satyakb
03-21 09:32 PM
We would like to Thank every onefor providing detailed advices - considering various aspects of life.
Will surely update the thread when we make a final decision.
Will surely update the thread when we make a final decision.
wallpaper playing the Selena Gomez
GotFreedom?
03-31 01:08 AM
Its always awesome to see these occasional threads mentioning 485 approvals. I wish we get to see more and more of these threads.
Congratulations and enjoy your freedom.
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
Congratulations and enjoy your freedom.
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
gotgc?
02-03 10:45 AM
Hi All,
I am planning to travel to India via London, UK. I am trying to see if it requires a transit Visa.
I am on H1B/AOS status but without valid visa stamp and travelling with Advance Parole. I have checked the UK Consulate page UK Border Agency | Who is exempt from having to hold a direct airside transit visa? (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/travellingtotheuk/transitthroughtheuk/transitdocuments/exempt/) it mentions that Indian passport holders needs a transit visa but with following exemptions;
one of them is a a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002; Since I hold canadian permanent resident card, is it ok I can travel without UK transit Visa through UK? Based on this page, I thought so, but my travel agent said to double check eventhough I have a canadian permanent resident card, I am travelling to and from USA. Has any one done this before - travelled with canadian PR to/from USA through UK? Whom should I confirm with?
Passengers exempt from the DATV requirement
Holders of certain documents are, regardless of nationality, exempt from the requirement to hold a Direct Airside Transit Visa when transiting the UK.
A transit passenger is not required to hold a transit visa if he holds, or a person with whom he arrives in the United Kingdom holds on his behalf:
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from another country or territory to the country for which the visa is held;
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from the country for which the visa is held to another country or territory;
a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America to another country or territory, provided that the transit passenger does not seek to transit the United Kingdom on a date more than six months from the date on which they last entered Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America with a valid visa for entry to that country;
a valid USA I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21st April 1998;
a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002;
a valid common format Category D visa for entry to an EEA State;
a valid common format residence permit issued by an EEA State pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002;
a diplomatic or service passport issued by the People�s Republic of China; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by India; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by Vietnam.
Notes:
A valid U.S. immigrant visa packet (form 155A/155B) is a valid visa for DATV exemption purposes.
An expired I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21 April 1998 when accompanied by an I-797 letter issued by the Bureau of Citizenship authorising its extension, exempts the holder from the DATV requirement.
Holding either an I-512 Parole letter or an I-797C (Notice of Action) instead of a valid U.S. visa; or a Transportation Letter instead of a valid U.S. Permanent Residence Card issued on or after 21 April 1998; or a U.S Visa Foil endorsed, "NOT A VISA. FOIL PREPARED AT DHS REQUEST" does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Holding a valid travel document with a U.S. ADIT stamp worded � �Processed for I-551. TEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE VALID UNTIL�. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED� does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Whether holders of non-national (including refugee travel documents) require a DATV depends on their nationality and whether they qualify for one of the exemptions listed above. So, for instance, the holder of a non-national travel document (for example, a refugee travel document) who is a national or a citizen of one of the countries listed on the DATV list (for example, Afghanistan) will require a direct airside transit visa if they are travelling to the UK to transit on to a third country.
I am planning to travel to India via London, UK. I am trying to see if it requires a transit Visa.
I am on H1B/AOS status but without valid visa stamp and travelling with Advance Parole. I have checked the UK Consulate page UK Border Agency | Who is exempt from having to hold a direct airside transit visa? (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/travellingtotheuk/transitthroughtheuk/transitdocuments/exempt/) it mentions that Indian passport holders needs a transit visa but with following exemptions;
one of them is a a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002; Since I hold canadian permanent resident card, is it ok I can travel without UK transit Visa through UK? Based on this page, I thought so, but my travel agent said to double check eventhough I have a canadian permanent resident card, I am travelling to and from USA. Has any one done this before - travelled with canadian PR to/from USA through UK? Whom should I confirm with?
Passengers exempt from the DATV requirement
Holders of certain documents are, regardless of nationality, exempt from the requirement to hold a Direct Airside Transit Visa when transiting the UK.
A transit passenger is not required to hold a transit visa if he holds, or a person with whom he arrives in the United Kingdom holds on his behalf:
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from another country or territory to the country for which the visa is held;
a valid visa for entry to Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America and a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from the country for which the visa is held to another country or territory;
a valid airline ticket for travel via the United Kingdom as part of a journey from Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America to another country or territory, provided that the transit passenger does not seek to transit the United Kingdom on a date more than six months from the date on which they last entered Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America with a valid visa for entry to that country;
a valid USA I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21st April 1998;
a valid Canadian Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 28th June 2002;
a valid common format Category D visa for entry to an EEA State;
a valid common format residence permit issued by an EEA State pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002;
a diplomatic or service passport issued by the People�s Republic of China; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by India; or
a diplomatic or official passport issued by Vietnam.
Notes:
A valid U.S. immigrant visa packet (form 155A/155B) is a valid visa for DATV exemption purposes.
An expired I-551 Permanent Resident Card issued on or after 21 April 1998 when accompanied by an I-797 letter issued by the Bureau of Citizenship authorising its extension, exempts the holder from the DATV requirement.
Holding either an I-512 Parole letter or an I-797C (Notice of Action) instead of a valid U.S. visa; or a Transportation Letter instead of a valid U.S. Permanent Residence Card issued on or after 21 April 1998; or a U.S Visa Foil endorsed, "NOT A VISA. FOIL PREPARED AT DHS REQUEST" does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Holding a valid travel document with a U.S. ADIT stamp worded � �Processed for I-551. TEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE VALID UNTIL�. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED� does NOT qualify for exemption from the DAT visa requirement.
Whether holders of non-national (including refugee travel documents) require a DATV depends on their nationality and whether they qualify for one of the exemptions listed above. So, for instance, the holder of a non-national travel document (for example, a refugee travel document) who is a national or a citizen of one of the countries listed on the DATV list (for example, Afghanistan) will require a direct airside transit visa if they are travelling to the UK to transit on to a third country.
2011 selena gomez dress up games.
manja
06-29 03:13 PM
Thanks. Hmm...I was not aware of this 30 days rule. I'll check with the insurance companies....otherwise I'm in trouble :)
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
more...
%2BMade%2Bby%2BZach.jpg "Selena Gomez no 1")
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
senthil1
09-19 06:45 PM
Yes any bill which has H1b increase will have slim chance of passing. Also whenever Cornyn introduces bill Durbin introduces his bill(SA2238)
and pro-mmigrants/Corporations will not accept Durbin bill so both will fail. This was a drama for some time in past. This may be another drama in this year. If it needs to be passed then both the bills need to be diluted to get support of some key neutral congressmen.
Before this discussion thread grows bigger and hopes get inflated, I thought I should quote logiclife's post on "Order to Lie on the Table", that was discussed sometime ago for a different amendment. Enjoy the logic and humor.
and pro-mmigrants/Corporations will not accept Durbin bill so both will fail. This was a drama for some time in past. This may be another drama in this year. If it needs to be passed then both the bills need to be diluted to get support of some key neutral congressmen.
Before this discussion thread grows bigger and hopes get inflated, I thought I should quote logiclife's post on "Order to Lie on the Table", that was discussed sometime ago for a different amendment. Enjoy the logic and humor.
more...
logiclife
03-28 03:39 PM
Yes Bheemi.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
2010 lt;lt; PREVIOUS | Selena Gomez in
xu1
08-08 09:49 PM
I am sorry to say , but I have not seen any results from IV as well , they seem to be in the same boat as us, wait , wait and wait more, things will take care of themselves over time, seems to be the strategy.
And I'm more sorry to say: you haven't helped a single bit in your wait, wait and wait and more..
IV is doing all it can to organize a grassroot effort. Yes, the CIR probably have failled but then an organization by its pure belief and dedication to its own cause has demonstrated that we can help shape the law in the democracy. And by the time I become a US citizen, the time I spent watching how IV grows will help me become an effective participant in the democratic world of free market and capitalism.
God helps those who help themselves. Yes, in the end you may as well get your GC just most others here do. Let me simply end my displeasure reading your negativity with a good will: i hope the DOL, USCIS and the bureaucracy will take care of your GC dream.
And I'm more sorry to say: you haven't helped a single bit in your wait, wait and wait and more..
IV is doing all it can to organize a grassroot effort. Yes, the CIR probably have failled but then an organization by its pure belief and dedication to its own cause has demonstrated that we can help shape the law in the democracy. And by the time I become a US citizen, the time I spent watching how IV grows will help me become an effective participant in the democratic world of free market and capitalism.
God helps those who help themselves. Yes, in the end you may as well get your GC just most others here do. Let me simply end my displeasure reading your negativity with a good will: i hope the DOL, USCIS and the bureaucracy will take care of your GC dream.
more...
tikka
05-31 04:58 PM
Now is the time to take action.
Thank you. If you could be so kind to keep encourgaing people to contribute and then post in the funding thread.
we need $ for lobbying.
Thank you
Thank you. If you could be so kind to keep encourgaing people to contribute and then post in the funding thread.
we need $ for lobbying.
Thank you
hair Selena Gomez Make Over2 Selena
pointlesswait
09-25 10:36 AM
can IV focus on this...instead of the recapture?
am just being practical.. we cant expect any meaningful immi reforms anytime soon..and with holidays approaching.. little hope for this year.. so anything that can bring abt temporary relief should be taken up!
excellent.. if this happens!!!!
am just being practical.. we cant expect any meaningful immi reforms anytime soon..and with holidays approaching.. little hope for this year.. so anything that can bring abt temporary relief should be taken up!
excellent.. if this happens!!!!
more...
desi3933
06-26 12:35 AM
Hi. I came from the Philippines and signed a contract for a 3-year obligation as a PT here in the US. My employer paid my recruiter (agency) fees to get me here. In the whole process, I did not shell out anything except for my airfare and other minor fees. However, my recruiter made this written contract saying that if I breach it, I have to pay all the expenses, as in literally all of it regardless of how long I already worked within the three-year period. I just feel that I am being held by my employer since I am planning to move to another company that would better give me the chance to have a green card to a place where I really like to live. Is it really legal that a recruiter make a copy of a contract/bond for the employer and the recruit to sign on it and for me to be responsible to pay all of the fees should I breach the contract? Is there any law/article that prohibits this practice?
I highly appreciate your warm assistance.
NaturopathicPT
Please consult an attorney that deals with Employment and Contract law in your employer's state. Some things are legally binding and other are not. It depends on your agreement terms.
__________________
Not a legal advice
I highly appreciate your warm assistance.
NaturopathicPT
Please consult an attorney that deals with Employment and Contract law in your employer's state. Some things are legally binding and other are not. It depends on your agreement terms.
__________________
Not a legal advice
hot Selena Gomez no 1
gc2
02-19 11:22 AM
you may find this helpful. it provides info on I-130 and I-485 and the documents you need to file. if he is clean (no criminal background, issues with legal status etc) then you should not have any problems. Good luck and congrats on your marriage.
more...
house Jonas brothers selena baby
ivar
03-12 11:36 PM
Received a mail for myself and my wife. welcome to USA. But no email from CRIS.
:):):):):):)
Congratulations. You deserved it after such a long wait. Enjoy your GC. :)
:):):):):):)
Congratulations. You deserved it after such a long wait. Enjoy your GC. :)
tattoo SELENA GOMEZ GAMES Try pe ad
sledge_hammer
03-07 10:40 PM
A little less than 70 days at TSC. Paper filing...
more...
pictures selena gomez games kissing.
NeedMiracles
06-03 10:10 AM
May be I am not understanding the question right...I think the question was - what are the STEM disciplines? I know the website lists a bunch of occupations that require one of the STEM degrees. So to look at what are the STEM degrees, I chose Browse By STEM Degree and in that Scroll menu are all the majors - starts with Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering....
dresses wallpaper selena gomez and
americandesi
08-11 03:44 PM
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to “Ability to pay” and “AC21”
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let’s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn’t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it’s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
more...
makeup hairstyles Selena Gomez Games
cris
08-30 09:28 AM
Immigration gurus, need your advice ASAP
my current H1B visa expires 03/07 . If I can fill for extension and while petion is pending with USCIS for processing can I travel outside USA ?
I asked lawyer to apply for extension first week of september . I have I140 approved and he will request 3 years increment .
my job requires traveling outside USA and I'm wonder if I can travel back and forth until petition is approved .
I know that after approval I need to get visa stamp .
Your quick inputs will be highly appreciated
thank you in advance
my current H1B visa expires 03/07 . If I can fill for extension and while petion is pending with USCIS for processing can I travel outside USA ?
I asked lawyer to apply for extension first week of september . I have I140 approved and he will request 3 years increment .
my job requires traveling outside USA and I'm wonder if I can travel back and forth until petition is approved .
I know that after approval I need to get visa stamp .
Your quick inputs will be highly appreciated
thank you in advance
girlfriend selena gomez games kissing
Mayday
04-05 11:00 AM
If I leave US now, will I be banned 3 years to enter, even though my H1-B and I-94 now have all valid dates?
I doubt they will find out your were out of status at border - as they must only check current I-94 and they have troubles finding all your I-94s or even any I-94s you have if you do not have them with you. So I am pretty sure they will only check the latest one you have in your hand (though I am not border patrol officer but I have gone through the procedure of looking-up my status at border control checkpoint inside USA).
But green card application process requires to look through all your history and this is when it will be brought up. You need a better attorney on this question then your current attorney is. I guess it would be a good idea to exclude this period somehow from green card application by applying later or a good lawyer might be able to appeal to some regulations that could resolve it as it was not entirely your fault, since I-94 does not have to match passport validity dates and so it was border patrol officer mistake at first.
I doubt they will find out your were out of status at border - as they must only check current I-94 and they have troubles finding all your I-94s or even any I-94s you have if you do not have them with you. So I am pretty sure they will only check the latest one you have in your hand (though I am not border patrol officer but I have gone through the procedure of looking-up my status at border control checkpoint inside USA).
But green card application process requires to look through all your history and this is when it will be brought up. You need a better attorney on this question then your current attorney is. I guess it would be a good idea to exclude this period somehow from green card application by applying later or a good lawyer might be able to appeal to some regulations that could resolve it as it was not entirely your fault, since I-94 does not have to match passport validity dates and so it was border patrol officer mistake at first.
hairstyles Selena Gomez tells Extra
Humhongekamyab
08-20 03:17 PM
I am glad they have started enforcing this. This will let them work on the cases rather than answer the calls.
malibuguy007
02-06 05:38 PM
I don't know where you are but as far as California is concerned, most non-compete clauses are not enforceable.
immigrationvoice1
03-20 12:26 PM
Thanks walking_dude in explaining it so well. So, there will be major changes other than the Prez elections this year and next. Lets remain hopeful...:)
There are 35 Senate seats up for election in November along with the post of President. That is 35% of 100 seat Senate. It will be a different Senate as Dems are projected to win many of these seats and Repubs are projected to lose them. As things stand, now GOP [Republicans] are strategizing how to prevent Democrats from getting filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Even if they (dems) don't get 60 seats [ lets say they are 2-3 seats short] they can easily provide incentives for 2-3 Republican Senators to cross-over and vote with them [ much easier than getting 9-10 like now!]. That way, it will be a different Senate.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senate_races.html
And the whole of House of Representatives [ which has 2 years term] is up for election too [ last election was in 2006]. It's true that all media attention is focussed on Presidential election. But there are also going to be major changes in the House as well as the Senate.
I agree with you on one point. Definitely Lobbying will be needed to be done after the elections. Its the only way to attach IVs provisions to some other bill and getting it passed. There's no other way to get them passed.
There are 35 Senate seats up for election in November along with the post of President. That is 35% of 100 seat Senate. It will be a different Senate as Dems are projected to win many of these seats and Repubs are projected to lose them. As things stand, now GOP [Republicans] are strategizing how to prevent Democrats from getting filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Even if they (dems) don't get 60 seats [ lets say they are 2-3 seats short] they can easily provide incentives for 2-3 Republican Senators to cross-over and vote with them [ much easier than getting 9-10 like now!]. That way, it will be a different Senate.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senate_races.html
And the whole of House of Representatives [ which has 2 years term] is up for election too [ last election was in 2006]. It's true that all media attention is focussed on Presidential election. But there are also going to be major changes in the House as well as the Senate.
I agree with you on one point. Definitely Lobbying will be needed to be done after the elections. Its the only way to attach IVs provisions to some other bill and getting it passed. There's no other way to get them passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment