers before obtaining I-140 approval, they can carry NOTHING forward to the next employer. They have to start their labor certification all over again with the new employer. There are some very limited exceptions to this rule (for example, in general, a change in employers requires a new application for certification by the new employer unless the same job opportunity and the same area of intended employment are preserved. International Contractors, Inc., and Technical Programming Services, Inc., 89-INA-278 (June 13, 1990). A change in employers does not necessitate a reapplication for certification where the alien is working in the exact same position, performing the same duties, and in the same area of intended employment for the same salary or wage). Neverthless, you can discuss your case specifically with your own lawyers. If you wish to get a second opinion from us, we expect a paid consultation.
2. That situation is legally the same as changing employers before I-140 employer.
CHANGING EMPLOYER AFTER I-140 APPROVAL
If a person has received an I-140 approval through an employer, the priority date then permanently belongs to him or her. Under very limited circumstances (such as fraud) INS may revoke the I-140 thus causing a loss of priority date.
If such a person changes employers, their priority date will remain the old one, even though they have to process their labor certification and I-140 again with the new employer. It does not matter where in USA the new job is located, what the new job title is or whether the new job falls under EB-2 or EB-3. The priority date is still transferable.
We recommend that an applicant keep at least a copy of the I-140 approval notice.
more...
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
kprgroup
12-28 10:03 AM
Background OF Myself
----------------------
a) Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
b) Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
c)September 2008 I have Joined employer �B� by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
d) Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denial in October 2008.
e)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
f)Applied AP & EAD renewal ,got a EAD card September 2010
g) Since EAD extension got delayed I have applied H1-B Renewal August 1st week of 2010 and got a RFE now asking for proof how beneficiary qualify to extend beyond six years?
Question
I think the I140 revoked and 485 denial back in 2008 triggered the RFE. (Though MTR approved and 485 is pending)
1)I have EAD approved and it�s valid until 2012 September .Is it possible can we withdraw HI-B Petition application when they request RFE?
2)Can I have any chance of explain USCIS, by this rule below?
��USCIS has also specifically stated that if an approved I-140 is withdrawn after an I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days, the I-140 remains valid for purposes of AC21 � 106(c) portabilty:
"If the Form I-140 has been approved and the Form I-485 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation." AFM Sec. 20.2(c) ��
Thanks
KPR
----------------------
a) Worked for Company A from 2003 to 2008.
b) Company A applied I-140 and approved April 2006. AOS 485 filed on July 2007. Got EAD but never used it
c)September 2008 I have Joined employer �B� by transferring H1B (Valid until Aug 2010).
d) Employer A revoked 140 which triggered 485 denial in October 2008.
e)Applied MTR and it was approved in NOVEMBER 2008 and 485 reopened.
f)Applied AP & EAD renewal ,got a EAD card September 2010
g) Since EAD extension got delayed I have applied H1-B Renewal August 1st week of 2010 and got a RFE now asking for proof how beneficiary qualify to extend beyond six years?
Question
I think the I140 revoked and 485 denial back in 2008 triggered the RFE. (Though MTR approved and 485 is pending)
1)I have EAD approved and it�s valid until 2012 September .Is it possible can we withdraw HI-B Petition application when they request RFE?
2)Can I have any chance of explain USCIS, by this rule below?
��USCIS has also specifically stated that if an approved I-140 is withdrawn after an I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days, the I-140 remains valid for purposes of AC21 � 106(c) portabilty:
"If the Form I-140 has been approved and the Form I-485 has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more (as measured from the form I-485 receipt date), the approved Form I-140 will remain valid even if the alien changes jobs or employers as long as the new offer of employment is in the same or similar occupation." AFM Sec. 20.2(c) ��
Thanks
KPR
more...
unseenguy
01-21 02:42 AM
Hello Friends,
Current Situation:
-I am on my 10th years in USA and started using my EAD 1 year before
-My Employer A filed my green card labor in March 2005 and got approved (so my PD is 03/2005)
-I485 pending for more than 2 years (so I am beyond 180 days limit)
-I140 is approved.
-I have been working with them (Employer A) till Jan, 2010 (3 years on H1B and 1 year on EAD)
Now I am getting a good offer with senior role plus pay (30% more) from Employer B and I would like to take it.
1) If my Employer A continued to process my GC and confirmed that they will support till I get my GC. Do I still need to use the AC21 portability to work for the new Employer B?
2) Or should be a safer side to use the AC21?
Thanks for your help on this
Vel
Trick question. Are you testing our knowledge of law?
AC-21 can be used for job in same or similar occupation.
Also since green card is for future purposes, your employer A can still support you in terms of documentary evidence, but it will be upto the lawyer to convince the USCIS.
Current Situation:
-I am on my 10th years in USA and started using my EAD 1 year before
-My Employer A filed my green card labor in March 2005 and got approved (so my PD is 03/2005)
-I485 pending for more than 2 years (so I am beyond 180 days limit)
-I140 is approved.
-I have been working with them (Employer A) till Jan, 2010 (3 years on H1B and 1 year on EAD)
Now I am getting a good offer with senior role plus pay (30% more) from Employer B and I would like to take it.
1) If my Employer A continued to process my GC and confirmed that they will support till I get my GC. Do I still need to use the AC21 portability to work for the new Employer B?
2) Or should be a safer side to use the AC21?
Thanks for your help on this
Vel
Trick question. Are you testing our knowledge of law?
AC-21 can be used for job in same or similar occupation.
Also since green card is for future purposes, your employer A can still support you in terms of documentary evidence, but it will be upto the lawyer to convince the USCIS.
WillIBLucky
06-20 08:48 AM
Just call your local AAA office and they will tell you everything.. Mostly they take photo in main local office.
If you are plus member you get free 8 photos. I guess for regular member you will 6.
Do they also take digital pics? I have already got photos taken from CVS...and they said its passport pics.......do I still need to take from AAA?
If you are plus member you get free 8 photos. I guess for regular member you will 6.
Do they also take digital pics? I have already got photos taken from CVS...and they said its passport pics.......do I still need to take from AAA?
more...
darslee
07-11 01:36 AM
Anything I can do to help?
thomachan72
10-15 03:47 PM
Friends,
I'm in a position where I have to file for I-140 again. In short, my company was purchased and I had to refile I-140 under the new company's name. Since the new company does not pay for Premium processing, I'll have to shell out the Premium processing fee from my pocket.
I need your honest opinion as to whether I must file with premium or regular? My PD: is June 2007.
I appreciate all your comments!
If you want to extend H1b soon go for the PP. It is worth to get this done with.
Now that your company was purchased did you have to do the labor once again? or just the 140? Will you be able to keep the old PD?
I'm in a position where I have to file for I-140 again. In short, my company was purchased and I had to refile I-140 under the new company's name. Since the new company does not pay for Premium processing, I'll have to shell out the Premium processing fee from my pocket.
I need your honest opinion as to whether I must file with premium or regular? My PD: is June 2007.
I appreciate all your comments!
If you want to extend H1b soon go for the PP. It is worth to get this done with.
Now that your company was purchased did you have to do the labor once again? or just the 140? Will you be able to keep the old PD?
more...
ingegarcia
06-11 03:38 PM
Do they assume that if you are in 7th year you can use your labor which you used for H1 7th year extension.
what about if i140 is denied on the previous labor and one cannot use that labor any more.
are all these bullet point are "ors" or "ands" does one has to staisfy all three conditions?
I guess this is only for people who are nearing the 6th/7th,etc year extension and their PERM does not have more than 365 days days. In these cases the person will need to get out of the country unless I140 is approved.
This would be my case if my PERM were to be approved before July. However my labor is audited and ATLANTA Backlog Center seems to be anything but fast these days...
what about if i140 is denied on the previous labor and one cannot use that labor any more.
are all these bullet point are "ors" or "ands" does one has to staisfy all three conditions?
I guess this is only for people who are nearing the 6th/7th,etc year extension and their PERM does not have more than 365 days days. In these cases the person will need to get out of the country unless I140 is approved.
This would be my case if my PERM were to be approved before July. However my labor is audited and ATLANTA Backlog Center seems to be anything but fast these days...
GCNirvana007
04-07 03:40 PM
Hi,
My client is a TARP fund received bank.I am planning to go India for 3 weeks in may.My visa expires in Aug09.
I have new H1 extension for 3 years.
--If I go for visa stamping will it be a problem as I am workig for TARP received bank.
--If I don't go for visa stamping and planning to comeback with old visa, will it be a problem at Port Of Entry as my client is TARP received bank and I am on H1B.
There is no rule in paper yet not to allow H1B workers in TARP to enter USA. Having said that, you belong into the category of every other legal H1B immigrant.
My client is a TARP fund received bank.I am planning to go India for 3 weeks in may.My visa expires in Aug09.
I have new H1 extension for 3 years.
--If I go for visa stamping will it be a problem as I am workig for TARP received bank.
--If I don't go for visa stamping and planning to comeback with old visa, will it be a problem at Port Of Entry as my client is TARP received bank and I am on H1B.
There is no rule in paper yet not to allow H1B workers in TARP to enter USA. Having said that, you belong into the category of every other legal H1B immigrant.
more...
austingc
07-31 11:15 AM
Yes thats right. I never thought i would face this issue with a single line on the ETA form.
I have taken this issue with my HR, and they are changing the immigration lawyers.
As a contingency measure, my HR is applying for 1 H1 extension, just in case the I-140 is denied. I hope the USCIS adjudicator is a cool guy and get satisfied with the evidence i submit.
That’s good. In addition to the evaluation, it doesn’t hurt to get a letter from the university to show that the degree is actually computer and mathematics related.
I have taken this issue with my HR, and they are changing the immigration lawyers.
As a contingency measure, my HR is applying for 1 H1 extension, just in case the I-140 is denied. I hope the USCIS adjudicator is a cool guy and get satisfied with the evidence i submit.
That’s good. In addition to the evaluation, it doesn’t hurt to get a letter from the university to show that the degree is actually computer and mathematics related.
santb1975
11-21 02:31 PM
to every around here
more...
anilsal
10-24 11:45 PM
In my opinion its just one of the marketing gimmicks of Y! See how it works
http://news.yahoo.com/s/judy_woodruff/20060823/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff10015
Similar lines ask the white house program. many people in the forum sent Q's to USCIS director and he didnt chose even one Q about retrogression or labor situation etc..
It probably is cherry picking.
We will post wherever we can(at least it is better than those who are silently submitting to destiny). Throw a hundred stones at a fruit on a tree. Atleast, one will hit?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/judy_woodruff/20060823/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff10015
Similar lines ask the white house program. many people in the forum sent Q's to USCIS director and he didnt chose even one Q about retrogression or labor situation etc..
It probably is cherry picking.
We will post wherever we can(at least it is better than those who are silently submitting to destiny). Throw a hundred stones at a fruit on a tree. Atleast, one will hit?
rb_248
09-21 04:35 PM
Dude,
There is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong queue unless the rules change.
Hello,
I'm Harish. I've finished my masters in usa and working on H1-B. I applied for GC this year. Right now at 1-140 filing stage. I think I-140 should be approved in a few months. After that how long should I wait to apply for I-485?
I want to change my employer. I believe you can do that 180 days after u file for I-485. So can any1 give me an approx time when I should be able to file I-485.
With all this retrogression its really confusing and frustating to understand...
I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Harish.
There is a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong queue unless the rules change.
Hello,
I'm Harish. I've finished my masters in usa and working on H1-B. I applied for GC this year. Right now at 1-140 filing stage. I think I-140 should be approved in a few months. After that how long should I wait to apply for I-485?
I want to change my employer. I believe you can do that 180 days after u file for I-485. So can any1 give me an approx time when I should be able to file I-485.
With all this retrogression its really confusing and frustating to understand...
I appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Harish.
more...
brandon
July 18th, 2004, 03:29 AM
I joined dphoto because I wanted to get more use out of my digital camera. I figure that if I can learn to take better pictures, then I will have more fun.
I searched through my favorite pictures and selected these for my first gallery pics. What do you think?
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/781/1003Plumeria127-med.JPG
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/781/1003Rainbow22-med.JPG
I searched through my favorite pictures and selected these for my first gallery pics. What do you think?
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/781/1003Plumeria127-med.JPG
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/781/1003Rainbow22-med.JPG
eb3retro
05-04 01:55 PM
Thanks for the reply. I am planning to maintain a address at location where my LCA belongs to. I want to know If I work for say 4-5 months from India on US payroll will there be any issues on reentering US?
So basically you are cheating the system? correct me if i am wrong.
So basically you are cheating the system? correct me if i am wrong.
mittal_a
06-26 10:09 AM
I think it should be ACT 21 which I have filed it like a month back.
Thanks a lot for quick replies
Thanks a lot for quick replies
gatec77
07-18 05:19 PM
Since his i140 is approved he should be eligible for H1B 3 yrs extension. I think it does not matter even if has changed employer.
namm80
10-02 12:20 AM
Somewhat the same situation happened to me, and my attorney advised this in order to avoid the filing:
You may call your bank and hold the checks that you sent second time. If INS finds that the check is not 'withdrawable' they will not file your application.
This is bad advice. Search other forums (Murthy etc) - i've seen similar threads where some smarta$$es tried stop payment and USCIS sent the unpaid application fee to collection agencies.
I would strongly advise you against doing this--Filing a 2nd I-485 application was a misinformed and stupid decision - consult a lawyer before you make your situation more confusing.
You may call your bank and hold the checks that you sent second time. If INS finds that the check is not 'withdrawable' they will not file your application.
This is bad advice. Search other forums (Murthy etc) - i've seen similar threads where some smarta$$es tried stop payment and USCIS sent the unpaid application fee to collection agencies.
I would strongly advise you against doing this--Filing a 2nd I-485 application was a misinformed and stupid decision - consult a lawyer before you make your situation more confusing.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar