boreal
12-02 01:38 AM
We got an RFE on my wife's I-485 requesting for copy of marriage certificate. Our priority date is August 2005 (EB2). ND is September 05, 2007.
Anyone else in the same boat? Does this mean USCIS has began processing the 2005 apps?
I think they are going by the RD. Not on PD. Mine is Aug 10 ND and July 2 RD (with Jan 06 PD) and we got an RFE couple of months back...so i guess now they are processing Sep ND/RD...
Anyone else in the same boat? Does this mean USCIS has began processing the 2005 apps?
I think they are going by the RD. Not on PD. Mine is Aug 10 ND and July 2 RD (with Jan 06 PD) and we got an RFE couple of months back...so i guess now they are processing Sep ND/RD...
wallpaper flower tattoos on ack design
techbuyer77
06-12 05:55 PM
Hi all,
I recently changed my company and joined one of the big 5.I already have my labor and I-140 approved from the previous employer.My eb3 date has become current.My previous empolyer is willing to continue my I-485 from his company. If I go ahead and file from his company, will I be able to use AC21 after 180 days? eventhough I don't work for him at the time of filing my I-485.
I'll really appreciate any thoughts n comments on ma situation
yes
I recently changed my company and joined one of the big 5.I already have my labor and I-140 approved from the previous employer.My eb3 date has become current.My previous empolyer is willing to continue my I-485 from his company. If I go ahead and file from his company, will I be able to use AC21 after 180 days? eventhough I don't work for him at the time of filing my I-485.
I'll really appreciate any thoughts n comments on ma situation
yes
linuxra
09-28 07:54 PM
Before i present my RFE I will explaing My GC:
I did masters and worked on OPT for sometime with Company A and they applied H1B,
still working for Company A as H1B as Senoir Programmer ANalyst.
At one point CompanyB filed GC process and I-140 approved as a IT Manager in EB2
PD=jan 2006
Still working with H1B from COmpany A
I never worked for Company B and it no longer exists...
Company A recently merged with ANother Company X
I recently got an RFE How do i respond PLease help me:
Below are the details
Please submit a properly completcd Form G-325A, Biographic Information Sheet, for yourself. Your original
signature is required on the Form G-325A. Photocopied signatures are not acceptable. Blank immigration forms
and information are available online from the official Service website: USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov). You may also ordcr
immigration forms by phone at 1-800-870-3676.
Submit documentary evidencc to establish your employmcnt history listcd on Form G-325A. Such evidence
should include, but is not limited to:
Clear copies ofIRS Form W -2 wage and tax statcmcnts;
Pay vouchers;
Complete copies of properly filcd Federal Individual Income Tax Returns (IRS Form 1040);
Any additional documentation which confirms your employment history.
You must submit a currcntly dated letter from your intended permanent employer dcseribing your present job
duties and position in the organization, your proffered position, if different from your current position, the date
you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an
executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent
employment. The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa
petition or labor certification continue to exist.
If you have changed employers since filing your application for adjustment of status, please submit a statement
which lists the names and locations of all employers you have had in the US and the beginning and end dates of
each position unless these have been included on Form G-325A.
Nebraska
I did masters and worked on OPT for sometime with Company A and they applied H1B,
still working for Company A as H1B as Senoir Programmer ANalyst.
At one point CompanyB filed GC process and I-140 approved as a IT Manager in EB2
PD=jan 2006
Still working with H1B from COmpany A
I never worked for Company B and it no longer exists...
Company A recently merged with ANother Company X
I recently got an RFE How do i respond PLease help me:
Below are the details
Please submit a properly completcd Form G-325A, Biographic Information Sheet, for yourself. Your original
signature is required on the Form G-325A. Photocopied signatures are not acceptable. Blank immigration forms
and information are available online from the official Service website: USCIS Home Page (http://www.uscis.gov). You may also ordcr
immigration forms by phone at 1-800-870-3676.
Submit documentary evidencc to establish your employmcnt history listcd on Form G-325A. Such evidence
should include, but is not limited to:
Clear copies ofIRS Form W -2 wage and tax statcmcnts;
Pay vouchers;
Complete copies of properly filcd Federal Individual Income Tax Returns (IRS Form 1040);
Any additional documentation which confirms your employment history.
You must submit a currcntly dated letter from your intended permanent employer dcseribing your present job
duties and position in the organization, your proffered position, if different from your current position, the date
you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an
executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent
employment. The letter must also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa
petition or labor certification continue to exist.
If you have changed employers since filing your application for adjustment of status, please submit a statement
which lists the names and locations of all employers you have had in the US and the beginning and end dates of
each position unless these have been included on Form G-325A.
Nebraska
2011 Vine Tattoo Side Design
ita
09-16 01:27 PM
Hi palemguy,
Could you please post or mail the # that you called to find out about your NC? Is it TSC/NSC?
Thank you.
Just got off the phone with customer service rep. I called them to know the status of my service request that was created 45 days ago. After some wait, one lady picked up my call. I asked her to check the status of my service request. She tried for 10 mins to pull up that info but she couldn't pull up because of some technical issues. She escalated my call to another level.
One rep picked up my call.He seems to be nice and answered my questions. He said my case is under review as of 8/21/2008. When I asked him to see whether my name check is cleared or not, he said it is still pending as of now. FBI name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007 and it should expire on Nov 30, 2008. Before that they should get a response for name check.
We gave our finger prints on Nov 2, 2007. How come name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007? I am not sure whether i can believe his words?
I have a soft LUD on 8/21/2008. According to CSR words, i can assume that case was assigned to an officer. But i am not sure about the name check process.
Is any one got the similar response?
Please share your thoughts on this
Thanks,
palemguy
Could you please post or mail the # that you called to find out about your NC? Is it TSC/NSC?
Thank you.
Just got off the phone with customer service rep. I called them to know the status of my service request that was created 45 days ago. After some wait, one lady picked up my call. I asked her to check the status of my service request. She tried for 10 mins to pull up that info but she couldn't pull up because of some technical issues. She escalated my call to another level.
One rep picked up my call.He seems to be nice and answered my questions. He said my case is under review as of 8/21/2008. When I asked him to see whether my name check is cleared or not, he said it is still pending as of now. FBI name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007 and it should expire on Nov 30, 2008. Before that they should get a response for name check.
We gave our finger prints on Nov 2, 2007. How come name check was initiated on Sep 18, 2007? I am not sure whether i can believe his words?
I have a soft LUD on 8/21/2008. According to CSR words, i can assume that case was assigned to an officer. But i am not sure about the name check process.
Is any one got the similar response?
Please share your thoughts on this
Thanks,
palemguy
more...
Green Card Aspirant
03-24 07:23 PM
I too fall in the same boat. I see one of them responding for this post that we can apply for premium processing. If we apply for premium processing before 6 months , does it raise any questions at USCIS ... why this guy is applying for premium processing ?? Are we eligible to apply H1 B Extension with premium processing before 6 months of H1 B Expiry ??
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
perm2gc
10-20 12:11 PM
I would appreciate, if any of you can answer this question either through their personal experience or their knowledge.
I recently got my H1b visa renewed(& transferred) for 3 years based on a previous I-140 approved from my earlier job. I would like to get my H1b visa stamping done either at Mexico or Canada based on the current validity(for 3 years) of my H1b approval. If after stamping, I change companies will I need to get a new stamping to reflect the new company on my passport? If I don't need to get a new stamping, then if I travel to my home country and then return to US, will it cause a problem at the border post if my H1b approval paper shows a different company than that on the passport? Your advice in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
you dont have to re stamp visa if you have valid visa stamp in the passport..no matter how many companies you transfer during the period of time in visa stamp..
I recently got my H1b visa renewed(& transferred) for 3 years based on a previous I-140 approved from my earlier job. I would like to get my H1b visa stamping done either at Mexico or Canada based on the current validity(for 3 years) of my H1b approval. If after stamping, I change companies will I need to get a new stamping to reflect the new company on my passport? If I don't need to get a new stamping, then if I travel to my home country and then return to US, will it cause a problem at the border post if my H1b approval paper shows a different company than that on the passport? Your advice in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
you dont have to re stamp visa if you have valid visa stamp in the passport..no matter how many companies you transfer during the period of time in visa stamp..
more...
prolegalimmi
03-06 03:18 PM
This proves that the faxes sent via the webfax features are actually reaching the senators. I received a reply from Senator Specter's office too.
As far as the content of the replies goes, this proves again that to a lot of lawmakers, immigration = ILLEGAL immigration. It is upto us to educate them of our plight too.
Wam4Wam, can you call up your senator's office and speak to the immigration liaision? Explain to him that when you sent the fax to them, you had asked for considering pro immigrant legislation for legal immigrants.
You can ask the liaision for a meeting too. We have all the necessary resources you need for such a meeting on our resources website. The CA team has been successfully using these resources. And please update this thread too so that others may learn from you
Sometimes the senators, reps, have a prewritten document that they send out to anyone asking them about immigration reforms, that addresses the immigration issues. Notice how the reply faxes do not specifically address the issues we have raised, this is why.
But replies from some senators and reps are genuine and they do talk about the issues we raise.
As far as the content of the replies goes, this proves again that to a lot of lawmakers, immigration = ILLEGAL immigration. It is upto us to educate them of our plight too.
Wam4Wam, can you call up your senator's office and speak to the immigration liaision? Explain to him that when you sent the fax to them, you had asked for considering pro immigrant legislation for legal immigrants.
You can ask the liaision for a meeting too. We have all the necessary resources you need for such a meeting on our resources website. The CA team has been successfully using these resources. And please update this thread too so that others may learn from you
Sometimes the senators, reps, have a prewritten document that they send out to anyone asking them about immigration reforms, that addresses the immigration issues. Notice how the reply faxes do not specifically address the issues we have raised, this is why.
But replies from some senators and reps are genuine and they do talk about the issues we raise.
2010 Flower Tattoo Design Hand
tomCT
03-28 08:53 AM
I think this would be an easy and effective ammendment request. The USCIS considers BS + 5years equivalent to Masters(advanced degree).
As per Spectors/Frists bills, the Advanced Degree holders with 3 years exp in related field will have no numerical limts. First of all, can we interpret advanced degree as (BS + 5 years) ?
If not, is it possible to request these senotors to add that? It would be easy to add compared to requesting them of removing the country quota.
I belive most of the EB3 candidates have 5 years of experience. tHE REST OF THEM MAY BE ATLEAST 3 + YEARS EXPERIENCE WHICH THEY MAY THEN NEED TO WAIT ONLY 2 OR 3 YEARS TO REACH THAT 5 YR MARK).
The advanced degree is already interpreted by DOL as BS + 5 years.
Its interpreted by USCIS as BS + 2 years.
I request the IV to clarify this and request Spector/Frists to add this. There may be some reason for them removing that section 5. But adding a BS + 5yr interpretation to advanced degree wouldn't be an issue for them.
As per Spectors/Frists bills, the Advanced Degree holders with 3 years exp in related field will have no numerical limts. First of all, can we interpret advanced degree as (BS + 5 years) ?
If not, is it possible to request these senotors to add that? It would be easy to add compared to requesting them of removing the country quota.
I belive most of the EB3 candidates have 5 years of experience. tHE REST OF THEM MAY BE ATLEAST 3 + YEARS EXPERIENCE WHICH THEY MAY THEN NEED TO WAIT ONLY 2 OR 3 YEARS TO REACH THAT 5 YR MARK).
The advanced degree is already interpreted by DOL as BS + 5 years.
Its interpreted by USCIS as BS + 2 years.
I request the IV to clarify this and request Spector/Frists to add this. There may be some reason for them removing that section 5. But adding a BS + 5yr interpretation to advanced degree wouldn't be an issue for them.
more...
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
hair flower tattoos on side of hand
sk.aggarwal
08-15 11:10 AM
If this allows people to get EAD soon after getting approval for I140 I guess it should be good. Once a person gets EAD after 180 days he will be eligible to change employer. Also spouse will be able to work all the time we are waiting 5-7 years for PD to become current. Looks good to me.
I feel scenario that dates become accidentally current is quite rare. Am I missing something?
I feel scenario that dates become accidentally current is quite rare. Am I missing something?
more...
sin94
11-11 01:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
140 filed February 2007 via Nebraska service center (EB2 category)
Applied and received 485 receipt number in October 2007, went for finger printing in November, EAD cards arrived.
employer changed office space locations in March 2008 no update was provided to USCIS as we just shifted certain operations to a bigger space and older address still valid for receiving letters
May 2008 140 case transferred from Nebraska to Texas service center
September 2008 dreaded email from USCIS automated systems "RFE request for initial evidence case placed on hold"
waited 10 days no response Lawyers called 1st time to USCIS help line received response that about duplicate notice sent. re-verified addresses for both lawyers and employers
15th day from RFE notice employer called USCIS (applicate cannot speak as 140 cases pertain to employer)updated address for employer provided
20th day from RFE notice Lawyers called again help line same response indicating another notice sent. Lawyers also send letter out to Nebraska service center indicating not receiving of RFE letter
28th day from RFE notice employer calls again (this time 800 number found on immigration portal website belived to be the 800 number for Texas service center) same response. USCIS officials issue a tracking case # and indicate that employer would either receive email within 5 working days or notice within 2 weeks.
30th day from RFE notice Lawyer call USCIS again about not receiving the RFE documents. New letter drafted and sent to the Texas service center.
Lawyers ask for assistance from ALA (American Lawyers Associations) for determination of status of RFE
Today we stand at the 43rd from the date of email from USCIS about RFE and no letter has yet being received by either employer or Lawyers
what am I supposed to do? what are my options?
Please help if anyone has had a similar situation with delays of RFE notice and how they responded. If you request to reply privately please send me a Private message with contact detail and best time to call or contact
Sin
140 filed February 2007 via Nebraska service center (EB2 category)
Applied and received 485 receipt number in October 2007, went for finger printing in November, EAD cards arrived.
employer changed office space locations in March 2008 no update was provided to USCIS as we just shifted certain operations to a bigger space and older address still valid for receiving letters
May 2008 140 case transferred from Nebraska to Texas service center
September 2008 dreaded email from USCIS automated systems "RFE request for initial evidence case placed on hold"
waited 10 days no response Lawyers called 1st time to USCIS help line received response that about duplicate notice sent. re-verified addresses for both lawyers and employers
15th day from RFE notice employer called USCIS (applicate cannot speak as 140 cases pertain to employer)updated address for employer provided
20th day from RFE notice Lawyers called again help line same response indicating another notice sent. Lawyers also send letter out to Nebraska service center indicating not receiving of RFE letter
28th day from RFE notice employer calls again (this time 800 number found on immigration portal website belived to be the 800 number for Texas service center) same response. USCIS officials issue a tracking case # and indicate that employer would either receive email within 5 working days or notice within 2 weeks.
30th day from RFE notice Lawyer call USCIS again about not receiving the RFE documents. New letter drafted and sent to the Texas service center.
Lawyers ask for assistance from ALA (American Lawyers Associations) for determination of status of RFE
Today we stand at the 43rd from the date of email from USCIS about RFE and no letter has yet being received by either employer or Lawyers
what am I supposed to do? what are my options?
Please help if anyone has had a similar situation with delays of RFE notice and how they responded. If you request to reply privately please send me a Private message with contact detail and best time to call or contact
Sin
hot side tattoos pretty flower
fide_champ
04-11 10:05 PM
Hi,
I am currently in the 6th year of my H1B. My visa is going to expire in at the end of December. Is it too late for me to start applying for the green card? If it is not too late, what is my status going to be after December if I do apply for the green card now? Also, I have heard that I have to apply a year before my visa expires, is it too late now? Please help! Your response is greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Keith
it's not too late. ask your lawyer to get labour thru perm. it'll take about 2 months and then you can do I140 in premium which takes 15 days. you can then get a 3 yr extension.
I am currently in the 6th year of my H1B. My visa is going to expire in at the end of December. Is it too late for me to start applying for the green card? If it is not too late, what is my status going to be after December if I do apply for the green card now? Also, I have heard that I have to apply a year before my visa expires, is it too late now? Please help! Your response is greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Keith
it's not too late. ask your lawyer to get labour thru perm. it'll take about 2 months and then you can do I140 in premium which takes 15 days. you can then get a 3 yr extension.
more...
house Side Of Hand Tattoos.
andy garcia
06-15 10:08 AM
The USCIS PDF for I-693 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-693.pdf) says "OMB No. 1615-0033; Expires 06/30/07" at the top of the form. At the bottom it says "Form I-693 (Rev. 09/16/05) Y". Will we be able to submit this form if we get the medical exam done now and file it with the I-485 on July 1 or later?
I found another version of the PDF which says "OMB No. 1615-0064; Expires 05/31/08" at the top and "Form I-693 (Rev. 09/16/05) N" at the bottom. I've only found this at these sites:
http://immigrationadvice.net/I-693.pdf
http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web895.pdf
But I'm not sure which one should be used because of the upcoming expiry date on the one from uscis.gov, versus the one with the later expiry date on these other sites. Does this expiry date matter?
I'm going to my medical exam in 1 1/2 hours -- if anyone can post a response before then, that'd be much appreciated!
I don't know if the doctor will use my copy or provide a copy. Is it a problem if the doctor provides and uses the older form?
Medical Examination I-693 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=eb1f3591ec04d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
On this link it says the following:
Edition Date :
9/16/05. Previous editions accepted
I found another version of the PDF which says "OMB No. 1615-0064; Expires 05/31/08" at the top and "Form I-693 (Rev. 09/16/05) N" at the bottom. I've only found this at these sites:
http://immigrationadvice.net/I-693.pdf
http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web895.pdf
But I'm not sure which one should be used because of the upcoming expiry date on the one from uscis.gov, versus the one with the later expiry date on these other sites. Does this expiry date matter?
I'm going to my medical exam in 1 1/2 hours -- if anyone can post a response before then, that'd be much appreciated!
I don't know if the doctor will use my copy or provide a copy. Is it a problem if the doctor provides and uses the older form?
Medical Examination I-693 (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=eb1f3591ec04d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
On this link it says the following:
Edition Date :
9/16/05. Previous editions accepted
tattoo Flower Tattoos On Side Of Hand
summerof98
10-24 01:38 PM
Under what circumstances can a Service Request be made?
more...
pictures Flower Mehndi Designs
desi3933
02-23 03:20 PM
.....
QUESTION 1: Can my wife extend her H1-B (beyond 6th year) based on her pending I-485?
........
No.
Question: When I am at the port of entry, I will have my old H1-B valid for 2 more months and also the visa stamp valid for 2 more months, but a new H1-B I-797 is already approved. Will this cause a problem?
Refer to my previous post on this thread.
_________________
Not a legal advice
QUESTION 1: Can my wife extend her H1-B (beyond 6th year) based on her pending I-485?
........
No.
Question: When I am at the port of entry, I will have my old H1-B valid for 2 more months and also the visa stamp valid for 2 more months, but a new H1-B I-797 is already approved. Will this cause a problem?
Refer to my previous post on this thread.
_________________
Not a legal advice
dresses flower tattoos on side of hand. hold holding cigarette tobacco roll up hand ink profile
dollargc
09-20 09:10 PM
My 140 was received at TSC on 23 APR 2007. I also have an lud 08/05 which is a sunday.
does anybody see a pattern.
I140 filed Apr 19 2007
I140 Approved Apr 23rd 2007
I485 filed ..on July 24th 2007 to TEXAS
LUD on I140 08/05/2007
does anybody see a pattern.
I140 filed Apr 19 2007
I140 Approved Apr 23rd 2007
I485 filed ..on July 24th 2007 to TEXAS
LUD on I140 08/05/2007
more...
makeup the left hand side reading
northstar
05-10 08:07 PM
I just applied for my little one yesterday.
fingers crossed!
Can't believe getting usa passport for my little one required two page application and just the birthcert, But for PIO they need everything in the world!
Yeah, because you applied for US passport for a US citizen :D, whereas PIO was permanent entry card for a foreign national. Naturally more documentation is required where foreign nationals are involved, look at your own green card process :D
fingers crossed!
Can't believe getting usa passport for my little one required two page application and just the birthcert, But for PIO they need everything in the world!
Yeah, because you applied for US passport for a US citizen :D, whereas PIO was permanent entry card for a foreign national. Naturally more documentation is required where foreign nationals are involved, look at your own green card process :D
girlfriend Side Of Hand Tattoos For Women
Michael chertoff
08-04 02:56 PM
Please post here to boost moral of all others if
you have received Welcome Email for GC approval :D in August 2009 (this month).
This will help our community and keeps our hopes live.
Thanks
MC
you have received Welcome Email for GC approval :D in August 2009 (this month).
This will help our community and keeps our hopes live.
Thanks
MC
hairstyles flower stomach tattoos. Women
gc_chahiye
10-26 04:08 PM
Can I fill AP directly instead of going thru the lawyer?
Thanks
yes! Include the copy of your 485 receipt inthe appplication.
EAD and AP are simple enough that you can apply/renew on your own without paying a lawyer.
Thanks
yes! Include the copy of your 485 receipt inthe appplication.
EAD and AP are simple enough that you can apply/renew on your own without paying a lawyer.
sri1309
05-05 01:02 PM
I'm sure many more states will want this kind of law, and thats what pushes the CIR to the top of the files.
f_b_2007
07-19 12:38 PM
Btw, NBC might not do anything with it at all, but NSC on the other hand might..
PS: I know its a typo, so just kidding here..
Oops! ;-) yeah... dont think NBC will care much about my EAD :D
And yes.. i want to get EAD asap! ... I read it starts counting from the moment it gets to NSC.. but different versions abound..
tnx.
PS: I know its a typo, so just kidding here..
Oops! ;-) yeah... dont think NBC will care much about my EAD :D
And yes.. i want to get EAD asap! ... I read it starts counting from the moment it gets to NSC.. but different versions abound..
tnx.
No comments:
Post a Comment