aa_ke_phas_gaya
06-24 06:02 PM
Remember you are bonded labor if you are on H1B or Work Permit. They will use you & your illegal brothers every election year and this is one of those years ..... everything is chatter until something heppens.
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
wallpaper Here are some cars I would
godspeed
11-09 04:50 PM
completed the survey
PD_Dec2002
07-13 05:40 PM
Man, this is so funny, Somebody give me some good or atleast some bad reputation :D :D :D :D
You can add to your own reputation by clicking the "balance" icon.
Thanks,
Jayant
You can add to your own reputation by clicking the "balance" icon.
Thanks,
Jayant
2011 Subaru Legacy 2009
AgentM
01-25 10:15 PM
Hi,
If anybody has used a lawyer for AC21, please post the lawyer details and their cost.
Thank you.
If anybody has used a lawyer for AC21, please post the lawyer details and their cost.
Thank you.
more...
perm2gc
08-23 05:00 PM
in EB3, EB2 and EB1
did you make any calculations based on numbers.?????
did you make any calculations based on numbers.?????
kirupa
06-07 01:42 AM
Never heard of this contest??
You mean, you missed out on the Get out the Stamp and Rock the Stamp campaigns? It was ALL over cable TV :P
faster - in one week.
You mean, you missed out on the Get out the Stamp and Rock the Stamp campaigns? It was ALL over cable TV :P
faster - in one week.
more...
sabr
09-19 05:39 PM
meaning I can work for company B now and even though my h1b renewal approves with company A? then when I feel like I can go out and reenter before the h1b renewal period ends?
2010 2010 Subaru Legacy Outback
sanjay02
08-22 03:14 PM
As stated earlier go for your own lawyer.
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
New employer has Fragomen and I heard there is lot of negative air about their procedures on PERM. Current employer legal firm is Baker McKenzie.
I am kind of reluctant to have Fragomen as my attorney representation
__________________
more...
rc0878
09-23 09:58 AM
what does the priority date column on the recipt notice say?
Does it show the actual priority date or is it blank or something else?
Does it show the actual priority date or is it blank or something else?
hair 2009 Subaru Legacy B4 GT300
logiclife
04-15 06:54 PM
I have been in this situation but my work location changed more than 100miles within the same state. My attorney asked me to start another labor.
1. If you think that you will move back one the 485 is adjucated, then you dont have to worry. OTherwise, you have file a new labor. Atleast you are safe since your 140 is approved. You can port your PD.
2. If it is within few miles then it should not affect. Still you have to check with your attorney. Few miles sometimes puts you in different couty or state or even in different country. So the term "Few Miles" is relative one and it is better to check with attorney.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
1. If you think that you will move back one the 485 is adjucated, then you dont have to worry. OTherwise, you have file a new labor. Atleast you are safe since your 140 is approved. You can port your PD.
2. If it is within few miles then it should not affect. Still you have to check with your attorney. Few miles sometimes puts you in different couty or state or even in different country. So the term "Few Miles" is relative one and it is better to check with attorney.
By making you file for new labor, your attorney has played it too safe. In your case, filing a new labor was not neccesary. Please read below and check with an immigration lawyer for advice. I AM NOT A LAWYER but this advice is based on 2 different lawyers I have talked to regarding my own case where I moved from Phoenix, to Reno after my labor was filed.
Here is the deal when changing the location while GC is pending:
1. You can change location during your pending GC. But your job description must not change. Also, you have to move back to the location where your GC was filed, ONLY IF your 485 is processed and approved in less than 180 days from filing (I dont think USCIS will ever be that efficient and process 485 petitions in less than 180 days). That's because your option of AC21 of changing employers and locations (within the same job description, you cant work at a gas station or McDonalds) kicks in after 180 days of filing 485. If your 485 is approved in less than 180 days, then yes, you have to go back to the original location where your Greencard was filed because you dont have the AC21 options of switching employers and locations during your 485 stage ... which is available ONLY AFTER 180 days have passed in the processing of your 485 file.
So as long as your 485 takes longer than 180 days, you can continue to work at your new location even though you GC and labor was filed at a previous location.
2. After 180 days of filing 485, you can change employers using your EAD and change locations. No limit. But it has to be the same job description. You cannot start working as a manager if your Greencard was filed for the position of a programmer.
more...
tnite
09-30 11:31 AM
I also have soft LUD on 09/26 and 09/29...But i dont know what to read into it.
I did have a LUD on 09/05 and 09/08 and then RFE was issued. Responded to the RFE on 09/22 . LUD on 09/22, 09/23 ,09/29 and 09/30.
EB2 India Mar 2005 NSC
There were atleast 7-8 cases from NSC on this board who received RFE's.
I did have a LUD on 09/05 and 09/08 and then RFE was issued. Responded to the RFE on 09/22 . LUD on 09/22, 09/23 ,09/29 and 09/30.
EB2 India Mar 2005 NSC
There were atleast 7-8 cases from NSC on this board who received RFE's.
hot Subaru Legancy (2009-subaru-
for_gc
09-26 11:00 AM
ohhhh wow !! .. Man ...It not so easy as it looks on paper ...U will find tons of ppl in the stage of limbo after doing all this ... (including me though :(
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
Hi pd_recapturing,
Can you please elaborate on your experience. This is an issue very close to my heart as well and possibly benefit lots of other folks on this forum.
I personally know a fried who in fact benefited from PD porting and got his GC sometime in 2007 beginning. He had a EB3 PD of 2001 which he used for his EB2 application with another employer.
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
Hi pd_recapturing,
Can you please elaborate on your experience. This is an issue very close to my heart as well and possibly benefit lots of other folks on this forum.
I personally know a fried who in fact benefited from PD porting and got his GC sometime in 2007 beginning. He had a EB3 PD of 2001 which he used for his EB2 application with another employer.
more...
house The previous Subaru Liberty
ramakrishna_ram
06-14 01:48 PM
Hi Friends,
This is first time I am posting this topic here. Please excuse me if this is wrong post or question at this time.
Today my sister got a phone call from a Detective saying that she is suspecting on Jewelery theft from a neighborhood. We shocked for getting that type of call. The person who complainted is close to my family. He is also Indian and from same region. Recently he moved from my city. He lost couple of jewelery items this year.
My sister is very good and try to help most of the people nearby. The detective said that investigation is going on for this issue. We are so worrying on this issue.
We know she is genuine and did not do anything but my question is any problem in green card process?.
How to prove my sister is not commited such kind of activity. Please try to help me on this
Thanks
Ramkrishna
This is first time I am posting this topic here. Please excuse me if this is wrong post or question at this time.
Today my sister got a phone call from a Detective saying that she is suspecting on Jewelery theft from a neighborhood. We shocked for getting that type of call. The person who complainted is close to my family. He is also Indian and from same region. Recently he moved from my city. He lost couple of jewelery items this year.
My sister is very good and try to help most of the people nearby. The detective said that investigation is going on for this issue. We are so worrying on this issue.
We know she is genuine and did not do anything but my question is any problem in green card process?.
How to prove my sister is not commited such kind of activity. Please try to help me on this
Thanks
Ramkrishna
tattoo detroit-naias-2009-subaru-
Ramba
03-15 11:18 AM
Filing 485 during visa unavailability, should not be the concern in this bill. Why our people are worrying about filing AOS when visa number unavailable? Man, this should not be our concern at all. Our main concern should be reinstating the AC21 provision that allow the oversubscribed countries to use excess visas in each EB category. Specter removed very important provision that eliminate per country limit in EB visas for oversubscribed countries. This is a big blow to India, China. It will stop all the benefits from this bill.
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
If the current form of specter bill passes, there is no benefit to any of us. If EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3) from count, that drastically increase the visa numbers. The increase is unimaginable, and I feel that it will be about 4 to 5 times than current 140K numbers. If all the listed provisions appears in the final bill, the visa number will always be �current� for all countries for many years, provided AC21 (elimination of per country limit if demand is less than supply) reinstated. If this happens, no one needs to worry about filing AOS when visa number unavailable. That situation never arises.
If current form of Specter bill passes, all the new numbers created thro above listed provisions, will not give any benefit to India/China. DOS simply say per country limit is 10% only no matter what. Remember that, 10% is total of FB+EB numbers. (480000+290000). India and China FB numbers are also heavily backlogged. Therefore our main concern is to reinstate AC21 provision not filing AOS, and keep pressure to keep the listed provisions (EB visa increased to 290K, excluding dependents from counting from FY 2001, recapturing unused visa from 2001 to 2005, and excluding EB1 (OR+EA) and EB2 (MS+3)) in the final bill
more...
pictures 2010 Subaru Legacy Front Three
excogitator
12-11 03:34 PM
Since the official announcement thread hasn't been put up yet.
Congratulations to all the winners!!
:)
Congratulations to all the winners!!
:)
dresses First Drive Review: Subaru
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.
more...
makeup 2009 Subaru Legacy Tourer
roseball
02-20 04:14 PM
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time.
When I look back at the timelines, when we applied for the 485s, we thought he was in status but afterwards, we realized he might not have been. Since then, we have renewed the H4 twice, and each time there was an I94 attached and the last one is still valid, so he is in status now.
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
Since you already got H4 extensions with attached I-94s, current status is not an issue. The issue will be with his I-485 application as he was out-of-status when it was applied. You should try and go to the US consulate outside US and get a H4 stamped. In my opinion, getting new VISAs will not be an issue since it was an honest mistake on your part and as soon as you realized it you applied for extensions and you should acknowledge it in your visa application. You have to get this done before USCIS issues an RFE asking for your son's status information. For how long was your son out of status. The duration of invalid status has different implications. In any case, before leaving US, you should take advise from a good attorney. Once your son gets H4 visa stamped and re-enters US on a valid H4 status, his previous out-of-status issue will be void. Please note that re-entering on AP does not void earlier out-of-status.
When I look back at the timelines, when we applied for the 485s, we thought he was in status but afterwards, we realized he might not have been. Since then, we have renewed the H4 twice, and each time there was an I94 attached and the last one is still valid, so he is in status now.
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
Since you already got H4 extensions with attached I-94s, current status is not an issue. The issue will be with his I-485 application as he was out-of-status when it was applied. You should try and go to the US consulate outside US and get a H4 stamped. In my opinion, getting new VISAs will not be an issue since it was an honest mistake on your part and as soon as you realized it you applied for extensions and you should acknowledge it in your visa application. You have to get this done before USCIS issues an RFE asking for your son's status information. For how long was your son out of status. The duration of invalid status has different implications. In any case, before leaving US, you should take advise from a good attorney. Once your son gets H4 visa stamped and re-enters US on a valid H4 status, his previous out-of-status issue will be void. Please note that re-entering on AP does not void earlier out-of-status.
girlfriend Legacy 2009 года построена на
dan19
01-15 11:48 AM
jonty_11,
the canadian immigration specifically asks for the IELTS. so try to take it. it is not a difficult one.
one of my friends wrote a detailed letter to the immigration dept. showing proof of his english proficiency. i heard it worked and he wasn't asked to take IELTS. (but it all depends on the officer who evaluates the case)
Furthur the letter states: If you fail to provide results of Lang test , an assessment will be done based on information you have provided and that may result is fewer points being awarded for language abilit, influencing overall eligibility.
I am thinking of not taking this test. Anyone else with similar letter from canada Buffalo office?
the canadian immigration specifically asks for the IELTS. so try to take it. it is not a difficult one.
one of my friends wrote a detailed letter to the immigration dept. showing proof of his english proficiency. i heard it worked and he wasn't asked to take IELTS. (but it all depends on the officer who evaluates the case)
Furthur the letter states: If you fail to provide results of Lang test , an assessment will be done based on information you have provided and that may result is fewer points being awarded for language abilit, influencing overall eligibility.
I am thinking of not taking this test. Anyone else with similar letter from canada Buffalo office?
hairstyles Subaru announces pricing for
kaisersose
12-07 04:43 PM
I know you are being pointedly sarcastic at a section of green card applicants but Project Managers are not eligible for EB1. (Don't give that section any bright ideas) Only multi-national executives (VP and above are)
in addition to researchers who have exceptional track-record (no, publishing papers in IEEE digest doesn't count)
Haven't heard of EB1s getting GC in ceremonies. After all the little piece of plastic is not an award of merit or anything (even though lot of us seem to think so :D)
Sorry buddy....I know 4 of my friends who got their GCs through EB1 within a year - all project managers. The key piece of documentation required by USCIS was an official org chart from the company showing people reporting to the applicant both back in the foreign country and currenty in the US.
Now it is certainly possible that some applicants were rejected because the IO was not convinced, but I know four people who sailed through without RFEs.
in addition to researchers who have exceptional track-record (no, publishing papers in IEEE digest doesn't count)
Haven't heard of EB1s getting GC in ceremonies. After all the little piece of plastic is not an award of merit or anything (even though lot of us seem to think so :D)
Sorry buddy....I know 4 of my friends who got their GCs through EB1 within a year - all project managers. The key piece of documentation required by USCIS was an official org chart from the company showing people reporting to the applicant both back in the foreign country and currenty in the US.
Now it is certainly possible that some applicants were rejected because the IO was not convinced, but I know four people who sailed through without RFEs.
sobers
04-07 09:09 PM
Yes this is funny indeed:-)
Seems this guy is like an Ogre...
Anyhow, faxes is only one aspect. We need to try to make some personal contact with the staff, perhaps visit his DC/Milwaukee offices. If we can focus our energies there, i sincerely think we can reap greater rewards.
I sent you guys a pm. check it out.
Seems this guy is like an Ogre...
Anyhow, faxes is only one aspect. We need to try to make some personal contact with the staff, perhaps visit his DC/Milwaukee offices. If we can focus our energies there, i sincerely think we can reap greater rewards.
I sent you guys a pm. check it out.
varshadas
02-17 12:43 AM
A total of 39 people were in the conference call tonight including the core members(2) and the NJ state chapter members(2). I think this was really really good. Let's continue our efforts with this energy and momentum. Thank you everyone for attending the call tonight.
I just want to go over what we discussed in the call in brief:
Goals of the state chapters
Increasing the membership
Meeting the law makers
Methods to increase membership
Take a print out of the flyer made by NJ state chapter. (Vineet, can you out this under Resources. I am unable to upload)
Distribute the flyers in the local train stations where traffic is maximum.
Distribute the flyers in the local temples.
Try to participate in local community events.
Try to get onto the local Indian/Chinese radio channels.
Try to connect with people at work and school.
Try to get stories in the local newspaper.
Any other methods can be explored by the individual state chapters.
Meet the law makers
Go to www.immigrationvoice.org
Click on Resources on the left
Click on Resources for "Meet Your Local Maker"
There are a number of things here that would help you in this.
People from the local constituency should set up an appointment with the
Congressmen. Congressmen do not talk to people outside their constituency. Once the appointment is set, not more than 3 people should go to meet the
Congressmen. Out of those 3 people, one of the persons should be the one who set up the appointment. Also, schedule the appointment with them, the way they want. For example, if they want a letter, send them a letter, if they want fax, send them fax.
For setting up the appointment, we used the following letter format provided by the core team:
************************************************** ******
Date: 01/24/2007
Dear Congressman XXXX,
I am a concerned constituent writing to you on behalf of ImmigrationVoice, a
non profit organization working to get the problems of Employment based Legal Immigration to the attention of lawmakers. I would like to request for a
meeting to discuss the problems that the legal high skilled immigrant community is facing. Employment Based Legal immigration is currently facing some of the worst waiting periods in the recent past. Applicants have to wait to finish their final phase of immigration for as many as 6-7 years because of the lack of employment based green card numbers which is also called Green Card Retrogression. The reasons for these are certain bureaucratic delays, flawed practices and procedures and arcane laws which are not in tune with reality at all.
Please also note that there are more than 350,000 Labor applications pending at the Labor department to be processed. Some of them are as old as from year 2000. These applicants are waiting for certification from the US Department of Labor as high-skilled workers who are not displacing existing American workers in the market.
Subsequent to rigorous but unfruitful recruitment efforts by our employers and other processing stages by USCIS, we still have to face prolonged wait times. It is also to be noted that most of us are already working in the U.S. for the past 5-6 years and are contributing to the U.S. economy in the form of taxes etc - some of which we do not derive any benefit from. This also hurts the businesses in your constituency like my employer because they have to wait indefinitely to hire talented applicants on a permanent basis. This is a very important issue and will determine whether the United States of America remains competitive in the fields of science and technology and retains the best talent from around the world.
ImmigrationVoice is a nonprofit organization comprised of volunteers who are
suffering due to these delays and wish to bring this important issue in front
of their lawmakers. Hence I would request an appointment so that I can explain these problems and ask for support for some of the legislative measures that have been introduced to alleviate these problems.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(Place holder for your signature)
Your name:
Your address:
Your email:
************************************************** ******
Once the appointment is set up, take 3 or 4 copies of the presentation and the brochure neatly clipped in a file. You will find these documents under the
heading called Materials for the meeting in Resources->Meet Your Local Maker.
If possible, take your laptop for the presentation.
Begin by introducing yourself and that you are a member of IV which is a
national non-profit organization that is working towards providing relief to
skilled legal immigrants and that there is no other organization like
immigration voice in the USA.
Talk about the good things that the Congressman has done for the community (Research in advance).
More information can be found under headings During The Meeting and Post Meeting under Meeting your Local Maker->Resources.
If anyone has any questions, please contact IV or you can contact me too at
varshadas@hotmail.com.
I just want to go over what we discussed in the call in brief:
Goals of the state chapters
Increasing the membership
Meeting the law makers
Methods to increase membership
Take a print out of the flyer made by NJ state chapter. (Vineet, can you out this under Resources. I am unable to upload)
Distribute the flyers in the local train stations where traffic is maximum.
Distribute the flyers in the local temples.
Try to participate in local community events.
Try to get onto the local Indian/Chinese radio channels.
Try to connect with people at work and school.
Try to get stories in the local newspaper.
Any other methods can be explored by the individual state chapters.
Meet the law makers
Go to www.immigrationvoice.org
Click on Resources on the left
Click on Resources for "Meet Your Local Maker"
There are a number of things here that would help you in this.
People from the local constituency should set up an appointment with the
Congressmen. Congressmen do not talk to people outside their constituency. Once the appointment is set, not more than 3 people should go to meet the
Congressmen. Out of those 3 people, one of the persons should be the one who set up the appointment. Also, schedule the appointment with them, the way they want. For example, if they want a letter, send them a letter, if they want fax, send them fax.
For setting up the appointment, we used the following letter format provided by the core team:
************************************************** ******
Date: 01/24/2007
Dear Congressman XXXX,
I am a concerned constituent writing to you on behalf of ImmigrationVoice, a
non profit organization working to get the problems of Employment based Legal Immigration to the attention of lawmakers. I would like to request for a
meeting to discuss the problems that the legal high skilled immigrant community is facing. Employment Based Legal immigration is currently facing some of the worst waiting periods in the recent past. Applicants have to wait to finish their final phase of immigration for as many as 6-7 years because of the lack of employment based green card numbers which is also called Green Card Retrogression. The reasons for these are certain bureaucratic delays, flawed practices and procedures and arcane laws which are not in tune with reality at all.
Please also note that there are more than 350,000 Labor applications pending at the Labor department to be processed. Some of them are as old as from year 2000. These applicants are waiting for certification from the US Department of Labor as high-skilled workers who are not displacing existing American workers in the market.
Subsequent to rigorous but unfruitful recruitment efforts by our employers and other processing stages by USCIS, we still have to face prolonged wait times. It is also to be noted that most of us are already working in the U.S. for the past 5-6 years and are contributing to the U.S. economy in the form of taxes etc - some of which we do not derive any benefit from. This also hurts the businesses in your constituency like my employer because they have to wait indefinitely to hire talented applicants on a permanent basis. This is a very important issue and will determine whether the United States of America remains competitive in the fields of science and technology and retains the best talent from around the world.
ImmigrationVoice is a nonprofit organization comprised of volunteers who are
suffering due to these delays and wish to bring this important issue in front
of their lawmakers. Hence I would request an appointment so that I can explain these problems and ask for support for some of the legislative measures that have been introduced to alleviate these problems.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(Place holder for your signature)
Your name:
Your address:
Your email:
************************************************** ******
Once the appointment is set up, take 3 or 4 copies of the presentation and the brochure neatly clipped in a file. You will find these documents under the
heading called Materials for the meeting in Resources->Meet Your Local Maker.
If possible, take your laptop for the presentation.
Begin by introducing yourself and that you are a member of IV which is a
national non-profit organization that is working towards providing relief to
skilled legal immigrants and that there is no other organization like
immigration voice in the USA.
Talk about the good things that the Congressman has done for the community (Research in advance).
More information can be found under headings During The Meeting and Post Meeting under Meeting your Local Maker->Resources.
If anyone has any questions, please contact IV or you can contact me too at
varshadas@hotmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment