buvane
09-10 03:04 PM
I also got the same answer saying my case is under Extended Review. I'm confused what do they review for 2 years? Any Clue??
What should I do now??
PD -May 7,2004
RD-July 2,2004
ND- Aug 28,2007
What should I do now??
PD -May 7,2004
RD-July 2,2004
ND- Aug 28,2007
wallpaper 7: Snooki punched again
smiledentist
10-25 11:39 PM
Any more advice,guys I am very tensed.Please help
Robert Kumar
01-03 08:51 AM
SEVIS applies to F, M and J nonimmigrant students irrespective of undergraduate or graduate studies. I don't think Robert Kumar should consider F1, because he already has AOS pending status and not considered a nonimmigrant student anymore. Its no different than a permanent resident applying for a F1 visa. BTW, I took more than 18 credits in year 2010 @ resident tuition rate with my I-485 receipt, and received federal student loan as an eligible non-citizen with my AP stamp on passport. From what I heard on this forum, some universities are reluctant in considering AOS for resident tuition rate, but one can get help from the justice department in such cases. Here in Arizona all state universities accept AOS as equivalent status of a permanent resident.
All,
Thank you.
So are you saying I can join school, not get paid by employer during full time study of MBA and still maintain status. And will not face any problem in my 485 approval.
And that I dont need to change to F1 status. I really dont need aid. I'm ok with paying my tuition, as long as my status is maintained.
My EB3 will take some more time.
All,
Thank you.
So are you saying I can join school, not get paid by employer during full time study of MBA and still maintain status. And will not face any problem in my 485 approval.
And that I dont need to change to F1 status. I really dont need aid. I'm ok with paying my tuition, as long as my status is maintained.
My EB3 will take some more time.
2011 Jersey Shore quot;Drunk Punch
grupak
03-14 04:41 PM
Infact I know one Texas member who has contributed a percentage of his tax return last year, and will be doing it again.
BTW.. please explain what is this $600 rebate? I already filed my taxes myself, and maybe I missed this.
Its part of Bush's stimulus package... I don't don't think anything is required on your part besides filing taxes. The rebates should be coming in around May according to NPR, if I am not mistaken. $600 per individual filing. In a joint filing $600 each for husband and wife, $300 for each kid (ceiling?)
BTW.. please explain what is this $600 rebate? I already filed my taxes myself, and maybe I missed this.
Its part of Bush's stimulus package... I don't don't think anything is required on your part besides filing taxes. The rebates should be coming in around May according to NPR, if I am not mistaken. $600 per individual filing. In a joint filing $600 each for husband and wife, $300 for each kid (ceiling?)
more...
glus
10-21 08:32 PM
All,
I submitted my first application on July 2nd. since I did not get receipt notice till Aug 16th so I filled the second (as back up) one on Aug 16th. Later I did get my receipt notices for July 2nd.
Though, I did put stop payment on the checks for the appliaction filled on Aug 16th but yesterday, I received their receipt notices.
Now, I have two A#s one for July 2nd applications and another one for Aug 16th appliaction.
I was planning to just sit on it and do not respond to finger printing notice or any communciation from USCIS for Aug 16th application and hence causing it to get rejected.
The reason I do not want to communicate with USCIS is that I don't want any confusion and hence anything happen to my July 2nd application.
Is it a right strategy? Please comment.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
I submitted my first application on July 2nd. since I did not get receipt notice till Aug 16th so I filled the second (as back up) one on Aug 16th. Later I did get my receipt notices for July 2nd.
Though, I did put stop payment on the checks for the appliaction filled on Aug 16th but yesterday, I received their receipt notices.
Now, I have two A#s one for July 2nd applications and another one for Aug 16th appliaction.
I was planning to just sit on it and do not respond to finger printing notice or any communciation from USCIS for Aug 16th application and hence causing it to get rejected.
The reason I do not want to communicate with USCIS is that I don't want any confusion and hence anything happen to my July 2nd application.
Is it a right strategy? Please comment.
OK, everyone knows that double I485 was not a good idea. However, many people had done it and I was one who was thinking of it, but did not do it. As per my attorney's advise, stopping a check issued to a governmental entity is not legal. On these grounds, I decided not to file 2nd time.
I guess the best way would be to withdraw the second petition. One can do that by writing a letter stating the reason for withdrawal and sending it to the appropriate service center (with tracking number.) Of course, the reason should be true, "Due to the July Visa Bulletin fiasco and indications that my first I485 could have been lost, I sent out a second application which is should not be considered anymore," or something like that. Withdrawal of the second I485 would, most likely, be the safest way to go about it.
Regards,
vidhyajagi
08-16 03:17 PM
You can still continue to work with current employer even you get another I-797 approved. But the Consulting company filed on behalf of you need to withdraw the petition. According to my knowledge the fee is non-refundable and attorney fees - (my attorney charge only after petition is approved)...So you have'nt paid attorney fees you can ask for discount.
Also the New approved petition will be valid only you join the consulting company and after you receive first month paycheck. So you are fine to continue with current employer. Once you filed for your AOS and get EAD you may switch to EAD anytime or after 2years once your current H1-B expires.
Also the New approved petition will be valid only you join the consulting company and after you receive first month paycheck. So you are fine to continue with current employer. Once you filed for your AOS and get EAD you may switch to EAD anytime or after 2years once your current H1-B expires.
more...
qasleuth
03-31 12:35 PM
If you do not want to wait for your employer to give you details about the report, you can order one for yourself using a service like Personal record search (includes criminal reports) from www.choicetrust.com.
If I were you, I would not wait around for details from the employer but spend the $25 and get all the info I can and dispute whatever is incorrect.
If I were you, I would not wait around for details from the employer but spend the $25 and get all the info I can and dispute whatever is incorrect.
2010 wallpaper Snooki Jersey Shore
pyrosleepy
11-09 10:12 AM
My 6 year on H1-B status had expired on Nov 8. I-129 for extension based on approved I-140 was filed and delivered to USCIS on Nov 1 as per Fedex. However, USCIS has not cashed my employers check or my money order for the H-4 extension. I called them and they don't have any information. They told me to wait for another week. I am very worried that what will happen if the Fedex package has somewhat got lost. What will happen to my and spouse's status and my 3 year extension. My own lawyer seems to be a little perplexed on this matter, not sure of himself.
Anyone, please give me some guidance on this.
Thanks very much in advance.
Anyone, please give me some guidance on this.
Thanks very much in advance.
more...
JunRN
12-21 11:19 AM
Posted by 3 hours ago
"Both kurup65 and rathna1 registered from the same IP address within 29 and both posted I-485 approvals with PD dates out of whack. Don't trust them. We'll delete these users in due time."
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/78889113/
They could be a couple (husband and wife) sharing same computer with same IP Address and with same PD (cross-chargeability).
We are in democratic country. Why not ask them first? Give them due process.
"Both kurup65 and rathna1 registered from the same IP address within 29 and both posted I-485 approvals with PD dates out of whack. Don't trust them. We'll delete these users in due time."
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/78889113/
They could be a couple (husband and wife) sharing same computer with same IP Address and with same PD (cross-chargeability).
We are in democratic country. Why not ask them first? Give them due process.
hair Snooki Of #39;Jersey Shore#39; Gets
pappu
02-24 11:54 AM
If we force people to fill profile, they start filling fake details.
How do we make people update their profiles with real details?
I think members can help in this task. Whenever you see a member with junk details, urge that person to update the profile to be taken seriously.
How do we make people update their profiles with real details?
I think members can help in this task. Whenever you see a member with junk details, urge that person to update the profile to be taken seriously.
more...
yjprakash
10-20 04:07 PM
I faxed expedite processing request on last Tuesday and sent email to Ombudsman.
there was soft LUD on same day (address change) on my 485 & EAD & AP. Today status changed to card ordered for production. what a relief!!!!!!!!!
but any thing can happen till it comes to my hand
Here is the fax number for NSC 4022196344
I have infopass appointment on 24th. Should I go or cancel that appointment now ???
there was soft LUD on same day (address change) on my 485 & EAD & AP. Today status changed to card ordered for production. what a relief!!!!!!!!!
but any thing can happen till it comes to my hand
Here is the fax number for NSC 4022196344
I have infopass appointment on 24th. Should I go or cancel that appointment now ???
hot watching MTV Jersey Shore,
jlander
January 7th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Don,
Thanks for the quick reply. Have you taken many 1:1 photos and how did they turn out?
Thanks for the quick reply. Have you taken many 1:1 photos and how did they turn out?
more...
house jersey shore snooki.
pappu
06-07 02:11 PM
Transaction ID: 7WK494028G568634H
Thank you
Thank you
tattoo jersey shore theme song haaah) lol i hope u guys like thee vid! xxo :)
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
pictures jersey shore snooki. bobzibub
nlssubbu
05-19 01:08 PM
In the similar boat.. I received sms/email on 13th that 485 has been approved but have not received any welcome/approval letter till date. I am on H1b. It has expired and I don't have Advance Parole also. I need to travel urgently in first week of June 2011. I was thinking of getting my H1b stamped during the trip, but since that's not possible what are my options???
I called my lawyers office but really didn't get any sound reply... seems like that lost interest once I told them I am not filing EAD/AP and GC is approved
Why don't you take an Info-Pass and check with an immigration officer? In case of GC approved but yet to be received at your end, there is a possibility that they can stamp your passport with temporary GC (I-551 i think) for urgent travel.
Try your luck!
Regards
I called my lawyers office but really didn't get any sound reply... seems like that lost interest once I told them I am not filing EAD/AP and GC is approved
Why don't you take an Info-Pass and check with an immigration officer? In case of GC approved but yet to be received at your end, there is a possibility that they can stamp your passport with temporary GC (I-551 i think) for urgent travel.
Try your luck!
Regards
dresses The pint-sized Jersey Shore
Ann Ruben
07-05 09:02 PM
It is certainly possible to continue the green card process in your situation. The key requirement is that once your PD becomes current you MUST have a full time permanent job offer in the US, which you intend to accept.
If you abandon your I-485 and pursue consular processing, that position MUST be in the same position and with the same employer that obtained your labor certification. AC-21 DOES NOT APPLY TO CONSULAR PROCESSING. If you maintain either your A/P validity or H-1 visa validity, as long as the position is in the "same or similar occupation", it can be with any US employer.
Keep in mind that even if your family ends up abandoning their I-485's, as long as you do not abandon your I-485 they will be able to "follow to join" you once your AOS is granted.
Also keep in mind the possibility of EB-1 eligibility if your position with the new company can be characterized as managerial or executive and you are able to secure a transfer back to the US in a managerial or executive position after working in India for at least one year.
I hope this information is helpful,
Ann
If you abandon your I-485 and pursue consular processing, that position MUST be in the same position and with the same employer that obtained your labor certification. AC-21 DOES NOT APPLY TO CONSULAR PROCESSING. If you maintain either your A/P validity or H-1 visa validity, as long as the position is in the "same or similar occupation", it can be with any US employer.
Keep in mind that even if your family ends up abandoning their I-485's, as long as you do not abandon your I-485 they will be able to "follow to join" you once your AOS is granted.
Also keep in mind the possibility of EB-1 eligibility if your position with the new company can be characterized as managerial or executive and you are able to secure a transfer back to the US in a managerial or executive position after working in India for at least one year.
I hope this information is helpful,
Ann
more...
makeup Polizzi on Jersey Shore
chanduv23
05-27 11:50 AM
I would like to share my I485 experience.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
Good thing. Please let me know if you are interested in helping IV in a new campaign addressing issues similar to this? Send me a private message with your contact info and I will contact you.
1.Brief History and Denial reason.
Did I485 interview at local office in Jan 2009.
Got Denial notice stating that I485 filed when dates are not current.
This is not true. Filed I 485 in 2007 July Fiasco.
Immigration office recived application in AUg 2007, well before deadline Aug 17'2007.
Got I485 receipt in October.
it was denied due to clear error.
2. Filed Service MTR with out filing Fee ( as this is service error)
Did not get any communication for 3 months.
In between took info pass couple of times and it did not help.
Wrote letter seeking help of senator explaining situation.
Immediately got reply that case was reopened and I797 Notice of action was mailed to me stating that case was reopend and finger prints expired.
Did finger printing in May.
Since dates are not current, I am not expecting any approval.
AT least I am happy that. case was reopened.
I heard that some 485 was denied ( 2007 July Fiasco) due to same error. I posted this experience as it would be helpfull for any other denials cases.
.
Good thing. Please let me know if you are interested in helping IV in a new campaign addressing issues similar to this? Send me a private message with your contact info and I will contact you.
girlfriend Photo: No matter what Snooki
nagrajram
12-17 11:23 AM
Now the biggest hurdle of Apr 30, 2001 is crossed. I am sure that not many people has filed between Sep 2001 and February 2002. Also if you look into PD for China and Phillipines, the dates moved very fast after June 2001. Lot of people applied in late 2002 and early 2003. My guess would be that it will take about 3 to 4 years to clear all the backlogs of 2003. For 2004 it may be over 5 years.
hairstyles Snooki+from+jersey+shore+
DirCls
07-15 08:05 AM
They are entitled fro thier opinior and so are we as immigrants.
We are doing a great job so far, but have to do better.
Long live IV Core and its members!
We are doing a great job so far, but have to do better.
Long live IV Core and its members!
indyanguy
01-16 11:12 AM
Thanks.
What is the difference between an affidavit and a letter? Affidavit is one that is not on a letter head and a letter is the one on a letter head or it depends on who is writing the letter?
Does 1 each serve the purpose?
With the initial packet, I had sent
1 letter from Company A (By the director on letterhead)
2 letters from Company B (1 from colleague on letterhead and 1 from HR on letterhead)
What is the difference between an affidavit and a letter? Affidavit is one that is not on a letter head and a letter is the one on a letter head or it depends on who is writing the letter?
Does 1 each serve the purpose?
With the initial packet, I had sent
1 letter from Company A (By the director on letterhead)
2 letters from Company B (1 from colleague on letterhead and 1 from HR on letterhead)
shantanup
05-28 01:12 PM
Go and talk to your local congressman about your situation. Ask him / her to do something to solve this problem. You have a genuine case. He / she has to respond.
