rvanet
06-05 05:10 AM
Soul... That's TERRIBLE!!! golgi... yours is very annoying! :ninja:
funny backgrounds_18. random funny facts.
whatamidoinghere
03-26 10:04 PM
Hi,
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
Andy
H4 can do volunteer work for non-profit organizations only.
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
Andy
H4 can do volunteer work for non-profit organizations only.
funny backgrounds_18. funny flash animations.
admin
03-15 01:22 PM
this person is bringing some valid points to ponder. People please go through her posting and i agree with her regarding the numbers is still 10% only for india. we need to fight for removing the per country limit, or else, we may probably be in this retrogression mess for quite sometime.
eb3retro,
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
eb3retro,
Your concerns are well placed. Please be rest assured that we're working on reinstating the AC21 clause on per country limits.
Due to the sensitive nature of lobbying, we're sorry that we will not be able to divulge any more detailed information.
funny backgrounds_18. funny flash animations.
conundrum
02-01 07:05 AM
Keep all your documents ready and apply for ur wife as soon as your PD becomes current.
more...
funny backgrounds_18. funny walmart pictures. at
Libra
10-23 01:43 PM
My I-140 pending over a year finally got approved. got an RFE a2p and replied on 4th of oct. approval date 22 oct.
good luck guys.
good luck guys.
funny backgrounds_18. funny flash animations.
slowwin
06-11 08:36 AM
Hi,
vis-a-vis immigration, the burden of proof is on us not on the USCIS, reputed attorney like murthy always suggest to keep copies of I-94s at each stage to show proof of maintenance of status.
Try to collate as much info as possible. Since you have such a long history (H1-B etc) at each step of extension or transfer you must have submitted copies of original H1 documents valid at that time and also passport copies too, go back to those attorney/(s) and request copies form their files. As far as I-20's are concerned you need to talk to your school to get copies.
Thanks,
slowwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This not a legal advise. Please consult your attorney.
vis-a-vis immigration, the burden of proof is on us not on the USCIS, reputed attorney like murthy always suggest to keep copies of I-94s at each stage to show proof of maintenance of status.
Try to collate as much info as possible. Since you have such a long history (H1-B etc) at each step of extension or transfer you must have submitted copies of original H1 documents valid at that time and also passport copies too, go back to those attorney/(s) and request copies form their files. As far as I-20's are concerned you need to talk to your school to get copies.
Thanks,
slowwin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This not a legal advise. Please consult your attorney.
more...
funny backgrounds_18. funny cat photos.
hoolahoous
03-18 11:20 PM
if H1b withdrawal is mandated then why do most of the employer's do not do it ?
shouldn't it put them in a legal situation ?
here is what I found on one of the murthy's posts
According to Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, an employer must continue to pay the H1B worker until there is a �bona fide� termination of the employment relationship. It is not clear exactly what constitutes a �bona fide termination,� but one viewpoint is that termination occurs on the day the employer notifies the H1B employee that the position has been terminated and all obligations for payment of wages terminate on the date of employment termination. The other viewpoint is that a termination only occurs when the H1B employer notifies the INS of the termination, the H1B petition is cancelled and the employer complies with the return airfare obligation for the employee. Please note that INS does not expressly spell out the options and therefore this is an unclear area of immigration law. As it can take several months for the INS to act on a revocation request, employers generally do not continue to pay wages until INS takes action. The employer usually notifies the employee of the termination date and discontinues any salary or other payments at that time. Thereafter, they notify INS.
shouldn't it put them in a legal situation ?
here is what I found on one of the murthy's posts
According to Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, an employer must continue to pay the H1B worker until there is a �bona fide� termination of the employment relationship. It is not clear exactly what constitutes a �bona fide termination,� but one viewpoint is that termination occurs on the day the employer notifies the H1B employee that the position has been terminated and all obligations for payment of wages terminate on the date of employment termination. The other viewpoint is that a termination only occurs when the H1B employer notifies the INS of the termination, the H1B petition is cancelled and the employer complies with the return airfare obligation for the employee. Please note that INS does not expressly spell out the options and therefore this is an unclear area of immigration law. As it can take several months for the INS to act on a revocation request, employers generally do not continue to pay wages until INS takes action. The employer usually notifies the employee of the termination date and discontinues any salary or other payments at that time. Thereafter, they notify INS.
funny backgrounds_18. funny cat photos.
ashutrip
07-18 12:48 PM
how long does it take to get Hard Copy of labor Approval from atalanta center?
more...
funny backgrounds_18. funny cat photos.
sunny1000
04-20 03:09 PM
I-94 also does not have the date written
In that case, here is the relevant Q&A in the www.cbp.gov website. Hope it helps:
Q: How do I correct an Arrival-Departure Record reflecting an incorrect admission classification, biographical information or period of admission?
A: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will review and issue the necessary documents to remedy errors recorded on the Arrival-Departure Record at the time of entry to the United States relating to improper non-immigrant classification, inaccurate biographical information or incorrect period of admission, if appropriate.
Any designated deferred inspection location or CBP office located within an international airport should be able to assist you, regardless of where the actual document was issued. In many instances, the location of your final destination where the discrepancy will be resolved may not be the port of your first arrival into the United States. Travelers are encouraged to contact sites not located within an international airport to establish an appointment, if necessary. Mail-in procedures are not available.
Currently, there is not an approved form to request the correction of inaccurate information recorded on the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 at the time of entry into the United States. You will need to bring the questionable CBP Form I-94 or I-95 and documentation to support the claim that the form was not properly annotated. For example, present a passport and visa to justify an incorrect visa classification or an approved petition to support an incorrect admission period. A fee will not be assessed.
The CBP offices within the international airports and deferred inspection locations are only authorized to correct errors that occurred at the time of arrival. Requests to replace the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 that has been lost, stolen or mutilated must be filed with USCIS.
Authorized stays that were limited at the port of first arrival by supervisory authorization as noted on the reverse side of the CBP Form I-94 will not be corrected. Under these circumstances, you will be required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, with USCIS.
In that case, here is the relevant Q&A in the www.cbp.gov website. Hope it helps:
Q: How do I correct an Arrival-Departure Record reflecting an incorrect admission classification, biographical information or period of admission?
A: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will review and issue the necessary documents to remedy errors recorded on the Arrival-Departure Record at the time of entry to the United States relating to improper non-immigrant classification, inaccurate biographical information or incorrect period of admission, if appropriate.
Any designated deferred inspection location or CBP office located within an international airport should be able to assist you, regardless of where the actual document was issued. In many instances, the location of your final destination where the discrepancy will be resolved may not be the port of your first arrival into the United States. Travelers are encouraged to contact sites not located within an international airport to establish an appointment, if necessary. Mail-in procedures are not available.
Currently, there is not an approved form to request the correction of inaccurate information recorded on the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 at the time of entry into the United States. You will need to bring the questionable CBP Form I-94 or I-95 and documentation to support the claim that the form was not properly annotated. For example, present a passport and visa to justify an incorrect visa classification or an approved petition to support an incorrect admission period. A fee will not be assessed.
The CBP offices within the international airports and deferred inspection locations are only authorized to correct errors that occurred at the time of arrival. Requests to replace the CBP Form I-94 or I-95 that has been lost, stolen or mutilated must be filed with USCIS.
Authorized stays that were limited at the port of first arrival by supervisory authorization as noted on the reverse side of the CBP Form I-94 will not be corrected. Under these circumstances, you will be required to file an Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539, with USCIS.
funny backgrounds_18. funny weird pictures. stock
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
funny backgrounds_18. funny stories and jokes.
santb1975
03-24 12:49 PM
I wish I did one of these in So.Cal
funny backgrounds_18. funny stories and jokes.
pmamp
07-12 10:24 AM
One possible issue with this assessment is that CIS Ombudsman released the report on June 11th and ISCIS published 'THE JULY 2007 BULLETIN' on June 12th. That may mean someone in USCIS decided ultra fast as to make all the dates current or they (USCIS top brass) knew about this report draft.
I don't know if this report really caused USCIS to come out with that bulletin. there is something else under the hood which caused this reaction....http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
I don't know if this report really caused USCIS to come out with that bulletin. there is something else under the hood which caused this reaction....http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/smilies/mad.gif
:mad:
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
more...
funny backgrounds_18. funny stories and jokes.
rajesh1972
02-18 02:31 PM
I have a Green card and also my wife has GC .My wife is expected to deliver a baby.Shw wants the delivery to be in India and then come back...in that case what VISA will the new baby have to apply US when my wife returns back to US.
Appreciate your help in this regard.
Appreciate your help in this regard.
funny backgrounds_18. merabal: Good Funny Movies
snathan
06-20 09:45 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
funny backgrounds_18. funny stories for kids.
mdy_tvr
02-04 06:34 PM
yes, since she has a pending 485 she does not have to worry about status, that pending 485 keeps the status around. She can even file for an EAD.
Thanks meridiani.planum for the response.
Thanks meridiani.planum for the response.
funny backgrounds_18. my food looks funny.
kpchal2
03-03 07:42 AM
Hello forum gurus
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
I am planning on moving from Company A to Company B. I have an approved I-140 from Company A which was approved in Sept 2007 and also applied for 485 on July 2nd 2007. It has been almost 1.5 yrs since I applied for 485 and I-140 approval.
Planning to move from Company A to Company B. Company A will not revoke my I-140 that is for sure. I am moving to a good company with 1000+ workforce and in an upcoming industry. It is not a consulting firm. It is a product based company. My wife is currently on EAD and is relying on it to work.
What are the odds that my AC21 may be wrongfully denied. I am having a hard time sleeping while thinking about this. I am on my H1. Can she still use her EAD while we file a petition for Motion to Reopen in the event that the 485 is wrongfully denied or does she have to change to H4 immediatly.
Can some one share your thoughts.
thanks in advance
more...
funny backgrounds_18. funny quotes about women.
krishnam70
11-20 03:48 PM
Hi all,
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
Are you using EAD to work or still using H1? If you are using H1 and it is valid the IO at POE will admit you in the non-immigrant status not as a Parolee. This is based on experience and a question I asked the IO when I tried to enter the US using AP even though I had valid H1 stamp in my passport and a valid 797. He mentioned that as a rule they will admit the candidate in non-immigrant status if the candidate is actually working on a non-immigrant visa. If you were are using your EAD and show documentation then they will admit you using AP.
-good luck
kris
Here is my story. In December 2004 i went to India and i came back on the same month. At the PortOfEntry(POE), the Officer given I-94 based on the my the Visa of my previous company which is valid upto Jan 1, 2006.
But i had already have approved H1B which is valid upto Jan 21, 2007. At that time, i didn't know it is a problem based on LastActionRule. When the time to file for my H1B extension(basically 7th Year) in the month of November 2006, my attorney find that i am technically out of status because of my I-94 is overriden by PortOfEntry eventhough i had H1B Approval with I-94. My Attorney explained about mistake by POE to USCIS when we filed my H1B extension and the USCIS approved my extension for 1 year from Jan22, 2007 to Mar30, 2008 because my Labor is pending. Recently this march my H1B extended to 3 more years based on I-140 approval.
My question is if i will to India for vacation this November is there any problem in the port of entry. I haven't travelled since Dec,2004. I am going to use AdvanceParole(AP) on this vacation. Eventhough my attorney says there is no problem to go to India because we got two H1B approvals after the I-94 problem, but i am not 100% confident because at the POE they may create a problem. Can anybody please tell if u had same or similar problem and successfully travelled in and out of USA.
Are you using EAD to work or still using H1? If you are using H1 and it is valid the IO at POE will admit you in the non-immigrant status not as a Parolee. This is based on experience and a question I asked the IO when I tried to enter the US using AP even though I had valid H1 stamp in my passport and a valid 797. He mentioned that as a rule they will admit the candidate in non-immigrant status if the candidate is actually working on a non-immigrant visa. If you were are using your EAD and show documentation then they will admit you using AP.
-good luck
kris
funny backgrounds_18. funny quotes about change.
kprgroup
08-03 01:45 PM
Did your denial letter has similar wording?..............just curious
funny backgrounds_18. funny quotes about women.
.gif "funny quotes about women.")
GCard_Dream
01-31 01:09 PM
Hmmm.. I wonder if that's really the case. H1B extensions past 6 years is only allowed if the petitioner :
1. has a approved labor and 365 days have passed. OR
2. has a approved I-140
Now if the underlying I-140 is revoked which was the basis for the H1B extension then I would think that H1B itself would be invalid. However, if that's not the case and USCIS doesn't invalidate the H1B then it's really great. The only other remaining issue I can see is how do you further extend your H1B after the current on expires because you won't have a approved 140 to support it. Are you just out of luck?
As per the law, your H1B will still be valid even in if I-140 is revoked. However, the only flip side is one will lose the old priority date.
For sure, this is exactly outlined in the law. I have known some cases who are working successfully and legally on H1Bs even after their I-140s revoked (by the way one of them is in 8th year of H1B)
Im 100% sure about what i said. For better clarification, one can contact murthy.com or rajiv.s.khanna
1. has a approved labor and 365 days have passed. OR
2. has a approved I-140
Now if the underlying I-140 is revoked which was the basis for the H1B extension then I would think that H1B itself would be invalid. However, if that's not the case and USCIS doesn't invalidate the H1B then it's really great. The only other remaining issue I can see is how do you further extend your H1B after the current on expires because you won't have a approved 140 to support it. Are you just out of luck?
As per the law, your H1B will still be valid even in if I-140 is revoked. However, the only flip side is one will lose the old priority date.
For sure, this is exactly outlined in the law. I have known some cases who are working successfully and legally on H1Bs even after their I-140s revoked (by the way one of them is in 8th year of H1B)
Im 100% sure about what i said. For better clarification, one can contact murthy.com or rajiv.s.khanna
AXM
12-12 04:34 PM
My question is if the AP has an expiration date, does the officer's parole stamp supercedes that or not? thanks
AM
AM
ramus
06-14 10:43 AM
Guys,
Don't create new thred for every single question you have.. You can find right thred and put it there..
Yes you can file for 485 even though your H1B extension is pending.
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
Don't create new thred for every single question you have.. You can find right thred and put it there..
Yes you can file for 485 even though your H1B extension is pending.
Hi,
My 8th year H1 extension is pending with CIS, and my current H1 expires on June 26, 07. Can I file my 485 when my H1 status is pending from CIS?
Please advise.:confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment