martinvisalaw
06-04 10:09 AM
You really need to ask that question of a tax or employment law expert. It's not an immigration issue so it's not my area of expertise.
satishku_2000
06-08 01:01 AM
well the status quo isn't that bad, is it? Gradually, retrogression will reduce. Now that there is no labor sub, there will be roughly a FIFO system. Plus, no increase in H1B should help the future --- as far as retorgression is concerned. another big plus is that current H1B system is intact. This bill would have driven thousands out of H1B status.
So I say: CIR, RUST in PEACE.
rimzhim , Totally agree with ya ...
So I say: CIR, RUST in PEACE.
rimzhim , Totally agree with ya ...
paskal
11-09 11:47 AM
to those who replied, i'm sure iv can use all your skills
please make sure your profiles are completed, we cannot proceed without basic contact information on you.
we may eventually ask you for a resume- not that we need all the details but it does help understand background and skills and you will get a much better fit for your volunteer work. this is something we have learnt from past experience...
everyone willing to help is welcome. please do not forget the profile!!!
please make sure your profiles are completed, we cannot proceed without basic contact information on you.
we may eventually ask you for a resume- not that we need all the details but it does help understand background and skills and you will get a much better fit for your volunteer work. this is something we have learnt from past experience...
everyone willing to help is welcome. please do not forget the profile!!!
Milind123
07-27 03:34 PM
Kasi,
I had the same situation and asked my attorney last month. He replied "I-94 # is always the # on the white card which is stapled in your passport", meaning the latest I-94 (white card) given to you at the port of entry. It doesn't matter whether it is expired or not. Hope this answers.
I think the I-94 Numbers should be the same on all I-94's.
I had the same situation and asked my attorney last month. He replied "I-94 # is always the # on the white card which is stapled in your passport", meaning the latest I-94 (white card) given to you at the port of entry. It doesn't matter whether it is expired or not. Hope this answers.
I think the I-94 Numbers should be the same on all I-94's.
more...
Googler
07-20 12:53 AM
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
Aah_GC
06-17 03:52 PM
What my Attorney (Prashanti Reddy - who does free sessions on IV) said
This is exactly right, if your I140 is revoked, you might as well get a NOID. So, make sure you keep all your GC-sponsored employer's releiving letter, paystubs for the post 180 days of I485 application. That is the only proof that you were employed legally with the GC-sponsoring employer for that 180 day period.
On the AC21 - technically even if you are unemployed and yet have a similar / same job waiting for you, you should still end up getting your GC. I would strongly recommend to make the best use of AC21 and progress in your career.
This is exactly right, if your I140 is revoked, you might as well get a NOID. So, make sure you keep all your GC-sponsored employer's releiving letter, paystubs for the post 180 days of I485 application. That is the only proof that you were employed legally with the GC-sponsoring employer for that 180 day period.
On the AC21 - technically even if you are unemployed and yet have a similar / same job waiting for you, you should still end up getting your GC. I would strongly recommend to make the best use of AC21 and progress in your career.
more...
raysaikat
03-17 03:53 PM
Need help- EB1 EA 140/485 petitions denied - how to maintain legal status
I am a research faculty in a top 25 university and my H1-B expires in Dec 2010. My concurrent self petitions of the EB1-EA of 140 and 485 were denied by TSC. I am waiting for the denial letter. My spouse is a permanent resident . What are my legal options to stay in the country?
Here is my petition break down
1-140 filed-May 2009
!-485 filed June 2009
EAD/AP Oct/Nov 2009
RFE on 140 -Feb 9 2010
Responded to RFE - Mar 11 2010
Denial posted on Mar 15.
Would filing the I-130 affect the refiling of I-140?
Appreciate inputs provided
See my reply above. To add to it, if your position is really a "faculty" position, then University will take care of your GC petition. However, if it is really a glorified title for a postdoc position, then they likely will not. In that case, you need to look for a new job.
I am a research faculty in a top 25 university and my H1-B expires in Dec 2010. My concurrent self petitions of the EB1-EA of 140 and 485 were denied by TSC. I am waiting for the denial letter. My spouse is a permanent resident . What are my legal options to stay in the country?
Here is my petition break down
1-140 filed-May 2009
!-485 filed June 2009
EAD/AP Oct/Nov 2009
RFE on 140 -Feb 9 2010
Responded to RFE - Mar 11 2010
Denial posted on Mar 15.
Would filing the I-130 affect the refiling of I-140?
Appreciate inputs provided
See my reply above. To add to it, if your position is really a "faculty" position, then University will take care of your GC petition. However, if it is really a glorified title for a postdoc position, then they likely will not. In that case, you need to look for a new job.
Templarian
08-26 10:43 AM
That one looks perfect gundark.
more...
LegallyGC
08-11 04:13 PM
Ghost
Nice to see that u did start a new thread for this..
I think we all should get together now and make sure 2011 will be a great year for all the immigrant community.
Nice to see that u did start a new thread for this..
I think we all should get together now and make sure 2011 will be a great year for all the immigrant community.
justsomeguy
08-21 10:41 PM
you said you waited 5 years... i says what's another 3-5 months :)
hang in there...3-5 months will fly by... heck 2008 is almost over!
... at least wait until the october bulletin is out... that may give you a better idea whether you want to use ac 21 or not
what ever you end up doing - good luck!
hang in there...3-5 months will fly by... heck 2008 is almost over!
... at least wait until the october bulletin is out... that may give you a better idea whether you want to use ac 21 or not
what ever you end up doing - good luck!
more...
BharatPremi
07-27 12:40 PM
Hi,
My I-94 which was issued 2 years ago in the port of entry got expired(this I-94 was based on my previous employer "ABC". I have applied for H1 extention and got my 797 extended with new I-94 recently with my new employer "XYZ".
My question is which I-94 details should I use while filing my 485. Obviously my labor was filed by "XYZ" company.
Regards
Kasi
tkasi,
I-94 is not associated with particular employer. Your I-94 only get changed when you travel out and come back again. Even with extesnion application , no matter through which employer, your I-94 number does not get changed if you have not travelled out of USA during the period. In any way you should mention your latest I-94 number what you have and provide teh copy along with 485 application.
Note: Please seek legal advise from authorized lawyer foryour immigration
need. This is just merely my opinion.
- BharatPremi
My I-94 which was issued 2 years ago in the port of entry got expired(this I-94 was based on my previous employer "ABC". I have applied for H1 extention and got my 797 extended with new I-94 recently with my new employer "XYZ".
My question is which I-94 details should I use while filing my 485. Obviously my labor was filed by "XYZ" company.
Regards
Kasi
tkasi,
I-94 is not associated with particular employer. Your I-94 only get changed when you travel out and come back again. Even with extesnion application , no matter through which employer, your I-94 number does not get changed if you have not travelled out of USA during the period. In any way you should mention your latest I-94 number what you have and provide teh copy along with 485 application.
Note: Please seek legal advise from authorized lawyer foryour immigration
need. This is just merely my opinion.
- BharatPremi
.jpg "quotes about english")
H1B-GC
08-14 04:51 PM
A Call from DOL to your Employer is enough to start coughing all the Money he owes you. Make sure you have all the paper Trail as Evidence -Emails,Fax and etc..
more...
Ram_C
11-19 07:59 PM
Today there was LUD on my 140 application which was approved 1 year back. What does this mean? I received my EAD and AP is approved.
Sorry to ask this question on this thread, but i think i don't have ability to create new thread?
Can some one help please?
My PD is Feb 2006 and I am EB3 India
This is common, many of us including me received soft LUD on already approved
I-140 applications. check my post#2 on this same thread.
hope this helps
good luck :)
Sorry to ask this question on this thread, but i think i don't have ability to create new thread?
Can some one help please?
My PD is Feb 2006 and I am EB3 India
This is common, many of us including me received soft LUD on already approved
I-140 applications. check my post#2 on this same thread.
hope this helps
good luck :)
intheyan
06-17 06:37 PM
After I-485 pending for more than 180 days and with approved I-140 I changed the job. But the job is exactly similar the pay is almost 35% greater than that is in Labour. Will that create problems? I have not send AC21 filled to USCIS since my lawyer and friends suggested it not maditory but we can argue on getting the RFE showing papers that the new job has same job duties.
Thanks for your replys in advance
Thanks for your replys in advance
more...
simple1
05-12 12:41 PM
Thanks a lot for the thoughts. The same logic will nullify the ebdependent to qualify for ebquota. How come a 5 year old dependent becomes eligible for ebquota (sec 203 clearly lists the quota size and qualifications).
Take an example:
H1 primary gets H1 visa, H1 derivative gets H4 visa( and is not counted in H1 quota). Same with L1 (dependent gets L2) the quota doesnt apply in L1.
If you don't agree with me then ask any attorney and post the response here. Hopefully that will make you see the reasoning.
Yes, I don’t agree with you on the interpretation linking ebdependents with ebquota.
Please note: My primary argument here is "ebdependents out of ebquota". I really don’t care where ebdependents belong as long as they are not counted in ebquota.
I am already in "Ask an Attorney" forum and want to hear attorney’s thoughts.
Please comment only in the member and donor threads and Let us keep this for Attorney only.
Take an example:
H1 primary gets H1 visa, H1 derivative gets H4 visa( and is not counted in H1 quota). Same with L1 (dependent gets L2) the quota doesnt apply in L1.
If you don't agree with me then ask any attorney and post the response here. Hopefully that will make you see the reasoning.
Yes, I don’t agree with you on the interpretation linking ebdependents with ebquota.
Please note: My primary argument here is "ebdependents out of ebquota". I really don’t care where ebdependents belong as long as they are not counted in ebquota.
I am already in "Ask an Attorney" forum and want to hear attorney’s thoughts.
Please comment only in the member and donor threads and Let us keep this for Attorney only.
ssnd03
08-03 04:17 PM
This is the latest on my LIN number ...
Response to request for evidence received, and case processing has resumed.
What does it mean ... Any Ideas folks ...
RFE accepted... so chill and relax and have a good weekend
Response to request for evidence received, and case processing has resumed.
What does it mean ... Any Ideas folks ...
RFE accepted... so chill and relax and have a good weekend
more...
judemit
03-20 03:08 PM
Did you contact the SSN department in person or called them.? Its better to go in person and get hold of the supervisor.
My brother had the same issue, but after 2 weeks of waiting, he used to go to the local SSN opffice everyday and somehow was able to get hold of the supervisor. The Supervisor called him once they got the info in their system and also gave him the number. The actual card came after few days in mail. I would suggest you to contact the local SSA office Super/Admin and escalate your case saying you badly need the number to start working.
My brother had the same issue, but after 2 weeks of waiting, he used to go to the local SSN opffice everyday and somehow was able to get hold of the supervisor. The Supervisor called him once they got the info in their system and also gave him the number. The actual card came after few days in mail. I would suggest you to contact the local SSA office Super/Admin and escalate your case saying you badly need the number to start working.
kishdam
03-24 02:35 PM
Thanks for the news vinabath. You know what?
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
:):) good one.
For non-cricketing readers, Indian cricket team's last world cup win was in 1983 when they beat WestIndies in a thrilling final.
Indian cricket team won the world cup last night. They beat West Indies.
Congratulate Kapil, Srikanth, Ravi shastri, Gavaskar, Mohindar Amarnath and other team members.
:):) good one.
For non-cricketing readers, Indian cricket team's last world cup win was in 1983 when they beat WestIndies in a thrilling final.
help43
09-10 09:02 PM
I Have H1-B Approval but I dont have I94 with it.
Actually my H1-B valid from October 1st.
I went to my friends consultancy, those people said like you can work for any employer in OPT Status. So they want to run my paystubs up to september 1st 2008.Once I got the H1-B they want to run my paystubs from another company(througth Which i applied My h1-b).
Now I got the h1-b approval but i didnt get the new i-94 with it. And my previous employer ready to run paystubs with new h1-b company.
My OPT expiration date is on dec 29 2008.I am planning to go to consulate in the month of November 2008.
Please help me out what do i need to
1) Which Country i need to go?(Canada, INDIA or Mexico)
2) What documents i need to take?
Actually my H1-B valid from October 1st.
I went to my friends consultancy, those people said like you can work for any employer in OPT Status. So they want to run my paystubs up to september 1st 2008.Once I got the H1-B they want to run my paystubs from another company(througth Which i applied My h1-b).
Now I got the h1-b approval but i didnt get the new i-94 with it. And my previous employer ready to run paystubs with new h1-b company.
My OPT expiration date is on dec 29 2008.I am planning to go to consulate in the month of November 2008.
Please help me out what do i need to
1) Which Country i need to go?(Canada, INDIA or Mexico)
2) What documents i need to take?
gsvisu
07-12 02:39 PM
Some famous Indian Americans that I googled on. Will it be a good idea to approach / send them notes ?
Politics
------
Kumar P. Barve, State legislator and Majority Leader of the Maryland House of Delegates
Satveer Chaudhary, state Senator in Minnesota.
Toby Chaudhuri, Democratic communications strategist.
Swati Dandekar, an Iowa State Representative
Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative commentator and author
Kris Kolluri, New Jersey Commissioner of Transportation.
Upendra Chivukula, state legislator (New Jersey General Assembly); first Indian-American elected to the NJ legislature.
Kamala Harris, District Attorney of San Francisco; first Indian-American elected as a D.A. in the United States. Her sister, Maya Harris, was made the Executive Director of the ACLU of Northern California in October 2006.
Bobby Jindal, U.S. Congressman from Louisiana; former gubernatorial candidate; Republican.
Raj Mukherji, New Jersey lobbyist and businessman.
Vij Pawar, New Jersey attorney and former congressional candidate.
Ramesh Ponnuru, contributing editor at the National Review, political commentator
Dalip Singh Saund, the first Indian-American congressman, was a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California
S. R. Sidarth, Democratic campaign volunteer who sparked the George Allen "Macaca" incident.
Shashi Tharoor, Undersecretary General for Communications and Public Information for the United Nations. Candidate for UN general secretary post
Sanjay Puri, Chairman of USINPAC & USIBA
Nikki Haley, South Carolina legislator
Rachel Paulose first woman to become a U.S. Attorney in Minnesota, US Attorney for the District of Minnesota
Sameer Kanal, Democratic National Convention 2004 delegate for Howard Dean from Washington.
Dr. Joy Cherian Appointed by President Reagan to be first Asian and Indian American to head the Equal Employemnt Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1987
Politics
------
Kumar P. Barve, State legislator and Majority Leader of the Maryland House of Delegates
Satveer Chaudhary, state Senator in Minnesota.
Toby Chaudhuri, Democratic communications strategist.
Swati Dandekar, an Iowa State Representative
Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative commentator and author
Kris Kolluri, New Jersey Commissioner of Transportation.
Upendra Chivukula, state legislator (New Jersey General Assembly); first Indian-American elected to the NJ legislature.
Kamala Harris, District Attorney of San Francisco; first Indian-American elected as a D.A. in the United States. Her sister, Maya Harris, was made the Executive Director of the ACLU of Northern California in October 2006.
Bobby Jindal, U.S. Congressman from Louisiana; former gubernatorial candidate; Republican.
Raj Mukherji, New Jersey lobbyist and businessman.
Vij Pawar, New Jersey attorney and former congressional candidate.
Ramesh Ponnuru, contributing editor at the National Review, political commentator
Dalip Singh Saund, the first Indian-American congressman, was a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California
S. R. Sidarth, Democratic campaign volunteer who sparked the George Allen "Macaca" incident.
Shashi Tharoor, Undersecretary General for Communications and Public Information for the United Nations. Candidate for UN general secretary post
Sanjay Puri, Chairman of USINPAC & USIBA
Nikki Haley, South Carolina legislator
Rachel Paulose first woman to become a U.S. Attorney in Minnesota, US Attorney for the District of Minnesota
Sameer Kanal, Democratic National Convention 2004 delegate for Howard Dean from Washington.
Dr. Joy Cherian Appointed by President Reagan to be first Asian and Indian American to head the Equal Employemnt Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1987
manand24
10-15 02:13 PM
Well put logiclife....
LuDs are trivial. Sometimes there are LuDs on cases for no apparent reason.
I have had LuDs on my approved 140 even when there was nothing to begin with. Nothing pending since 140, no 485, no H1 extension. Even then there was LuD on 140.
No one really knows what LUD really indicates. Because there is really no pattern in LUDs on cases. NONE.
Rather than asking other blind men to lead you, why dont you take it upon yourself and find out for once and for all.
Let's say LUDs, or lack thereof are bothering you so much that you are losing sleep over it. You are trying to connect dots over LUD, fingerprinting and EAD etc. If you really want something so badly, why dont you stand up and fight for it and ask for it. I am not asking you to help IV or contribute funds or join state chapters. If you dont want to join state chapters, then dont. But atleast, for your own good, if something bothers you so much, then do something for yourself. Get an appt with ASC and find out what LUD means. Fly to Washington DC, go to directors of operations at USCIS headquarters and ask them what LUD means and why isnt there more transparency in online status. Why do we have to connect dots with LUDS and whey cant there by step-by-step update of each petition. GO AND FIGHT FOR YOURSELF.
Sitting here and asking other people, who dont know anything more than you do, is the same thing as one blind man asking another blind man to cross the street because the blind man is too lazy and to shy to ask someone with eyesight for a favor.
Again, I am not doing this to goad you into state chapter or funds. Or joining IV. Dont want to do what IV asks, then dont. But atleast do something FOR YOURSELF. Drive to DC, sit in USCIS HQ and ask them for something better than LUDs.
LuDs are trivial. Sometimes there are LuDs on cases for no apparent reason.
I have had LuDs on my approved 140 even when there was nothing to begin with. Nothing pending since 140, no 485, no H1 extension. Even then there was LuD on 140.
No one really knows what LUD really indicates. Because there is really no pattern in LUDs on cases. NONE.
Rather than asking other blind men to lead you, why dont you take it upon yourself and find out for once and for all.
Let's say LUDs, or lack thereof are bothering you so much that you are losing sleep over it. You are trying to connect dots over LUD, fingerprinting and EAD etc. If you really want something so badly, why dont you stand up and fight for it and ask for it. I am not asking you to help IV or contribute funds or join state chapters. If you dont want to join state chapters, then dont. But atleast, for your own good, if something bothers you so much, then do something for yourself. Get an appt with ASC and find out what LUD means. Fly to Washington DC, go to directors of operations at USCIS headquarters and ask them what LUD means and why isnt there more transparency in online status. Why do we have to connect dots with LUDS and whey cant there by step-by-step update of each petition. GO AND FIGHT FOR YOURSELF.
Sitting here and asking other people, who dont know anything more than you do, is the same thing as one blind man asking another blind man to cross the street because the blind man is too lazy and to shy to ask someone with eyesight for a favor.
Again, I am not doing this to goad you into state chapter or funds. Or joining IV. Dont want to do what IV asks, then dont. But atleast do something FOR YOURSELF. Drive to DC, sit in USCIS HQ and ask them for something better than LUDs.
No comments:
Post a Comment