desijackass
11-12 04:38 PM
Also says no change expected in the coming months.
See bottom of the bulletin.
:(
:mad:
F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
Employment-based: At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preference during the coming months. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates continue to apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand.
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: none to two weeks
India: no movement
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two week
See bottom of the bulletin.
:(
:mad:
F. VISA AVAILABILITY IN THE COMING MONTHS
Employment-based: At this time it is unlikely that there will be any cut-off dates in the Employment First preference during the coming months. It also appears unlikely that it will be necessary to establish a cut-off date other than those already in effect for the Second preference category. Cut-off dates continue to apply to the China and India Second preference categories due to heavy demand.
Based on current indications of demand, the best case scenarios for cut-off date movement each month during the coming months are as follows:
Employment Second:
China: none to two weeks
India: no movement
Employment Third:
Worldwide: three to six weeks
China: one to three weeks
India: none to two week
iman.karta
04-23 11:32 AM
Quick question you said they asked you to submit your legal status papers since 1999 which was when you went out of country? I have 2 questions
1) Since when have you been in US, rather first time when did you come to US
2) Did you never leave US after 1999. This is because the status really matters only since your last arrival on visa. Earlier records do not matter as per 245(k) memo. This question will help other forum members who have some kind of status violation
your responses will be appreciated.
Rockstart,
I apologize for the tardy response.
I first entered the US in 1997 using F-1 visa. I traveled back to Indonesia (my home country) 1999 for the holiday. After that, I never travelled out of the US. Since then, I have worked and obtained H1-B and am in the last stage of I-485. PD is ROW (of course) and biometrics code 3 was done a while ago. Hence, I believe USCIS requested RFE since 1999; the last time I travelled out of the country.
I always maintain a legal status.
I hope this helps. If you have rather a more personal msg, please feel free to email me. I am more than glad to give you more info and help you.
1) Since when have you been in US, rather first time when did you come to US
2) Did you never leave US after 1999. This is because the status really matters only since your last arrival on visa. Earlier records do not matter as per 245(k) memo. This question will help other forum members who have some kind of status violation
your responses will be appreciated.
Rockstart,
I apologize for the tardy response.
I first entered the US in 1997 using F-1 visa. I traveled back to Indonesia (my home country) 1999 for the holiday. After that, I never travelled out of the US. Since then, I have worked and obtained H1-B and am in the last stage of I-485. PD is ROW (of course) and biometrics code 3 was done a while ago. Hence, I believe USCIS requested RFE since 1999; the last time I travelled out of the country.
I always maintain a legal status.
I hope this helps. If you have rather a more personal msg, please feel free to email me. I am more than glad to give you more info and help you.
GCBoy786
09-11 04:58 PM
Just heard this from my friend. His case is exactly the same (I140-NSC approved, July 2nd 9:01 R.Mickels filer). His got transferred to Texas and got receipts last week. No EAD's yet. Got receipt for FP date today.
Guys, Please update if you hear more of similar cases.
Guys, Please update if you hear more of similar cases.
ghost
09-21 12:04 PM
i kept telling you guys since last week
send faxes to congress /house...it is in the house where bills get structured.
make sure u add only the SKIL bill...just remove cap for ppl with advanced us degrees...that was the only thing the house had agreed to consider
but everyone on this forum ignored me
no it might be too little too late
i am not saying all i slost...atleast we got some action going amongst the members of this site
it aint rocket science guys....think about it from the lawmakers point of view....would they allow for more immigration frindly reforms now....no way...so be ready to compromise and suggest the ones which are truly benefecial to the US economy....
the bottom line was always...borders secure first..then talk about immigration reforms....
for the coming seasons....we have to push for nothing but the SKIL bill
that is the only bill that has hope
the other glimmer of hope in all this is the house has inadverently left out the fact on how they are going to fund the building of the wall
it is here that we step in...
fees for filing I485 for people under SKIL
fees for being able to file 485 before visa numbers
etc etc etc
we have to take advantage of this opportunity
in the mean while....SEND FAXES ABOUT SKIL BILL
You remind me of Katrina fiasco....Red Cross was asking for money and you are bent on sending food and clothes. Let the people in close proximity of washington decide what we need to do at this moment.
send faxes to congress /house...it is in the house where bills get structured.
make sure u add only the SKIL bill...just remove cap for ppl with advanced us degrees...that was the only thing the house had agreed to consider
but everyone on this forum ignored me
no it might be too little too late
i am not saying all i slost...atleast we got some action going amongst the members of this site
it aint rocket science guys....think about it from the lawmakers point of view....would they allow for more immigration frindly reforms now....no way...so be ready to compromise and suggest the ones which are truly benefecial to the US economy....
the bottom line was always...borders secure first..then talk about immigration reforms....
for the coming seasons....we have to push for nothing but the SKIL bill
that is the only bill that has hope
the other glimmer of hope in all this is the house has inadverently left out the fact on how they are going to fund the building of the wall
it is here that we step in...
fees for filing I485 for people under SKIL
fees for being able to file 485 before visa numbers
etc etc etc
we have to take advantage of this opportunity
in the mean while....SEND FAXES ABOUT SKIL BILL
You remind me of Katrina fiasco....Red Cross was asking for money and you are bent on sending food and clothes. Let the people in close proximity of washington decide what we need to do at this moment.
more...
realist
01-27 09:33 AM
Employment Second Preference - Immigration Wiki (http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Employment_Second_Preference) The Job also need to require an eb2 qualifications.
It is best to be cautious when applying first, rather than take a chance with eb2 and worry later.
It is best to be cautious when applying first, rather than take a chance with eb2 and worry later.
mbartosik
04-10 09:32 PM
I posted a few days ago here
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=544
For those people on 1 year extensions (or near end of 6 years) they cannot refile without perfect timing because otherwise the labor would be cancelled when filing, and thus PERM would not be outstanding for greater than 12 months.
Also if your job has been in DoL and BEC for 4 years and is in the technoology business then it is likely that the description has changed enough to make an identical filing untrue, just because technology changes and thus skills requirements do, and thus PD is not kept because the job is not identical. Also DoL has not defined "how equal" the application must be to qualify to keep the PD.
Thus we need a law to allow keeping the PD even if the job description has changed.
Also it would be good to allow people to file PERM without withdrawing their Labor app. However, this might flood PERM, because too many people might do that.
My current estimate is that BEC will process my application within about 12 months, if their 18 month estimate is right. But it would take 6 months of recruitment effort plus overhead to do PERM -- maybe or 9 months total, and then two months waiting for PERM -- total 11 months. Saving 1 month. But the PERM queue could grow too.
If I trust BECs on their estimate it is not worth the hassel of PERM, but should I trust someone who's estimates have been wrong two or three times before?
What is also needed is an "insurance policy" if BECs do not deliver on their promise of only 18 more months, but it would be hard to get law made on this. For example, after 18 month deadline, the assumption could be that all remaining applications are valid and allowed to proceed UNLESS BEC later demonstrates a fraudulant application. Otherwise people are always in the situation of DoL saying "just another X months". This would also allow BECs after 18 months to change mode into just looking for fraud which should be easier to do than qualifying the case.
There is also an issue of employers not wanting to file PERM, because they know that they have an endentured / captive employee and the BECs are doing their dirty work. So it is important to break this chain.
So in summary law changes:
1) Allow PD to be kept even if employer withdrawns labor, changes description, or refiles with PERM. After some date any labor application unprocessed by BEC would give the immigrant a guarenteed priority date.
2) Consider allowing concurrent PERM filing.
3) If DoL does not meet its own target (which is well behind congress's target), then all outstanding applications are assumed valid and allowed to proceed as if certified, unless the application is later shown to be frivolent or clearly fraudulant. Leaving BECs to just "skim check" for fraud and stupid applications after 18 months.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=544
For those people on 1 year extensions (or near end of 6 years) they cannot refile without perfect timing because otherwise the labor would be cancelled when filing, and thus PERM would not be outstanding for greater than 12 months.
Also if your job has been in DoL and BEC for 4 years and is in the technoology business then it is likely that the description has changed enough to make an identical filing untrue, just because technology changes and thus skills requirements do, and thus PD is not kept because the job is not identical. Also DoL has not defined "how equal" the application must be to qualify to keep the PD.
Thus we need a law to allow keeping the PD even if the job description has changed.
Also it would be good to allow people to file PERM without withdrawing their Labor app. However, this might flood PERM, because too many people might do that.
My current estimate is that BEC will process my application within about 12 months, if their 18 month estimate is right. But it would take 6 months of recruitment effort plus overhead to do PERM -- maybe or 9 months total, and then two months waiting for PERM -- total 11 months. Saving 1 month. But the PERM queue could grow too.
If I trust BECs on their estimate it is not worth the hassel of PERM, but should I trust someone who's estimates have been wrong two or three times before?
What is also needed is an "insurance policy" if BECs do not deliver on their promise of only 18 more months, but it would be hard to get law made on this. For example, after 18 month deadline, the assumption could be that all remaining applications are valid and allowed to proceed UNLESS BEC later demonstrates a fraudulant application. Otherwise people are always in the situation of DoL saying "just another X months". This would also allow BECs after 18 months to change mode into just looking for fraud which should be easier to do than qualifying the case.
There is also an issue of employers not wanting to file PERM, because they know that they have an endentured / captive employee and the BECs are doing their dirty work. So it is important to break this chain.
So in summary law changes:
1) Allow PD to be kept even if employer withdrawns labor, changes description, or refiles with PERM. After some date any labor application unprocessed by BEC would give the immigrant a guarenteed priority date.
2) Consider allowing concurrent PERM filing.
3) If DoL does not meet its own target (which is well behind congress's target), then all outstanding applications are assumed valid and allowed to proceed as if certified, unless the application is later shown to be frivolent or clearly fraudulant. Leaving BECs to just "skim check" for fraud and stupid applications after 18 months.
more...
Hello_Hello
01-03 11:05 PM
It's all gas gas gas... Manmohan Singh is heading one of the most corrupt & messy govt. in the history of India. All the ministers are busy looting the country and would like to make most in the remaining 3 years of their terms. Forget they will do anything that would benefit anybody else but themselves..it's only that overexcited journos ask the ministers what they will do and without even thinking they vomit nonsenses. Think logically how this can be a WTO issue, it is completely in their jurisdiction whatever fees they may want to charge, take it or move on...nobody is forcing them to use the expensive Visas ?
billbuff123
10-24 03:46 PM
Can you please suggest any good lawer for this. I talked to my lawer but he said I have to wait for the dates to be current
Thanks,
Thanks,
more...
bigboy007
11-05 10:50 PM
OK i e-filed and it showed Nebraska address generating LIN no's instead of MSC etc , it prompted me where my 485 is and i think since it is at NSC it routed automatically to NSC
gcformeornot
10-16 07:07 AM
was some issues with employer like A2P or something....
more...
senthil1
09-12 11:29 AM
There is no doubt Obama admin is trying selective protectionist measures not only in immigration but also in trade.
The Rubber Meets The Road - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/12/china-imports-tires-business-washington-tariff.html)
Will it good for world? No. Will it good for America? Yes for short term. But long term it is bad for USA according to economists. But generally USA reverses the protectionist measures when economy rebounds and there is huge demand for US labor. So USA is not losing that much. Is it a fair or correct? If you compare with other countries may be it is correct. China is manipulating its currency for their convenience. That is a huge protectionist measure. When it comes to welfare of the country every country does unfair things. USA is not exception but still much better than most countries in the world.
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Today's guest blogger is William Stock (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3), member of AILA's Board of Governors and partner in the law firm Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer
Employers who rely on foreign nationals to provide needed expertise in their workforce - from technical programmers to biochemists to wind turbine engineers - should take notice of three troubling trends which are becoming clearer as the discussion about employment-based immigration reform gets drowned out by the ongoing debate about comprehensive immigration reform.
The first trend is captured in this blog post (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3) by Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at Duke University who has studied high-tech entrepreneurship extensively. Current backlogs in the employment-based immigration categories trap foreign workers in the original job for which they were sponsored, meaning their companies cannot promote them to positions where their experience and skills can best be used. Nor can the workers take the initiative to start their own companies - while a small company may be able to sponsor one of its owners as an H-1B, a green card is much less likely in that situation. Wadhwa points out that eliminating the green card backlog (a major part of which consists of cases trapped by bureaucratic delays that should have been approved in past years� quotas, which do not carry over from year to year) would free an enormous amount of human capital to innovate and create the next generation of companies that will drive economic growth in the US.
More troubling, a combination of the green card quotas (which tie foreign nationals to one specific job) and rules for terminated H-1B workers (described in detail here (http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8)) are driving away the most talented foreign graduates of our universities. Recent surveys and profiles of foreign nationals in the US - particularly Indian engineers in Silicon Valley (http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/home-where-brain) - have highlighted an increase in the number of H-1B who are opting to return home, either from necessity or because the Indian economy now offers them opportunities to start or manage companies that the U.S. can�t match because of their visa situation. While opponents of high-tech immigration love to argue that H-1B visas allow tech workers to come to the US and learn skills that they can use back home, the fact is that most tech workers would prefer to use those skills in the US - and that immigrants are a key part of the Silicon Valley start-up community (given how many start-ups have at least one immigrant founder).
The most troubling trend, however, will not be immediate in its impact. For the first time in five years, US graduate programs reported a drop (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2009/bs20090820_960342.htm) in the number of international applications to their programs and the number of accepted applicants who chose to come to their programs. These students are the best and brightest from their countries, and when they choose to go to other countries rather than the US, we lose out not only on the tuition dollars they would have spent (at rates higher than out-of-state students pay), but also on their talents for companies in the US.
While these trends are troubling, they are not irreversible. What it will take, however, is a rational reform of our employment-based immigration system to recognize the contributions these immigrants make, and the national interest in providing a welcome mat to them.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8233644330835442863?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/americas-shrinking-immigration.html)
The Rubber Meets The Road - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/12/china-imports-tires-business-washington-tariff.html)
Will it good for world? No. Will it good for America? Yes for short term. But long term it is bad for USA according to economists. But generally USA reverses the protectionist measures when economy rebounds and there is huge demand for US labor. So USA is not losing that much. Is it a fair or correct? If you compare with other countries may be it is correct. China is manipulating its currency for their convenience. That is a huge protectionist measure. When it comes to welfare of the country every country does unfair things. USA is not exception but still much better than most countries in the world.
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
Today's guest blogger is William Stock (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3), member of AILA's Board of Governors and partner in the law firm Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer
Employers who rely on foreign nationals to provide needed expertise in their workforce - from technical programmers to biochemists to wind turbine engineers - should take notice of three troubling trends which are becoming clearer as the discussion about employment-based immigration reform gets drowned out by the ongoing debate about comprehensive immigration reform.
The first trend is captured in this blog post (http://www.klaskolaw.com/our-team.php?action=view&id=3) by Vivek Wadhwa, a professor at Duke University who has studied high-tech entrepreneurship extensively. Current backlogs in the employment-based immigration categories trap foreign workers in the original job for which they were sponsored, meaning their companies cannot promote them to positions where their experience and skills can best be used. Nor can the workers take the initiative to start their own companies - while a small company may be able to sponsor one of its owners as an H-1B, a green card is much less likely in that situation. Wadhwa points out that eliminating the green card backlog (a major part of which consists of cases trapped by bureaucratic delays that should have been approved in past years� quotas, which do not carry over from year to year) would free an enormous amount of human capital to innovate and create the next generation of companies that will drive economic growth in the US.
More troubling, a combination of the green card quotas (which tie foreign nationals to one specific job) and rules for terminated H-1B workers (described in detail here (http://www.klaskolaw.com/articles.php?action=view&id=8)) are driving away the most talented foreign graduates of our universities. Recent surveys and profiles of foreign nationals in the US - particularly Indian engineers in Silicon Valley (http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/home-where-brain) - have highlighted an increase in the number of H-1B who are opting to return home, either from necessity or because the Indian economy now offers them opportunities to start or manage companies that the U.S. can�t match because of their visa situation. While opponents of high-tech immigration love to argue that H-1B visas allow tech workers to come to the US and learn skills that they can use back home, the fact is that most tech workers would prefer to use those skills in the US - and that immigrants are a key part of the Silicon Valley start-up community (given how many start-ups have at least one immigrant founder).
The most troubling trend, however, will not be immediate in its impact. For the first time in five years, US graduate programs reported a drop (http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/aug2009/bs20090820_960342.htm) in the number of international applications to their programs and the number of accepted applicants who chose to come to their programs. These students are the best and brightest from their countries, and when they choose to go to other countries rather than the US, we lose out not only on the tuition dollars they would have spent (at rates higher than out-of-state students pay), but also on their talents for companies in the US.
While these trends are troubling, they are not irreversible. What it will take, however, is a rational reform of our employment-based immigration system to recognize the contributions these immigrants make, and the national interest in providing a welcome mat to them.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-8233644330835442863?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/americas-shrinking-immigration.html)
Munna Bhai
01-18 01:08 PM
and trust me they will find one....
BTW - Canadian Dollar is doing better that USD...!!!!
If they can find some reason to deny that's fine.In that case they will find another reason to deny "GC approved" cases too!! Let's not be so negative about everything.
BTW - Canadian Dollar is doing better that USD...!!!!
If they can find some reason to deny that's fine.In that case they will find another reason to deny "GC approved" cases too!! Let's not be so negative about everything.
more...
kum31
10-01 09:53 PM
hi ,
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
Here is my situation.
(employer) -> (middle vendor ) -> prime vendor -> (End client ).
I am working to a client in california in the above mentioned order. After 1 year we got rid of middle vendor and prime vendor is working with my employer directly . Now middle vendor is threatning me that he can sue me for breaking the line of contract .
i dont understand ho can even its possible as i never signed any document with middle vendor and he is not even my employer . He is just acting as middle layer by showing prime vendor that i am his employee which is wrong. now we removed him from line of contract and he is saying that he will sue all of us for doing this.
is there any way that he can even do this ?
- Thanks in advance.
setpit_gc
08-13 03:39 PM
485 (EB3) was filed in July 2007 and still working for that company.
more...
chanduv23
08-05 11:13 PM
PA members most welcome to merge with Tri State members on the rally effort. We have a lunch meeting in NYC on Saturday and you are all most welcome to join us.
Please join us for a tri state lunch meet. We would like to start working on volunteers/ mobilizing members for the DC rally. Even if you cannot take the day off and come to DC please come by for the lunch. We could really use help with banners/posters/ and ideas to make this a success.
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
TIME: 1:30 pm
ALSO- PLEASE DO UPDATE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
Thank you!
Please join us for a tri state lunch meet. We would like to start working on volunteers/ mobilizing members for the DC rally. Even if you cannot take the day off and come to DC please come by for the lunch. We could really use help with banners/posters/ and ideas to make this a success.
WHEN: Saturday AUGUST 11th
LOCATION- 148 E 48TH St, New York, NY 10017 (between Lexington and Third Avenues.)
TIME: 1:30 pm
ALSO- PLEASE DO UPDATE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION
Thank you!
Jaime
09-15 06:26 PM
People need to understand that there are some legislators who might want to push legislation favorable to us. They can only do it if they can convince other legislators who are on the fence that:
1) A lot of good people are affected by this. (legal,peaceful,high skilled etc) The crowd there(YOU) on Tuesday will speak to this.
2) They mean business, if we do not act they might leave and we need to act NOW to keep them here.(if many thousands of them can come from all parts of the country, they must be serious)
3) These guys have the support of their employers.(they got/took/were allowed time off from work)
Now in these points, can you see how a friendly lawmaker can use a big successful march to convince his colleagues? This will be like a massive tonic to all the lobbying IV has been doing behind the scenes.
Last year when hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants took to the streets did you see the impact on legislators? One big difference here is we are legal. That will leave a more powerful impact if it is big.
This is a small price to pay, and it will help you tremendously to speed up the green card process. Lets show solidarity. Every one of us who goes to this will feel proud of the change we manage to bring. If this makes the national media in a big way, I am virtually certain we will get a favorable resolution to our issues. A lot of forces are with us here. Just look at the 13 governor signed letter. Just look at how hard the big high tech. companies are pushing this.
Well said!!!! An image is worth a thousand words! We ca write all we can and complain on here, but an image of thousands of peaceful protestors will stic in people's and legislator's minds, who will then be moved to action! THAT'S WHY WE NEED EVERYONE IN DC!!!!
1) A lot of good people are affected by this. (legal,peaceful,high skilled etc) The crowd there(YOU) on Tuesday will speak to this.
2) They mean business, if we do not act they might leave and we need to act NOW to keep them here.(if many thousands of them can come from all parts of the country, they must be serious)
3) These guys have the support of their employers.(they got/took/were allowed time off from work)
Now in these points, can you see how a friendly lawmaker can use a big successful march to convince his colleagues? This will be like a massive tonic to all the lobbying IV has been doing behind the scenes.
Last year when hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants took to the streets did you see the impact on legislators? One big difference here is we are legal. That will leave a more powerful impact if it is big.
This is a small price to pay, and it will help you tremendously to speed up the green card process. Lets show solidarity. Every one of us who goes to this will feel proud of the change we manage to bring. If this makes the national media in a big way, I am virtually certain we will get a favorable resolution to our issues. A lot of forces are with us here. Just look at the 13 governor signed letter. Just look at how hard the big high tech. companies are pushing this.
Well said!!!! An image is worth a thousand words! We ca write all we can and complain on here, but an image of thousands of peaceful protestors will stic in people's and legislator's minds, who will then be moved to action! THAT'S WHY WE NEED EVERYONE IN DC!!!!
more...
singhsa3
02-28 02:59 PM
Obviously, you don't know how the system work, well , Welcome to dealing with USCIS!
If I have never received a FP Notice from USCIS and then, they deny my EAD renewal because of this, that will be total absurd. I don't think any good immigration attorneys will let this go.
If I have never received a FP Notice from USCIS and then, they deny my EAD renewal because of this, that will be total absurd. I don't think any good immigration attorneys will let this go.
ultimo
09-05 10:01 AM
i 485 u will get it soon
Indiaxyz
03-26 11:22 AM
Hi, I want to go from h1 to h4 to h1 all within 1 year, plus I have a US Master's degree . Please let me know if this is possible without falling under the H1B cap.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
kevinkris
07-10 05:33 PM
Hi,
My friend has this scenario and want expert advise from IV members.
- On L1 for 3 1/2 years and H1 for 2 years 3 months. About to complete 6
years in 3 months.
- Filed Labor (approved. PD Aug 2004 EB3), I140 (applied in May 2007) and
I485 (July fiasco)
- I140 still pending
Question:
1. Does L1 period is counted for H1 extention?
2. Can he do H1 transfer using AC21 without I140 approval?
As 6 years are going to be expired?
3. What if the old employer revokes his I140 now? His GC process is invalid?
4. If we leave about GC, Can he do H1 transfer atleast?
Thanks for your valuable suggestions.
My friend has this scenario and want expert advise from IV members.
- On L1 for 3 1/2 years and H1 for 2 years 3 months. About to complete 6
years in 3 months.
- Filed Labor (approved. PD Aug 2004 EB3), I140 (applied in May 2007) and
I485 (July fiasco)
- I140 still pending
Question:
1. Does L1 period is counted for H1 extention?
2. Can he do H1 transfer using AC21 without I140 approval?
As 6 years are going to be expired?
3. What if the old employer revokes his I140 now? His GC process is invalid?
4. If we leave about GC, Can he do H1 transfer atleast?
Thanks for your valuable suggestions.
yagw
07-27 02:58 PM
By law, you need to notify change of address within 10 days of your move.
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice.
Just a suggestion, if you don't want to update your case status now (aka "rock the boat"), then you can commute/telecommute from old address till sept 1.
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice.
Just a suggestion, if you don't want to update your case status now (aka "rock the boat"), then you can commute/telecommute from old address till sept 1.
DISCLAIMER: I am not an Attorney and this is not a legal advice
No comments:
Post a Comment