InTheMoment
07-28 01:43 PM
Yes but don't forget all those BEC folks from EB2 PD Jan 03 (and earlier) to Apr 04 who applied in this June and some in July !! These people are going to create the next demand.
wallpaper selena gomez fashion and style
anil_gc
11-30 12:27 PM
Since your PD is in 2006, It may be a mistake.
This month I have seen many applicatiions with PD - EB2-India Jan-2003 to Jan 2004 are approved.
If you see many other updates like "Card production ordered" "Welcome NEW permanent residents" in the coming days then it may be a real approval
This month I have seen many applicatiions with PD - EB2-India Jan-2003 to Jan 2004 are approved.
If you see many other updates like "Card production ordered" "Welcome NEW permanent residents" in the coming days then it may be a real approval
willIWill
07-15 03:44 PM
Hi Friends,
I received an RFE last week. There were 3 points in the RFE.
The first point in the RFE says,
Submit a current and properly completed form G-325A biographic information sheet for yourself. Please Note: Answer all questions in the form 325a. If any information has changed such as your employer or marital status you must submit the required supporting evidence as indicated in the instructions for Form I-485.
Second Point and Third point are respectively
Proof of continuous employment and maintaining status since Oct 1st 2007 to till date. ( Interestingly my I-485 notice date was in the month of October 07)
Employment verification letter stating the offer still stands as per EB visa petition.
A quick brief abt my case: I'm a July 07 filer. I was single when I filed my I-485. My I-140 was approved in the beginning of 2008. I'm with the same company. I got married last year end, my wife is here with me on H4.
My question is concerning the first point.
Does the marriage certificate and my wife's H4 Visa sufficient enough to provide proof of marital status change as per I-485. In this case, Do I need to include affidavit of support etc. for my spouse now? Also do I need to provide birth certificate of my spouse?
Has any of you who were single when filing I-485 received a similar RFE ? How did you respond to the same?
Appreciate your suggestions
Thanks in advance.
I received an RFE last week. There were 3 points in the RFE.
The first point in the RFE says,
Submit a current and properly completed form G-325A biographic information sheet for yourself. Please Note: Answer all questions in the form 325a. If any information has changed such as your employer or marital status you must submit the required supporting evidence as indicated in the instructions for Form I-485.
Second Point and Third point are respectively
Proof of continuous employment and maintaining status since Oct 1st 2007 to till date. ( Interestingly my I-485 notice date was in the month of October 07)
Employment verification letter stating the offer still stands as per EB visa petition.
A quick brief abt my case: I'm a July 07 filer. I was single when I filed my I-485. My I-140 was approved in the beginning of 2008. I'm with the same company. I got married last year end, my wife is here with me on H4.
My question is concerning the first point.
Does the marriage certificate and my wife's H4 Visa sufficient enough to provide proof of marital status change as per I-485. In this case, Do I need to include affidavit of support etc. for my spouse now? Also do I need to provide birth certificate of my spouse?
Has any of you who were single when filing I-485 received a similar RFE ? How did you respond to the same?
Appreciate your suggestions
Thanks in advance.
2011 selena gomez fashion style.
tikka
08-06 09:48 AM
...bump...
I will be there..
I will be there..
more...
tikka
08-07 10:24 AM
Could not attend the coffee appt. Hopefully will be able to attend the lunch.
you can make it..
you can make it..
das0
06-16 09:50 PM
InTheMoment,
Thanks for your thoughts.
H1B is dual status.
Currently my wife is on H4 but will be on H1B status on Oct 1 2007. Her H1b and H4 status is just non-immigrant status while her I-485 (though me) is pending.
Question is:
If EAD is used for 1 month only (Sept, 07) , will that make her H1B null and void?
I thought EAD (though I-485) and H1b are independent ?
Pls advise
Thanks for your thoughts.
H1B is dual status.
Currently my wife is on H4 but will be on H1B status on Oct 1 2007. Her H1b and H4 status is just non-immigrant status while her I-485 (though me) is pending.
Question is:
If EAD is used for 1 month only (Sept, 07) , will that make her H1B null and void?
I thought EAD (though I-485) and H1b are independent ?
Pls advise
more...
nonimmi
06-20 01:44 PM
If the visa is already expired, you better wait to get the travel documents (AP) so you don't need to go for stamping.
If you use AP to go and return without stamping new H1, can you continue working with H1 or you've to use EAD? And if you use EAD, can you be with current employer?? This is confusing!! :confused:
If you use AP to go and return without stamping new H1, can you continue working with H1 or you've to use EAD? And if you use EAD, can you be with current employer?? This is confusing!! :confused:
2010 Selena Gomez:Well Demi#39;s
rockstart
01-08 12:27 PM
this may help also :-
Alternate Document (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/alternate_document.htm)
Birth Affidavit (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/birth_affidavit.htm)
Birth Certificate (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/birth_cert.htm)
Birth Certificates Green Card Permanent Residency (http://www.usabal.com/permres/AOS/birth_cert_info.html)
Thanks patiently_waiting, These are really good links. I have posted these links to IV Wiki as well for future reference. Please add information to Wiki as it can be really useful to folks who are need this info. When you get an RFE you do not have luxory of time and all this info in one place really helps. Thanks once again
Alternate Document (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/alternate_document.htm)
Birth Affidavit (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/birth_affidavit.htm)
Birth Certificate (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/birth_cert.htm)
Birth Certificates Green Card Permanent Residency (http://www.usabal.com/permres/AOS/birth_cert_info.html)
Thanks patiently_waiting, These are really good links. I have posted these links to IV Wiki as well for future reference. Please add information to Wiki as it can be really useful to folks who are need this info. When you get an RFE you do not have luxory of time and all this info in one place really helps. Thanks once again
more...
smisachu
10-04 10:33 PM
Good info. Thanks.
hair Selena Gomez Turns Clothing
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
msyedy
02-12 01:57 PM
People,
Yes I am guilty. I am one of those Lazy fence sitters caught in reto that peruses this forum on a daily basis looking for for some glimmer of hope.
Silently i cross my fingers and hope that IV will get something done for us but guilty of doing nothing to help. Sound familiar?
Let me start by saying that i became a member and watched this forum for over 6 months and did nothing to contribute (whether financially or physically). I'm lazy and theres nothing i can do about it - thats my personality. We all have busy lives and we all have personal agendas and unless we are affected by something directly, we choose the path of least resistance.
something changed for me last month. I dont know what it was, since it was nothing physical, personal, familial or anything tangible. I was reading the IV website posts "as normal" and while i read all the posts on funding drives, increasing members, those brillant NJ chapter folks etc I was ashamed at how little i was doing towards a cause that had a direct impact on my life and how a small group of people could be so passsionate about the same interest. I was also surprised at the number of mainly Indian professionals in the US who were caught in this mess but at the difficulty that IV was having getting people to get off their a** and do something.
COME ON PEOPLE - even if we are lazy, self centered, and busy lets at least show that the Indian "minority" in the US is at least a UNITED and PROUD lot. We cant let IV down for a few dollars. "Izzat ki Sawal Hai"
Well, i thought about it, and thought some more..... and decided i was still as lazy as i was before even after my ephiphany, but i could definitely manage a few clicks with my mouse. So i decided, If can't do anything physical (like pass flyers, meet in DC to help Core, start some fangled chapter locally, or harass my local congresman) then at least i could pass on some financial contribution so that somebody could do it for me!
So this is what i did
a) - setup a $20 recurring contribution (Yes its $20 - I'm cheap and so are a lot of you - but $20 is better than nothing - its less than a dinner at a restaurant).
b) forwarded the website info to a few of my collegues at work and told them what i did.
I have not made any earth shattering differences by my actions, but at least im doing SOMETHING. This, coming from one of the laziest members definitely should mean something to all of you.
If you cant contribute your time, at least send some money so someone else can do it for you! Also please stop harrassing IV on where the funds are going - its $20 per month for Christ's sake, not your family inheritance. Let's try and make a difference one way or another. Our national pride is at stake here.
Hari
(IZZAT KI SAWAL) ... It is IZZAT KA SAWAL.
I am lazy and may be more lazy then anyone. Good to hear from a new enthusiastic person.
Your enthu will go away soon.
Yes I am guilty. I am one of those Lazy fence sitters caught in reto that peruses this forum on a daily basis looking for for some glimmer of hope.
Silently i cross my fingers and hope that IV will get something done for us but guilty of doing nothing to help. Sound familiar?
Let me start by saying that i became a member and watched this forum for over 6 months and did nothing to contribute (whether financially or physically). I'm lazy and theres nothing i can do about it - thats my personality. We all have busy lives and we all have personal agendas and unless we are affected by something directly, we choose the path of least resistance.
something changed for me last month. I dont know what it was, since it was nothing physical, personal, familial or anything tangible. I was reading the IV website posts "as normal" and while i read all the posts on funding drives, increasing members, those brillant NJ chapter folks etc I was ashamed at how little i was doing towards a cause that had a direct impact on my life and how a small group of people could be so passsionate about the same interest. I was also surprised at the number of mainly Indian professionals in the US who were caught in this mess but at the difficulty that IV was having getting people to get off their a** and do something.
COME ON PEOPLE - even if we are lazy, self centered, and busy lets at least show that the Indian "minority" in the US is at least a UNITED and PROUD lot. We cant let IV down for a few dollars. "Izzat ki Sawal Hai"
Well, i thought about it, and thought some more..... and decided i was still as lazy as i was before even after my ephiphany, but i could definitely manage a few clicks with my mouse. So i decided, If can't do anything physical (like pass flyers, meet in DC to help Core, start some fangled chapter locally, or harass my local congresman) then at least i could pass on some financial contribution so that somebody could do it for me!
So this is what i did
a) - setup a $20 recurring contribution (Yes its $20 - I'm cheap and so are a lot of you - but $20 is better than nothing - its less than a dinner at a restaurant).
b) forwarded the website info to a few of my collegues at work and told them what i did.
I have not made any earth shattering differences by my actions, but at least im doing SOMETHING. This, coming from one of the laziest members definitely should mean something to all of you.
If you cant contribute your time, at least send some money so someone else can do it for you! Also please stop harrassing IV on where the funds are going - its $20 per month for Christ's sake, not your family inheritance. Let's try and make a difference one way or another. Our national pride is at stake here.
Hari
(IZZAT KI SAWAL) ... It is IZZAT KA SAWAL.
I am lazy and may be more lazy then anyone. Good to hear from a new enthusiastic person.
Your enthu will go away soon.
hot Selena Gomez
sundarpn
04-16 06:40 PM
I have still not converted my I-140 to premium with my current employer, though I intend to right away. But, that will take a month (upto 15 bus. days) and then say 2 weeks to try to get the copy of I-140.
Till then I cannot hold the other job offer.
Till then I cannot hold the other job offer.
more...
house Selena Gomez
alisa
06-10 10:42 PM
Backlog Elimination Centers
:)
:)
tattoo selena gomez fashion style.
sasimks75
08-23 06:10 PM
To aarzoo, did you apply the I140 again in EB2? i am in the same boat. My lawyer said the samething and applied another i140 in Eb2. Can you please let me know your experience? Mine is applied in July 6th 2010.
more...
pictures selena gomez fashion and style. selena gomez fashion 2009.
eeezzz
03-06 02:34 PM
I'll urge people from especially from California and Texas send out the letters and call up their lawmakers...Despite the Anti-immigrant climate prevailing in the country, congresswoman Zoe Logfren was able to get her bill passed on wednesday....If we can proove to them that we are not asking new green card numbers and not ask for recapturing green card numbers, they'll certainly hear us, but we need to speak up...
The words in red and bold is the right direction for a solution.
When there's a "NOT" in front of it, it is no longer a correct direction.
The words in red and bold is the right direction for a solution.
When there's a "NOT" in front of it, it is no longer a correct direction.
dresses Selena Gomez photo via
optimystic
04-06 11:41 PM
there is no difference between using AC-21 or not. When you get your GC, the general line of thinking is that you stay with the current sponsoring employer for 6 months or more. AC-21 is merely a way of changing your 'current sponsoring employer'.
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
I can't say how much weight this statment holds...
I mean, there are ongoing discussions in other posts about some employers reluctant to accept EAD holders (willing to use AC21) since they may have to do some amount of 'sponsorship' for such people and suggestions that these people claim that they don't need any 'sponsorship' theoretically from the employers ...they can file EAD extensions themselves.....
In light of that it seems as if once you invoke AC21 you can choose to support your I-485 status & EAD, attorneys etc completely yourself, and thus the concept of 'sposoring employer' totally vanishes.
Its possible that USCIS can still hold you to the (diluted)intent of "continuing to work in the same job role as originally claimed in I-140/I-485" for a general period of time after getting GC, but not necessarily stick with the same current employer. The AC21 invokers already cut themselves off from the original sponsor....doesn't make much sense to force them to stick to current employer, who may or may not have sponsored anything at all towards the employee's GC.
So AC21 invokers get a degree of freedom ( --can't tell what level of freedom though, with the impending restrictions possibly in future in AC21 -- ) regarding showing the *original intent* after getting GC.
And since people stuck with same original sponsoring employer and get GC while still with them, can not invoke AC21 after getting GC to port their "original intent", it seems they would continue to be stuck with the same employer for 6-12 more months (unless fired/laid off of course, in which case one becomes a free bird :) )
[Not sure if I put my line of thiking properly in the above paragraphs...if you get confused, please ignore the post :) . It would definitely have been worse, if I tried to speak , rather that write this :D )
more...
makeup Selena Gomez wearing a black
pappu
11-14 02:27 PM
Got notification from lawyer that my RIR for LC got rejected. It is pending in Phily BEC with a PD of Oct 2003.
What does this mean? Kiss my LC good bye? Please explian
ask for more info . there must be a reason for the rejection. you can also contest the decision by filing a motion.without complete information it is difficult to advice. do not worry, there is always a solution to every problem.
What does this mean? Kiss my LC good bye? Please explian
ask for more info . there must be a reason for the rejection. you can also contest the decision by filing a motion.without complete information it is difficult to advice. do not worry, there is always a solution to every problem.
girlfriend SELENA GOMEZ photo | Selena
LostInGCProcess
01-08 11:21 AM
LostInGC,
Why did you use AP if you had a valid H1-b?
Because I did not have H1 Visa...just H1 document. I went on a very short trip to India and I didn't want to make trips to Chennai consulate and who knows if I got stuck with some kind of verifications...or other delays...Thats why I opted for AP.
Why did you use AP if you had a valid H1-b?
Because I did not have H1 Visa...just H1 document. I went on a very short trip to India and I didn't want to make trips to Chennai consulate and who knows if I got stuck with some kind of verifications...or other delays...Thats why I opted for AP.
hairstyles anythingdisney: Selena and
theshiningsun
02-24 03:50 AM
this is what i know
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
since I-140 is approved and I-485 is pending for more than 6 months therefore employer withdrawing I-140 will hv no effect on GC process
u can get copy of I-140 approval by filing FOIA rqst but it takes about 4-5 months
again, this is what i know but i am not a lawyer, pls consult an attorney b4 any action
btw how does ur employer expect that u not go to another company if u r going to lose ur job with him?
cahimmihelp
07-15 12:56 PM
Hi,
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
This is my second effort to get the answer. There are so many posts on this kind of topics but I am not getting any clear answer. I would appreciate if someone can throw the light on this topic.:confused:
I am working with a consulting company and my company filed for my GC in 2009 (PD is 25-Feb-2009). I received my I-140 approval on 28-Feb-2010. Now the client where I am working, has offered my a fulltime job and GC processing. I have received mutual consent from my current company for any legal issues. Now, if I join the new company and file my GC from there, can I port my Priority date for the new processing? Also, what should be the earliest joining date? What all other precautions should I take while filing GC with the new company?
I received the offer on 07/09 and have to give my decision by 07/15. I would appreciate if anyone can help. I got one day extension in deadline. Please answer someone...
Thanks a lot,
CAH
gc28262
08-27 08:08 PM
Did not know that you can use FOIA for obtaining a document that does not belong to you (or you dont own it)
Here are threads relating to that.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum80-visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/219826-use-foia-for-i-140-and-other-immigration-records.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/1469-foia-to-get-copy-i-140-approval-notice.html
Here are threads relating to that.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum80-visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/219826-use-foia-for-i-140-and-other-immigration-records.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/1469-foia-to-get-copy-i-140-approval-notice.html
