smartboy75
09-22 11:11 PM
09/22/2008: USCIS Ombudsman Assistance Available for EAD Delay Cases
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
If your EAD applications are pending more than 90 days and you need ombudsman's assistance, the following steps should be take:
Step 1: Call USCIS National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-(800) 375-5283 and record the time/date of the call and the name/number of the customer service representative: Explain to the customer service representative that your EAD has been pending more than 90 days and ask for a �service request.� You should receive a response to your service request within a week.
OR Ask the customer service representative to request an interim card for you. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 2: If you choose to visit a local USCIS office, schedule an INFOPASS appointment to visit that office on www.infopass.uscis.gov. At the appointment, ask to apply for an interim EAD. Note that USCIS local offices no longer issue interim EADs. The local office can review your case and determine eligibility. The local office will forward your request to the USCIS service centers. You should receive an EAD or response within a week.
Step 3: If you have tried both Step 1 and Step 2 and have still not received your EAD or an interim card, please email the ombudsman's office at cisombudsman.publicaffairs@dhs.gov with the details of your efforts. Please include the date and time of your call to the NCSC and the name of the customer service representative. If you visited a USCIS office, please provide that information. The office will look into your case and review how we may be of assistance.
Source: www.immigration-law.com
wallpaper Summer Glau - Bio | Pics
nayekal
08-18 06:30 PM
Exactly.....You nailed it correctly.
Some people did mistakes in the past and tried to correct it. If they are successful in correcting the mistake legally, then you should feel happy about it and wish them success.
At least don't wish them bad luck....
Some people did mistakes in the past and tried to correct it. If they are successful in correcting the mistake legally, then you should feel happy about it and wish them success.
At least don't wish them bad luck....
retropain
09-01 11:08 AM
What's particularly interesting is the number of 'scare words' used in this selected testimony on aspects of the CIR bill. Its a lot like Loo Dobbs "War" on the middle class. Its clear CIS, Nusa, FAIR provide the script to him on immigration matters. I knew Loo wasn't that creative in the first place
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
=---
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. CUTLER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2006
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, Ranking Members Conyers and Jackson Lee, members of Congress, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. It is a distinct honor and privilege to provide testimony at this hearing because the topic of the hearing is of truly critical significance. We are here to avert what I believe would be a catastrophe for the United States. The United States Senate passed a bill, S. 2611, that would provide incentives for a massive influx of illegal aliens, aided, abetted and induced to violate our nation’s immigration laws at a time that our nation is confronting the continuing threat of terrorism and the increasing involvement of violent gangs, comprised predominantly of deportable aliens, in a wide variety of violent crimes committed against our nation’s citizens. It is of critical importance that this hearing and others like it, illuminate why S. 2611 would expose our nation to unreasonable vulnerabilities especially in the post-9/11 world.
A nation’s primary responsibility is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens and yet, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, the members of the Senate who voted for S. 2611 are seemingly oblivious to the lessons that the disastrous amnesty of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should have taught us. That piece of legislation lead to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. Fraud and a lack of integrity of the immigration system not only flooded our nation with illegal aliens who ran our borders, hoping that what had been billed as a “one time” amnesty would be repeated, but it also enabled a number of terrorists and many criminals to enter the United States and then embed themselves in the United States.
A notable example of such a terrorist can be found in a review of the facts concerning Mahmud Abouhalima, a citizen of Egypt who entered the United States on a tourist visa, overstayed his authorized period of admission and then applied for amnesty under the agricultural worker provisions of IRCA. He succeeded in obtaining resident alien status through this process. During a 5 year period he drove a cab and had his license suspended numerous times for violations of law and ultimately demonstrated his appreciation for our nation’s generosity by participating in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 that left 6 people dead, hundreds of people injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damage inflicted, on that iconic, ill-fated complex. America had opened its doors to him so that he might participate in the “American Dream.” He turned that dream into our worst nightmare. The other terrorists who attacked our nation on subsequent attacks, including the attacks of September 11, 2001, similarly exploited our generosity, seeing in our nation’s kindness, weakness, gaming the immigration system to enter our country and then, hide in plain sight, among us.
As I recall, when IRCA was proposed, one of the selling points was that along with amnesty for what was believed to have been a population of some 1.5 million illegal aliens would be a new approach to turn off what has been described as the “magnet” that draws the majority of illegal aliens into the United States in the first place, the prospect of securing employment in the United States. In order to accomplish this important goal, IRCA imposed penalties against those unscrupulous employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens. My former colleagues and I were pleased to see that under the employer sanctions of IRCA, the unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens would be made accountable, or so we thought. We were frustrated that we had seen all too many employers hire illegal aliens and treat them horrendously They paid them sub-standard wages and created unsafe, indeed hazardous working conditions for the illegal aliens they hired, knowing full well that these aliens would not complain because they feared being reported to the INS. Meanwhile the employer would not face any penalty for his outrageous conduct. Finally, it seemed that the employer sanctions provisions of IRCA would discourage employers from hiring illegal aliens and would also make it less likely they would treat their employees as miserably as some of these employers did.
Of course, we now know that the relative handful of special agents who were assigned to conduct investigations of employers who hired illegal aliens made it unlikely that employers would face a significant risk of being caught violating these laws and that they would face an even smaller chance of being seriously fined. Furthermore, the way that the amnesty provisions of the law were enacted simply created a cottage industry of fraud document vendors who provided illegal aliens with counterfeit or altered identity documents and supporting documents to enable the illegal alien population to circumvent the immigration laws. Ultimately approximately 3.5 million illegal aliens emerged from the infamous shadows to participate in the amnesty program of 1986. I have never seen an explanation for the reason that more than twice as many aliens took advantage of the 1986 amnesty than was initially believed would but I believe that two factors came into play. It may well be that the number of illegal aliens in the country was underestimated. I also believe, however, that a large number of illegal aliens were able to gain entry into the United States long after the cutoff point and succeeded in making false claims that they had been present in the country for the requisite period of time.
To put this in perspective, I have read various estimates about the number of illegal aliens who are currently present in the United States. These estimates range from a low of 12 million to a high of 20 million. If, for argument sake, we figure on a number of 15 million illegal aliens, or ten times the number that had been estimated prior to the amnesty of 1986, and if the same sort of under counting occurs and if a comparable percentage of aliens succeed in racing into the United States and making a false claims that they had been here for the necessary period of time to be eligible to participate in the amnesty program that the Reid-Kennedy provisions would reward illegal aliens with, then we might expect some 35 million illegal aliens will ultimately participate in this insane program. Once they become citizens they would then be eligible to file applications to bring their family members to the United States, flooding our nation with tens of millions of additional new lawful immigrations while our nation’s porous borders, visa waiver program and extreme lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States would allow many millions of illegal aliens to continue to enter the United States in violation of law.
The utterly inept and incompetent USCIS, which is now unable to carry out it’s most basic missions with even a modicum of integrity would undoubtedly disintegrate. The system would simply implode, crushed by the burden of its vicious cycle of attempting to deal with an ever increasing spiral of rampant fraud thereby encouraging still more fraudulent applications to be filed. Terrorists would not find gaming this system the least bit challenging and our government will have become their unwitting ally, providing them with official identity documents in false names and then, ultimately, providing them with the keys to the kingdom by conferring resident aliens status and then, United States citizenship upon those who would destroy our nation and slaughter our citizens.
I hope that this doomsday scenario will not be permitted to play out.
Insanity has been described as doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result. Where our nation’s security is concerned it would be indeed, insane to ignore the lessons of IRCA.
When I was a boy my dad used to tell me that there were no mistakes in life, only lessons, provided we learn from what goes wrong and make the appropriate changes in the way we do things. However, to repeat the same mistakes was to him and to me, simply unforgivable.
Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Hostettler, I commend your leadership in calling this hearing to make certain that these concerns are made public and are taken into account, especially as we approach the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and our nation continues to grapple with the immigration crisis.
America is at historic crossroads at this moment in time. Courageous decisions need to be made by our nation’s leaders. If our nation fails to select the proper path, there will be no going back. If our nation decides to provide amnesty to millions of undocumented and illegal aliens, I fear that our national security will suffer irreparable harm as we aid and abet alien terrorists who seek to enter our country and embed themselves within it in preparation for the deadly attacks they would carry out. The priority must be clear, national security must be given the highest consideration and priority where the security of our nation’s borders and the integrity of the immigration system are concerned.
2011 Summer Glau images, absolutely
DSLStart
07-25 09:51 AM
I too received an email couple of days back that my 140 which was approved in Dec 05 has been transfered from VSC to TSC. Wonder whats going on :confused:
more...
Ann Ruben
01-23 01:24 AM
Do you have any idea why the petition was denied? Was there an RFE? Appeals of H-1 denials are generally taking more than a year, and are rarely successful. Quickly filing a new and extremely well documented H-1 petition with a request for premium processing is really your best option. Note that if the new petition is approved you will have to leave the US and get a new H-1 visa before you can re-enter and resume legal work authorized status.
snathan
04-20 12:40 AM
Hi Guys,
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
On 04/12/2009 it was denied and how come its approved on 04/18/2009. Are you kidding me
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
On 04/12/2009 it was denied and how come its approved on 04/18/2009. Are you kidding me
more...
qualified_trash
12-01 05:47 PM
You cannot apply the extension for 3yrs with new employer as your labor and i140 are tied to old employer.
this info is incorrect. from a murthy chat transcript...... available at :
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
this info is incorrect. from a murthy chat transcript...... available at :
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
2010 Summer Glau wallpapers (122739
Jeff Wheeler
11-27 04:04 AM
I find that Silverlight and related .NET stuff works extremely well cross-platform. Apps like Banshee (http://banshee-project.org/) are cross-platform (really, not like Flash and AIR which suck on Linux and Mac) and work wonderfully on every platform (alright, bad example: there’s not a Windows port at the moment, because of the underlying audio libraries, but it’s all C# stuff).
Mono is implementing a really nice open-source version of Silverlight (I forget its name), and Silverlight works great on Mac.
Mono is implementing a really nice open-source version of Silverlight (I forget its name), and Silverlight works great on Mac.
more...
Suva
04-17 02:43 PM
hey dude there's nothing in the url u posted once go to the website and click the the pressure list url.that is the actual Noc codes that are active.Today morning when i spoke to the immigraton officer in alberta he was the one who told me ok.
It was mentioned last month in the AINP website that some changes would be there in the NOC list after April 15. Everybody whoever followed this thread saw the message earlier. On April 15 they removed the message from AINP website and apparantly there was no change in NOC list till now. OP gave us correct information when he/she created this thread. See my post in April 15 in this thread and I mentioned that nothing was changed in NOC list. Again going back to my original question did you follow this thread from start? I objected to this comment "I donno why people place messages with Half Knowledge". Apparantly you had the half knowlodge about this whole issue.
It was mentioned last month in the AINP website that some changes would be there in the NOC list after April 15. Everybody whoever followed this thread saw the message earlier. On April 15 they removed the message from AINP website and apparantly there was no change in NOC list till now. OP gave us correct information when he/she created this thread. See my post in April 15 in this thread and I mentioned that nothing was changed in NOC list. Again going back to my original question did you follow this thread from start? I objected to this comment "I donno why people place messages with Half Knowledge". Apparantly you had the half knowlodge about this whole issue.
hair 1 called summer glau
gk_2000
04-21 09:41 AM
Friends,
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
I heard Sugarland has good concentration of desis..
I will be relocating to Houston soon. I am new to the area. I would really appreciate if you can give your inputs on good neighborhoods, cost of living, etc.
Thanks,
nmdial
I heard Sugarland has good concentration of desis..
more...
guesswho
06-11 03:09 PM
Sunny1000,
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
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.
Please be careful before replying. If you do not know, don't answer.
I have seen numerous posts that say, you can get a 3 yrs H-1 based on your previous company's I-140. (of course, it should not have been revoked). This is based on peoples experience. So don't confuse other people if you are not sure.
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.
hot Summer Glau 2010 gallery,
chapper
11-11 01:26 AM
Please add more data if you find.....
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/570/workinprogressue6.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/570/workinprogressue6.jpg
more...
house Summer glau menu images
valysivec27
10-01 09:59 AM
Hello, I have a question for you guys. Can you point me to some documents I can read about GC adjudication?. I'd like to know if the "priority date" has any importance after you apply I485. Are they proceesing the I485 applications based on country quota, employment caterogory? Thank you for the clarification in this matter.
My impression is that the "priority date" it's not important after you file the I485, but I might be wrong....
Any idea?
Thanks,
ValySivec
My impression is that the "priority date" it's not important after you file the I485, but I might be wrong....
Any idea?
Thanks,
ValySivec
tattoo Summer-glau-mobile-wallpaper
admin
06-01 03:27 PM
We have discussed this issue earlier on this forum.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
more...
pictures summer glau interview
kaisersose
06-02 03:24 PM
You have a valid point but in worst case scenario, can i use the EAD and handle the RFE at the time of citizen ship... is the RFE during approval of GC or during citizen ship ?
Here is how I see it,
1. You use your EAD and quit your employer.
2. Your H employer cancels your H-1 and therefore the H-4 is cancelled too.
3. When it is time for your wife to apply for AOS, she has show proof that she is legally in the US at that time.
4. But she is no longer in the US legally and so she cannot really apply.
I would not take this route. Instead I suggest you try to get her a different visa (h1, F1, etc) and make her status independent of yours. If not, then you will have to hold on to a H status until her PD becomes current.
Here is how I see it,
1. You use your EAD and quit your employer.
2. Your H employer cancels your H-1 and therefore the H-4 is cancelled too.
3. When it is time for your wife to apply for AOS, she has show proof that she is legally in the US at that time.
4. But she is no longer in the US legally and so she cannot really apply.
I would not take this route. Instead I suggest you try to get her a different visa (h1, F1, etc) and make her status independent of yours. If not, then you will have to hold on to a H status until her PD becomes current.
dresses Summer Glau Wallpaper
immi_seeker
07-12 08:31 PM
Our Current EAD is expiring on 10/01/2008. So we had applied for extension in june. On july 7th our application was approved and today we recieved our EAD cards. I was expecting a one year extension , which is until 10/01/2009. But USCIS send us ead cards that will expire on 01/01/2009.
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
What should be the course of action here. Do i need to reapply or just contact USCIS and will they be able to fix it? Any body on similiar situation.?
Service center is nebraska
more...
makeup Summer-glau-mobile-wallpaper
MatsP
November 25th, 2005, 04:14 AM
I prefer the light one. But I'm with David C that if you had more depth of field in the second one, that may well make that one "better".
--
Mats
--
Mats
girlfriend Summer Glau Widescreen
hsd31
03-17 07:24 AM
From your post it looks like option 1 is a no-go. You will waste more time and you will have to start back at square one again if the appeal is rejected (which it most likely will, given that the facts are against you). It will be more advisable to re-start the process and go with option 2.
I will also suggest that you get yourself a new lawyer. You should have never applied in EB-2 given you had a degree dated 2002.
I will also suggest that you get yourself a new lawyer. You should have never applied in EB-2 given you had a degree dated 2002.
hairstyles Summer Glau born on 24 July
ARUNRAMANATHAN
06-11 03:05 PM
Have you done this ...or do you know some text that say this /....can have a 3 yr extension based on the pervious 140 ...
That is from 2007 to 2010 ....Thanks
3 year H1 extension from date of application (for example: June 2007 to June 2010).
If you move to Company B, you need to restart GC (i.e. new LC and new 140). One can port PD from old 140 to new I-140, however there is a risk involved if the previous I-140 is revoked or canceled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
That is from 2007 to 2010 ....Thanks
3 year H1 extension from date of application (for example: June 2007 to June 2010).
If you move to Company B, you need to restart GC (i.e. new LC and new 140). One can port PD from old 140 to new I-140, however there is a risk involved if the previous I-140 is revoked or canceled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify details with your lawyer/attorney. This is just my opinion and not be taken as legal advice.
meridiani.planum
07-12 08:35 AM
As long as your old I140 is not withdrawn, you can file 485. I think even if it is withdrawn, there still might be a chance, check with your NEW lawyer.
if the I-140 is withdrawn, its too late to file a 485. If its not withdrawn, he can go ahead and file a 485, but would need the co-operation of that employer (employment verification letter)
if the I-140 is withdrawn, its too late to file a 485. If its not withdrawn, he can go ahead and file a 485, but would need the co-operation of that employer (employment verification letter)
mita
12-04 04:04 PM
It was in Breaking News.....
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment