saileshdude
06-25 11:00 AM
You could argue that you don't need to have a job now, just that you need to be in a "same or similar"position when the 485 is approved. if your priority date is very backlogged, you have lots of time to find a job.
Would this kind of RFE response be acceptable ? If the RFE asks for employment letter and you send a response that you dont have a job and also that you are not required to have one until your Priority date becomes current, I think your AOS can be denied. Based on the memo you can argue that but I am not sure if anyone has actually done this and their AOS has continued to be processed.
Please elaborate if you can on this.
Would this kind of RFE response be acceptable ? If the RFE asks for employment letter and you send a response that you dont have a job and also that you are not required to have one until your Priority date becomes current, I think your AOS can be denied. Based on the memo you can argue that but I am not sure if anyone has actually done this and their AOS has continued to be processed.
Please elaborate if you can on this.
wallpaper Meagan Good
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
desi3933
02-21 08:29 AM
......
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
For employment based I-485, out of status is looked only since last entry into US on visa. Even then out-of-status (since last entry) for upto 180 days is forgiven as per section 245(k).
Here is my old post dated 09/09/2008 on this topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21386-ead-status-when-ead-renewal-delayed.html#post286704
.....
Section 245(k) allows adjustment of status if person is out of status for less than 180 calendar days since last legal entry into the US. Entering US on AP does NOT count as legal entry.
.....
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
For employment based I-485, out of status is looked only since last entry into US on visa. Even then out-of-status (since last entry) for upto 180 days is forgiven as per section 245(k).
Here is my old post dated 09/09/2008 on this topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21386-ead-status-when-ead-renewal-delayed.html#post286704
.....
Section 245(k) allows adjustment of status if person is out of status for less than 180 calendar days since last legal entry into the US. Entering US on AP does NOT count as legal entry.
.....
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
2011 Name : Meagan Good - Waist
BharatPremi
09-24 11:35 AM
Man why you need reciepts?
First of all those receipts are Applicant's (Employee's) property so I believe, if something is my property I MUST have it with me... Period. Now one thoughful reason is that, during the whole damn process, if you are not satisfied with the action taken by your lawyer and you want to change your attorney then having receipts with you would make your life easy then. Actually my attorney is really good and I do not see this coming but hey, if you have your originals with you it is better. Another reason is that suppose say in future, if you have to plan for Emergency travel outside, you would not have to plan waiting for receipts coming from your attorney then.
First of all those receipts are Applicant's (Employee's) property so I believe, if something is my property I MUST have it with me... Period. Now one thoughful reason is that, during the whole damn process, if you are not satisfied with the action taken by your lawyer and you want to change your attorney then having receipts with you would make your life easy then. Actually my attorney is really good and I do not see this coming but hey, if you have your originals with you it is better. Another reason is that suppose say in future, if you have to plan for Emergency travel outside, you would not have to plan waiting for receipts coming from your attorney then.
more...
xgoogle
11-12 05:44 PM
I received my GC on 08/15/08. PD 03/2006. My spouse did not. The dates have since moved on and it seems until July/Aug 2009 there can be no hope. She has an EAD until 10/2010and is employed on its basis. Does changing my job effect her I-485 application ? Will I still need to file an AC21 ?
boston_guy147
02-18 03:22 PM
This is possibly a repeat/trivial question for the gurus here - but I am seeking latest upto date information. So here it goes..
I have been on H1B since Oct06 ( after OPT), working for the same company as Electrical Engineer in full time position. I haven't traveled to India ( or anywhere out of US) since Aug 2003 when I came here for my MS.
I am planning to travel to India this Dec and probably to UK in July. And so I planned to get my H1B stamped from Canada in May/June. But my company attorney has advised me that its better to go for stamping in India - as because of the Tech Alert List, there have been significant delays for some people.
I wanted to know if anybody has any real time experience. And what is the advise of the gurus - India or Canada?
Thanks a lot - your help is much appreciated!
I have been on H1B since Oct06 ( after OPT), working for the same company as Electrical Engineer in full time position. I haven't traveled to India ( or anywhere out of US) since Aug 2003 when I came here for my MS.
I am planning to travel to India this Dec and probably to UK in July. And so I planned to get my H1B stamped from Canada in May/June. But my company attorney has advised me that its better to go for stamping in India - as because of the Tech Alert List, there have been significant delays for some people.
I wanted to know if anybody has any real time experience. And what is the advise of the gurus - India or Canada?
Thanks a lot - your help is much appreciated!
more...
coolman
07-01 11:40 AM
My daughter is in college and I was wondering if there is any chance of getting a FAFSA loan for her with I-485 application applied in July 2007.
Thanks
Thanks
2010 Free Meagan-Good phone
.jpg "meagan good in black dress,")
snathan
04-08 04:08 PM
Visa Bulletin For May 2011 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5424.html)
Employment- Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01AUG06 01JUL06 C C
3rd 22AUG05 15APR04 15APR02 08SEP04 22AUG05
Other Workers 08SEP03 22APR03 15APR02 08SEP03 08SEP03
.
Employment- Based All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed
CHINA- mainland born INDIA MEXICO PHILIPPINES
1st C C C C C
2nd C 01AUG06 01JUL06 C C
3rd 22AUG05 15APR04 15APR02 08SEP04 22AUG05
Other Workers 08SEP03 22APR03 15APR02 08SEP03 08SEP03
.
more...
smileyslimey
11-30 08:59 AM
Hi,
My current H1 expires in Nov 2007 and I am working in the oil and gas field. I am also pursuing an MBA which will end in mid-2008. My current employers have started the PERM process and hopefully I will have an approved I-140 by mid 2007, so that I can get renewals at that time.
The question is that if I want to shift to another industry, say consulting or supply chain management, after my MBA is over, can I get a new H1 from my would-be employers? That is while I am on my current I-140 renewal with an oil and gas job description? I will have exceeded my 6yrs by then, anyway.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks.
Regards.
My current H1 expires in Nov 2007 and I am working in the oil and gas field. I am also pursuing an MBA which will end in mid-2008. My current employers have started the PERM process and hopefully I will have an approved I-140 by mid 2007, so that I can get renewals at that time.
The question is that if I want to shift to another industry, say consulting or supply chain management, after my MBA is over, can I get a new H1 from my would-be employers? That is while I am on my current I-140 renewal with an oil and gas job description? I will have exceeded my 6yrs by then, anyway.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks.
Regards.
hair meagan good wallpaper.
Soul
05-27 09:31 AM
Grrrr :P
more...
md2003
08-15 09:19 AM
I am not sure whether to go for EB2 filing in PERM or wait one more year to file i485 (hope PD will reach 2003 september by next year october ). Even if i start EB2 perm now it's going to take at least one year to clear labor and i140 (if every thing smooth).
hot Meagan Good middot; « Back
vallabhu
01-02 11:56 AM
Is it BA with Mathematics (honors) or BSC. in Mathematics (honors). or does it say General?
If you are asking about Labor petition It said Mathematics or related feild
if you are my qualification it is BSc with Mathematics. but my trascripts say maths1,maths2, maths3, maths4 as supposed to Mathematics1,Mathematics2,Mathematics3,Mathematics 4.
which made the difference.
but provisional said Mathematics, so adjudicator got confused.
If you are asking about Labor petition It said Mathematics or related feild
if you are my qualification it is BSc with Mathematics. but my trascripts say maths1,maths2, maths3, maths4 as supposed to Mathematics1,Mathematics2,Mathematics3,Mathematics 4.
which made the difference.
but provisional said Mathematics, so adjudicator got confused.
more...
house Meagan Good Picture,
nashim
09-03 09:01 AM
Yes, medical forms been changed. Please refer USCIS site for correct form. It is valid for one year but form should be correct.
Here are the details:
http://immigration-law.com/
07/13/2008: USCIS Changes Old Medical Form, I-693, Invalid Date from 07/14/2008 to 08/01/2008
� Medical form which the USCIS designated civil surgeon is required to use was initially revised on 04/08/2008, followed by the USCIS announcement that any I-693 form version earlier than 04/08/2008 should not be used by the civil surgens from May 1, 2008. In the middle of June, the USCIS released again new version form dated 06/05/2008 and announced that the old version other than 06/05/2008 should not be used effective 07/14/2008. July 14, 2008 is tomorrow. However, without a news release, the USCIS form site extended invalid date of forms earlier than 06/05/2008 to 08/01/2008. Please now note that "Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition," according to the form site instruction.
� There was a confusion in June 2008 on the validity of older version form I-9 because the USCIS form site instructed that the older version was not acceptable from certain date. In Vancouver, the USCIS authority confirmed that the form instruction was an error and the USCIS form instruction has since been corrected. It will help tremendously if the USCIS releases an announcement that the current I-693 form instruction is indeed correct and the civil surgeons can use the I-693 forms which are older than 06/05/2008 version can still be used. In the meantime, the civil surgeons and the immigrants should check on the date of the medical examination with the I-693 form site to protect themselves from any changes. The form site indicates that the information was updated on June 26, 2008. One wonders whether the civil surgeons may be better off to start using the 06/05/2008 version form from even now just to avoid any confusion in the future. For the new form instruction as of today, please click here.
� There was a report one time that the USCIS was experiencing a problem in notifying all the USCIS certified civil surgeons on the form changes by email or other means because some civil surgeons did not have email addresses or proper means to receive such notices quickly. When the 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons was implemented by the Center for Disease Control and Prevension of HHS in such a notice on May 1, 2008, it could have been practically impossible for the USCIS to notify such medical form changes timely to every single USCIS certified civil surgeons. Well, doctors, you now have until August 1, 2008 to comply with the new medical form!
� This change can be important that because of the EB-2 visa number progression for the Chinese and Indians, a large number of these foreign professionals must have already scheduled or even completed a medical examination for themselves and their family members using the older versions. Under the new instruction, these medical report should be valid and filed with the I-485 coming August 2008. However, those who schedule their 485 medical examination on or after August 1, 2008 should make it sure that the doctor uses the new version dated 06/05/2008.
Here are the details:
http://immigration-law.com/
07/13/2008: USCIS Changes Old Medical Form, I-693, Invalid Date from 07/14/2008 to 08/01/2008
� Medical form which the USCIS designated civil surgeon is required to use was initially revised on 04/08/2008, followed by the USCIS announcement that any I-693 form version earlier than 04/08/2008 should not be used by the civil surgens from May 1, 2008. In the middle of June, the USCIS released again new version form dated 06/05/2008 and announced that the old version other than 06/05/2008 should not be used effective 07/14/2008. July 14, 2008 is tomorrow. However, without a news release, the USCIS form site extended invalid date of forms earlier than 06/05/2008 to 08/01/2008. Please now note that "Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition," according to the form site instruction.
� There was a confusion in June 2008 on the validity of older version form I-9 because the USCIS form site instructed that the older version was not acceptable from certain date. In Vancouver, the USCIS authority confirmed that the form instruction was an error and the USCIS form instruction has since been corrected. It will help tremendously if the USCIS releases an announcement that the current I-693 form instruction is indeed correct and the civil surgeons can use the I-693 forms which are older than 06/05/2008 version can still be used. In the meantime, the civil surgeons and the immigrants should check on the date of the medical examination with the I-693 form site to protect themselves from any changes. The form site indicates that the information was updated on June 26, 2008. One wonders whether the civil surgeons may be better off to start using the 06/05/2008 version form from even now just to avoid any confusion in the future. For the new form instruction as of today, please click here.
� There was a report one time that the USCIS was experiencing a problem in notifying all the USCIS certified civil surgeons on the form changes by email or other means because some civil surgeons did not have email addresses or proper means to receive such notices quickly. When the 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons was implemented by the Center for Disease Control and Prevension of HHS in such a notice on May 1, 2008, it could have been practically impossible for the USCIS to notify such medical form changes timely to every single USCIS certified civil surgeons. Well, doctors, you now have until August 1, 2008 to comply with the new medical form!
� This change can be important that because of the EB-2 visa number progression for the Chinese and Indians, a large number of these foreign professionals must have already scheduled or even completed a medical examination for themselves and their family members using the older versions. Under the new instruction, these medical report should be valid and filed with the I-485 coming August 2008. However, those who schedule their 485 medical examination on or after August 1, 2008 should make it sure that the doctor uses the new version dated 06/05/2008.
tattoo the fashionable megan good
mrajatish
04-02 01:01 PM
Friends,
I know we have very good slides on high skilled immigrant's contributed to American economy and why they are necessary. One of the questions we are going to have to answer while presenting to our employer next week is
1. In the long run, How does America benefit from giving you and me GC?
2. In the short run, why should an employer care to fight for your GC?
Please treat this as a very serious effort to collect positive data points for an extremely important presentation to one of the leading proponents of high skilled immigration - if we have enough data points, this person might testify in Congress/Senate for us.
Core IV folks, please help us in this effort if you have pointers.
Thanks,
Raj
I know we have very good slides on high skilled immigrant's contributed to American economy and why they are necessary. One of the questions we are going to have to answer while presenting to our employer next week is
1. In the long run, How does America benefit from giving you and me GC?
2. In the short run, why should an employer care to fight for your GC?
Please treat this as a very serious effort to collect positive data points for an extremely important presentation to one of the leading proponents of high skilled immigration - if we have enough data points, this person might testify in Congress/Senate for us.
Core IV folks, please help us in this effort if you have pointers.
Thanks,
Raj
more...
pictures Meagan Good Wallpapers
HRPRO
01-18 09:30 AM
H-1B is the responsibility of the employer but it is slightly tricky. If the employee is being paid more than the minimum wage quoted, then he/she can be made liable to pay back the full amount. But still attorney fees and other associated costs can be collected back from the employee.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
Either way 4 years is too long a period to hold anyone liable to any employment agreement when it is employment at will and should not have been signed to start with. It is just too late to regret and would be wise to move forward with options best known to you.
dresses Meagan-good-mobile-wallpaper
reallow23
09-28 05:25 PM
Hello Everyone,
I need to find someone that can help me to file the Mandamus my name is been stuck over 2 years now and the USCIS still telling me it's PENDING....Please help me if anyone know a good lawyer that can file Mandamus.....
Thanks
Anan:confused:
I need to find someone that can help me to file the Mandamus my name is been stuck over 2 years now and the USCIS still telling me it's PENDING....Please help me if anyone know a good lawyer that can file Mandamus.....
Thanks
Anan:confused:
more...
makeup Meagan-good-mobile-wallpaper
eb3_nepa
08-16 04:36 AM
Hi Guys,
I am on H1B and my wife is working using her EAD. Like most people on here we applied in the July 2007 rush.
Now her licence in PA was expiring and we went to renew it and provided ALL necessary documents such as Passport, I-94, current and future EADs. However at the very end after about half an hour of providing documents, the DMV guy said that the system needed "more info" and that he would have to fax everything to Harrisburg who would then contact the INS for the missing info and we would get some "letter" from the DMV.
Has anyone faced a similar issue in PA before? If so how soon after did they receive this letter? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process such as contacting my local Sentator/Congressman's office? We have a small baby and my wife needs to drive to go to work.
Thanks.
I am on H1B and my wife is working using her EAD. Like most people on here we applied in the July 2007 rush.
Now her licence in PA was expiring and we went to renew it and provided ALL necessary documents such as Passport, I-94, current and future EADs. However at the very end after about half an hour of providing documents, the DMV guy said that the system needed "more info" and that he would have to fax everything to Harrisburg who would then contact the INS for the missing info and we would get some "letter" from the DMV.
Has anyone faced a similar issue in PA before? If so how soon after did they receive this letter? Is there anything I can do to expedite the process such as contacting my local Sentator/Congressman's office? We have a small baby and my wife needs to drive to go to work.
Thanks.
girlfriend Meagan Good
indyanguy
01-13 07:39 PM
Do they send you a copy of the original?
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
hairstyles Meagan Good Wallpaper
sapota
02-27 01:51 PM
From March 05 to Sep 06 data can be found at :
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/OFLC_Report_v11_8-23-07.pdf
This is the kind of transparency people are looking for. USCIS does publish statisics too. Hoping that they take all this data & propose legislation and or administrative solutions to address bottleneck issues.
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/OFLC_Report_v11_8-23-07.pdf
This is the kind of transparency people are looking for. USCIS does publish statisics too. Hoping that they take all this data & propose legislation and or administrative solutions to address bottleneck issues.
galacticman
03-06 07:30 PM
Thanks coopheal. Seems like they are still working on the 1st week itself. Hopefully I should see mine come around soon for preadjudication!
***************
EB3/India/PD-Jan '06/140 Approved Apr '07/485 Pending- July '07/EAD Oct '07
***************
EB3/India/PD-Jan '06/140 Approved Apr '07/485 Pending- July '07/EAD Oct '07
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment