royus77
07-05 08:40 PM
I'm not sure if you can do a PD transfer just based on receipt #. You may try the FOIA route - but please be aware that it will take about a year plus to get a copy of your 140. Now depending on your PD, you can take a guess and go ahead - either do FOIA and get a copy OR just wait until PD is current for you again.
Getting I 140 approval through FOIA was talked a lot in the other thread . I didnt hear any body claiming they got through .
one of my friend played a trick with the employer .he went to canada for stamping using his new H1B approval (H1B was approved for 3 years based on the I 140 stamp ) and call employer to send a fax from the embassy . he will do .
Getting I 140 approval through FOIA was talked a lot in the other thread . I didnt hear any body claiming they got through .
one of my friend played a trick with the employer .he went to canada for stamping using his new H1B approval (H1B was approved for 3 years based on the I 140 stamp ) and call employer to send a fax from the embassy . he will do .
wallpaper 2007 Mitsubishi Evo IX MR
gxr
10-01 03:29 PM
Anyone with Oct 06 or earlier RD still waiting for I-140 approval?
hatighora
07-30 02:54 PM
I think there is a chance if the baby becomes a celebrity baby. If our babies become a hollywood star,sports star or a baby genius, there should be some possibility of getting greencard thru that baby, but with an ordinary baby chances are slim with the current immigration rules.
2011 Evo
AXM
12-12 04:34 PM
My question is if the AP has an expiration date, does the officer's parole stamp supercedes that or not? thanks
AM
AM
more...
sunny1000
06-11 02:31 PM
I am in my 8 yr. Have a H1-B approved Untill 2008 Dec
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
Have a EB3 Approved Labor and 140 from Company A.
Now as of today if I move to Company B ...
Question :
Can I get a 3 yr Extension based on Company A (140 Approved )
that is from june 2007 to june 2010
OR
Do I get my H1-B untill 2008 Dec ?
----
When I move to Company B is there anything that I have be aware off as
I am planning to pally Eb2 and move the PD from company A
My PD : EB3 Jun 2004
Thanks Thanks Thanks Thanks
You cannot port your I-140 to the new company. So, your H1B will also get affected as it extn is based on the underlying I-140. The only way you can accomplish moving to company B is by filing for I-485 while still at Company A (if your dates are current), wait for 6 months and then, use the AC21 provision.
This is just my view. There might be better ways but, that is the only one I can think right now.
Madhuri
04-06 10:05 PM
Is the bill really dead? There is a different news on Yahoo.
Can anybody explain?
Can anybody explain?
more...
hoolahoous
03-18 04:36 PM
anyone ?
2010 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO III GSR
vine93
08-06 09:19 PM
Please sit together and talk.
more...
cjain
11-13 03:10 PM
From the Aytes memo:
Question 1
How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer:
If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.
Hope this clears stuff up. RFE's are generally issued for ability to pay issues. If all's clear on that front, there should simply be no issue
Question 1
How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140 petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending 180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer:
If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it’s merits. Then adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A above.
Hope this clears stuff up. RFE's are generally issued for ability to pay issues. If all's clear on that front, there should simply be no issue
hair New Mitsubishi Evo sets the
fromnaija
12-02 08:14 PM
>>>You cannot transfer to H4, since the 6 year limit is for the "H" category<<<<
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
H4 and H1 times have been decoupled. I believe you could change to H4 even after six years on H1. Check with your lawyer.
So, if you do not want to change to F1, your strategy could be a combination of the following:
start your GC process now, change to H4 if your H1 expires before your I-140 is approved, apply for premium processing of I-140, apply for three year H1 extension after your 140 is approved.
I thought this rule changed couple of years back. H4 time is not considered towards H1B anymore and generally the spouses who were on h4 became eligible for full 6 years of H1B. Isn't this right? Sorry for testing your patience with too many questions. Generally I am a cool head but I guess I have been way overcool on this issue.
H4 and H1 times have been decoupled. I believe you could change to H4 even after six years on H1. Check with your lawyer.
So, if you do not want to change to F1, your strategy could be a combination of the following:
start your GC process now, change to H4 if your H1 expires before your I-140 is approved, apply for premium processing of I-140, apply for three year H1 extension after your 140 is approved.
more...
vivekm1309
08-13 01:11 AM
looks like vldrao got his GC and took a hike ;)
Vdlrao may be helping DOS/USCIS to finalise the Visa Bulletin for September, must have been invited by Michael Chertoff seeing his grip on the visa numbers...:p
Vdlrao may be helping DOS/USCIS to finalise the Visa Bulletin for September, must have been invited by Michael Chertoff seeing his grip on the visa numbers...:p
hot jual mitsubishi evo 3 gti
hpandey
03-02 11:36 AM
Looks like your PD is current. You might get your GC anytime. That is another factor I would consider if your GC gets approved before you get married.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
Filing six months in advance seems to be a better idea.
more...
house Introducing: Mitsubishi Evo 3
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
tattoo APR
pointlesswait
05-05 10:08 AM
absurd..!!
more...
pictures Lancer EVO III
jonty_11
01-18 01:06 PM
did u call 18003755283....and given them this receipt number...
how abt interim EAD...did u ask for that?
I heard they stopped issueing those...
how abt interim EAD...did u ask for that?
I heard they stopped issueing those...
dresses Hage ~ Mitsubishi Evo 3
sanjay02
11-21 12:55 PM
I saw the following status on I-131
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
Application Type: I131, APPLICATION FOR USCIS TRAVEL DOCUMENT
Current Status: Document mailed to applicant.
On November 21, 2007 we mailed the document to the address we have on file. You should receive the new document within 30 days. If you do not, or if you move before you get it, call customer service.
Does it mean that I-131 is approved?
more...
makeup Photo from:mitsubishi evo iii
LostInGCProcess
09-04 11:07 AM
I beg to disagree on this thought: If you are on H1B until Dec 2009, you will have to file H1B Extention for 7th Year (I am guessing you are in your second h1B renewal). For any reason if you get denial for I-485, your H1B extention will also be cancelled, remember extention was given to you on the basis of pending I-485 (GC).
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
so after DEC 2009 , it's the same wheather you are on EAD or H1B Extention.
I think in the above scenario, they do not invalidate your H1. You can continue till the end-date on the H1, even though it was approved based on pending I-485. I suggest you consult an attorney on this specific scenario.
girlfriend JDM 1995 MITSUBISHI EVO-3
RamBharose
03-13 06:34 PM
hey kris
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
i really wanted to know if it was illegla before reporting someone, you can refer to jaylenos reply where he quoted my previous post and you will know my real issue is with people that do fraud.
And i am not that stupid to write in a forum like this accepting that i am doing a fraud ehn i can be tracked.
I wasnt sure and i didnt know how to go about it.
try to follow law in its technicality and spirit. A lot of us may face delay in their app processing for uscis to figure out fraudsters among us. We should keep our program defensible not only in the court of law but also in the court of (american) public opinion.
hairstyles Mitsubishi Evolution
Nil
11-09 11:10 AM
^^^^^
vamsi_poondla
10-17 03:04 PM
Hi,
I have applied for my EAD and I-485 in the month of June '07 and all that i have recieved so far is my wife's EAD. I still did not recieve my EAD nor the finger prints notice nor the 485 yet. I have to move to IL from TX now and i am in a big confusion now. I heard that the mails from the USICS will not be forwarded to any new address by the USPS. If i would want to change my address with the USCIS now will it be a good move or is there any other alternative that you all could suggest me...Please advice me on this issue and help me out of this situation.
Krishna.
I changed the address and notified that with USCIS using AR-11 form. After you submit that form, you will be asked whether there are any pending applications with USCIS for which the address change has to be applied. If you select that option, one after other you can give your receipt numbers of I-485, I-131 and I-765 and change the addresses. It is not a big deal.
At the same time, I advice you not to change the address, if the EAD status says "Card Production Ordered" or "Approval Notice Sent".
Coming to Postal Dept, they will forward everything unimportant like flyers, stupid credit card offers, and yellow pages, but promptly return USCIS documents back to them. So, you need to call in CIS helpline and request them to resend the documents.
BTW for someone who applies in June 2007, I think it is too delayed if you did not receive EAD. Did you check with CIS why it is delayed?
I have applied for my EAD and I-485 in the month of June '07 and all that i have recieved so far is my wife's EAD. I still did not recieve my EAD nor the finger prints notice nor the 485 yet. I have to move to IL from TX now and i am in a big confusion now. I heard that the mails from the USICS will not be forwarded to any new address by the USPS. If i would want to change my address with the USCIS now will it be a good move or is there any other alternative that you all could suggest me...Please advice me on this issue and help me out of this situation.
Krishna.
I changed the address and notified that with USCIS using AR-11 form. After you submit that form, you will be asked whether there are any pending applications with USCIS for which the address change has to be applied. If you select that option, one after other you can give your receipt numbers of I-485, I-131 and I-765 and change the addresses. It is not a big deal.
At the same time, I advice you not to change the address, if the EAD status says "Card Production Ordered" or "Approval Notice Sent".
Coming to Postal Dept, they will forward everything unimportant like flyers, stupid credit card offers, and yellow pages, but promptly return USCIS documents back to them. So, you need to call in CIS helpline and request them to resend the documents.
BTW for someone who applies in June 2007, I think it is too delayed if you did not receive EAD. Did you check with CIS why it is delayed?
zCool
04-02 08:43 PM
Hi Bhayzone,
Just so you know, your wife can attend school on H4 also. It helps to know this if the F1 doesn't go through. But, IMHO, it is better to be on F1 than H4 on any given day!
Good luck!
Ams
All other points are on the dot!
Only F1 being better than h4 is really depending on one's situation..
F1 is Non-Immigrant intent status.. meaning, if you apply for 140, or even have LC applied and USCIS finds out.. you can forget abt getting visa..
Secondly, F1 has become much restrictive since implementation of SEVIS.
H4 on the other hand is duel intent
Major advantages of F1 would be
1. Possible on-campus 20hr work authorization and later OPT authorization.
2 Chances of getting assistanceship.
So it's not black and white..
and if you've applied for 485.. F1 is really definitely not the way to go..
Just so you know, your wife can attend school on H4 also. It helps to know this if the F1 doesn't go through. But, IMHO, it is better to be on F1 than H4 on any given day!
Good luck!
Ams
All other points are on the dot!
Only F1 being better than h4 is really depending on one's situation..
F1 is Non-Immigrant intent status.. meaning, if you apply for 140, or even have LC applied and USCIS finds out.. you can forget abt getting visa..
Secondly, F1 has become much restrictive since implementation of SEVIS.
H4 on the other hand is duel intent
Major advantages of F1 would be
1. Possible on-campus 20hr work authorization and later OPT authorization.
2 Chances of getting assistanceship.
So it's not black and white..
and if you've applied for 485.. F1 is really definitely not the way to go..
No comments:
Post a Comment