VivekAhuja
03-18 06:26 PM
If you have left your I-140 company, that I-140 is dead. No wonder you have not heard back. It's not pending, it's cancelled. I-140 is employer based and therefore if USCIS said they were not satisfied with place of work, which reads: not enough income for the company to be able to pay you the salary declared in the I140 app. If you did not reply to their show-cause within the time frame stated, your I-140 application is deemed abandoned.
foobar2001
03-10 11:07 AM
My 485 got approved 3 months back. Once the status showd "Card Production Ordered". Then changed to "Post Decission Activity". I received the Welcome lettter that i have been grnated permanent resident statusI called USCIS some 45 days back. They mentioned the card has been mailed and file another I-90 mentioning my card is lost. I told them i have not received it at all and asked why i need to spend money and file I-90 again when i did not receive it at all. They said file I-90, thats all. I took infopass appointment. The IO at infopass gave same answer. We mailed the card, its lost, we did not receive it back, file I-90.
I asked if my EAD is valid until i get the green card. The officer asked if he can see my EAD. I had both me and my wife's EADs in a cover and gave both to him. Once he took it, he said he cannot give it back. I asked what should i do now and how should i show my status/ work authorization. He said your only option is to file I-90. Come back after filing I-90 and submitting fingerprints, then we will stamp on your passport. I have been cornered.
I have never missed a single mail. When i mentioned same in the post office, they said its absurd when i receive all mails except the card and that something is wrong with the sender. USCIS is making some blunder in sending the cards and forcing people to spend money and go through the hassle of applying for a new one. They dont check any further information other than bluntly saying "We mailed it, we have not received it back". Such important documents should have a tracking number so that we know that they have actually mailed. There is no way to know if they really mailed it.
Seen this? Seems like USCIS is starting to track delivery confirmation for important docs via USPS (not sure since when though):
MurthyDotCom : Secure Mail Initiative for Green Cards and EADs (http://murthy.com/news/n_secmal.html)
I asked if my EAD is valid until i get the green card. The officer asked if he can see my EAD. I had both me and my wife's EADs in a cover and gave both to him. Once he took it, he said he cannot give it back. I asked what should i do now and how should i show my status/ work authorization. He said your only option is to file I-90. Come back after filing I-90 and submitting fingerprints, then we will stamp on your passport. I have been cornered.
I have never missed a single mail. When i mentioned same in the post office, they said its absurd when i receive all mails except the card and that something is wrong with the sender. USCIS is making some blunder in sending the cards and forcing people to spend money and go through the hassle of applying for a new one. They dont check any further information other than bluntly saying "We mailed it, we have not received it back". Such important documents should have a tracking number so that we know that they have actually mailed. There is no way to know if they really mailed it.
Seen this? Seems like USCIS is starting to track delivery confirmation for important docs via USPS (not sure since when though):
MurthyDotCom : Secure Mail Initiative for Green Cards and EADs (http://murthy.com/news/n_secmal.html)
saileshdude
06-25 12:55 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
As per this memo -
While I-485 can be approved when PD is current, however, it can be denied anytime (does not matter if PD is current or not). The conditions for job offer must be maintained at all times while I-485 is pending.
With this, I am not sure, the defense of PD is not current is going to work.
Here are the questions that I have:
1) As per recent news, a lot of applications are PRE-ADJUDICATED. Now does this mean that those applications will be adjudicated when their PD becomes current , meaning to be approved based on a current PD , does the application has to go through the process of adjudication. Or does it mean adjudication is defined as "processing complete but is independent of PD being current or not" . What does the adjudication means in the above particular context.
2) IN this particular question, the answer does not specifically mean PD being current or not. It only mentions that "need to have job offer when AOS is being adjudicated". If you interpret it this way , then yes PD being current or not does not matter. And you will need to show u have job offer. BUT if definition of adjudication also involves approving the I-485 then one can argue that yes unless ur PD is current u cannot be approved and hence u do not need to have job offer if your PD is current.
I would like to know what various attorneys think about this
seetheavatar
10-15 03:33 PM
Don't worry guys.If you have received a mail saying that your GC is posted and if it is more than 30 days you can contact the customer service and create a service request.
You will get your card within 30 days.
If it was sent to a different address it would be returned to USCIS and you will be getting a mail saying that your GC was returned.
For this case also you have to create a service request and you will get your card within 30 days.
You will get your card within 30 days.
If it was sent to a different address it would be returned to USCIS and you will be getting a mail saying that your GC was returned.
For this case also you have to create a service request and you will get your card within 30 days.
more...
Berkeleybee
04-03 06:12 PM
OK - good point. Linus Torvalds was an H1/green card immigration to my knowledge, and he would make a good addition to the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
Thanks for that -- it'll go into the next round of edits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
Thanks for that -- it'll go into the next round of edits.
needhelp!
08-31 12:38 AM
Just like there can be no rally without IV members,
There can be no (hypothetical) country without IV members
There can be no (hypothetical) country without IV members
more...
logiclife
08-03 07:23 PM
Hi logiclife,
I agree with you. You're spot on. My other friend, please take a note of Logiclife's comments.
Do you have any sections from USCIS, which states that there is no need of job duties on the experience letter and just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. much appreciated. Thx.
No, I dont have any code or INA section for that. And I never said that just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. No, that wont suffice, coz that only shows what happened in the past. The employer letter is supposed to assure USCIS that the job offer is still valid and if USCIS gives you greencard then the employer is still offering employment which was the basis for filing greencard. The future component is a must. What happened in past and what happened so far (up until 485 filing) is irrelevant. Therefore just the title and dates of employment ARE NOT ENOUGH.
What is relevant is the job described in labor cert is still available to you IN FUTURE and whether employer is willing to say it on a letter to USCIS that "Hey, take care of this guy's 485 coz I still plan to hire him on XYZ position IN FUTURE ".
I am telling you from my own experience with what my lawyer had prepared for my HR to sign.
My employer's letter simply states that A) they will pay me X amount at the minimum (which is my current salary) and B) the job is still being offered as per job described in ETA 750 and I-140.
That covers everything. Labor cert has job description. 140 has other credentials. If a letter with 485 says that job offer is still valid a per job described in labor and 140, that covers everything.
I agree with you. You're spot on. My other friend, please take a note of Logiclife's comments.
Do you have any sections from USCIS, which states that there is no need of job duties on the experience letter and just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. much appreciated. Thx.
No, I dont have any code or INA section for that. And I never said that just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. No, that wont suffice, coz that only shows what happened in the past. The employer letter is supposed to assure USCIS that the job offer is still valid and if USCIS gives you greencard then the employer is still offering employment which was the basis for filing greencard. The future component is a must. What happened in past and what happened so far (up until 485 filing) is irrelevant. Therefore just the title and dates of employment ARE NOT ENOUGH.
What is relevant is the job described in labor cert is still available to you IN FUTURE and whether employer is willing to say it on a letter to USCIS that "Hey, take care of this guy's 485 coz I still plan to hire him on XYZ position IN FUTURE ".
I am telling you from my own experience with what my lawyer had prepared for my HR to sign.
My employer's letter simply states that A) they will pay me X amount at the minimum (which is my current salary) and B) the job is still being offered as per job described in ETA 750 and I-140.
That covers everything. Labor cert has job description. 140 has other credentials. If a letter with 485 says that job offer is still valid a per job described in labor and 140, that covers everything.
O'podu
07-13 01:37 PM
:D Just come over with suits, casuals, sneakers and boots in HAND.:confused:
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
wear the one which online rally member says before walk.
You can come with /without wearing anything. upto u.;)
LET THE RALLYYYYYYYYYYY BEGIN!!!
Here we come USCIS......!!!
more...
GCard_Dream
04-27 05:15 PM
I am not sure. May be it is. Details are still not out yet and I don't see the text of the bill on thomas. Hopefully more detail will emerge in next day or so and then we will know for sure.
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?160478
viper673
06-07 12:37 PM
Yes pending 485 at TSC.
The IRS can't produce transcripts older than 3 years.
There's a form you can fill out and pay $39/return and takes up to 60 days, but even on this one it says: "records older than 7 years may not be available as it's admissable by law that they be distroyed".
The IRS can't produce transcripts older than 3 years.
There's a form you can fill out and pay $39/return and takes up to 60 days, but even on this one it says: "records older than 7 years may not be available as it's admissable by law that they be distroyed".
more...
eager_immi
07-18 11:11 AM
Can you IM a core and ask them to put a link on main page...
we lost a golden oportunity to do a fund drive. Historically during good news period a lot of members participated in the fund drive, but because the IV website is broken and the threads are displayed irratically and not in the latest order the funding drive threads are hidden and irrelevant one post threads are showing up. We might have lost out on a 10 to 20k worth of funding because of this mistake. I request the core team to please fix this immediately. A lot of new members have joined IV and they might not particiapate in the funding drive because of this thread mistake.
we lost a golden oportunity to do a fund drive. Historically during good news period a lot of members participated in the fund drive, but because the IV website is broken and the threads are displayed irratically and not in the latest order the funding drive threads are hidden and irrelevant one post threads are showing up. We might have lost out on a 10 to 20k worth of funding because of this mistake. I request the core team to please fix this immediately. A lot of new members have joined IV and they might not particiapate in the funding drive because of this thread mistake.
vallabhu
11-13 04:47 PM
I asked her if it is change of address they sent she is not sure but she said usually it is the card when Current Status: is "Document mailed to applicant."
She put in a service request for me and she some one is going to contact me in 30 business days.
She put in a service request for me and she some one is going to contact me in 30 business days.
more...
ata1234
07-13 09:07 PM
Dear friends, you are participating into this rally not for your own benefit but also you are helping huge community. All the best!
makemygc
07-18 11:56 AM
some people r thinking of flower campaign to atlanta center so as to speed up slowed down processin. if anyone is interested...
http://www..com/discussion-forums/atlanta-perm/4827173/last-page/
I don't think it's going to work again plus its only going to annoy people at USCIS as they have to assign someone to accept and trash those flowers.
http://www..com/discussion-forums/atlanta-perm/4827173/last-page/
I don't think it's going to work again plus its only going to annoy people at USCIS as they have to assign someone to accept and trash those flowers.
more...
eyeopeners05@yahoo.com
06-02 03:00 PM
thanks guys...
what other alternatives do i have... this other firm is ready to take me if do not ask them to do a h1transfer.
One option is to do a h1 thru one of the desi employers and then join as a consultant.
Are there any other options ?
what other alternatives do i have... this other firm is ready to take me if do not ask them to do a h1transfer.
One option is to do a h1 thru one of the desi employers and then join as a consultant.
Are there any other options ?
gcformeornot
05-14 10:20 AM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1403687-new-blow-for-us.html
more...
![coordination in dance. Coordination. from a photo shoot for ENDLESS DANCE COMPANY. p.s you can also find me at - [ photo-soulz.deviantart.com/ ]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3270/2428340459_97bb422ac3.jpg "Coordination. from a photo shoot for ENDLESS DANCE COMPANY. p.s you can also find me at - [ photo-soulz.deviantart.com/ ]")
Green_Always
02-01 05:17 PM
Enjoy !!
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
maxy
10-15 05:08 PM
may be not related ... but can someone explain what does this line mean ...
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
does this mean that while invoking AC21, you have to tell your new employer to support your GC application ? hope not ! whole purpose of using EAD is to get rid of sponsorship non-sense....
anyone ?
deejk
03-09 12:14 PM
My 485 got approved 3 months back. Once the status showd "Card Production Ordered". Then changed to "Post Decission Activity". I received the Welcome lettter that i have been grnated permanent resident statusI called USCIS some 45 days back. They mentioned the card has been mailed and file another I-90 mentioning my card is lost. I told them i have not received it at all and asked why i need to spend money and file I-90 again when i did not receive it at all. They said file I-90, thats all. I took infopass appointment. The IO at infopass gave same answer. We mailed the card, its lost, we did not receive it back, file I-90.
I asked if my EAD is valid until i get the green card. The officer asked if he can see my EAD. I had both me and my wife's EADs in a cover and gave both to him. Once he took it, he said he cannot give it back. I asked what should i do now and how should i show my status/ work authorization. He said your only option is to file I-90. Come back after filing I-90 and submitting fingerprints, then we will stamp on your passport. I have been cornered.
I have never missed a single mail. When i mentioned same in the post office, they said its absurd when i receive all mails except the card and that something is wrong with the sender. USCIS is making some blunder in sending the cards and forcing people to spend money and go through the hassle of applying for a new one. They dont check any further information other than bluntly saying "We mailed it, we have not received it back". Such important documents should have a tracking number so that we know that they have actually mailed. There is no way to know if they really mailed it.
I asked if my EAD is valid until i get the green card. The officer asked if he can see my EAD. I had both me and my wife's EADs in a cover and gave both to him. Once he took it, he said he cannot give it back. I asked what should i do now and how should i show my status/ work authorization. He said your only option is to file I-90. Come back after filing I-90 and submitting fingerprints, then we will stamp on your passport. I have been cornered.
I have never missed a single mail. When i mentioned same in the post office, they said its absurd when i receive all mails except the card and that something is wrong with the sender. USCIS is making some blunder in sending the cards and forcing people to spend money and go through the hassle of applying for a new one. They dont check any further information other than bluntly saying "We mailed it, we have not received it back". Such important documents should have a tracking number so that we know that they have actually mailed. There is no way to know if they really mailed it.
Green_Print
08-01 01:10 PM
I would say some imagination fused with wishful thinking :D
Is it just your imagination or did you base this on any source.
Is it just your imagination or did you base this on any source.
No comments:
Post a Comment