eb3_nepa
06-15 10:49 PM
Dude i think you have WAYYYY overestimated the processing times!!
wallpaper Kingdom Hearts: Sephiroth
axp817
07-04 09:55 AM
Why would doing anything legal have implications on becoming a citizen?
And to answer your question, No, your owning a gun legally, has no implications whatsoever on getting your citizenship.
There are many legal gun owners who don't even have their green card yet, and no, they are not going to face any problems during 485 approval either.
Look through some of my old posts, and you'll find a thread with information on legal aliens owning guns in America, although a lot of the information on that thread pertains to non-immigrant aliens. You being a permanent resident, have it much easier. Go through that thread and if you still have questions, ask, and I'm sure you'll get an answer.
Good luck, be a safe, responsible, and proud gun owner.
And to answer your question, No, your owning a gun legally, has no implications whatsoever on getting your citizenship.
There are many legal gun owners who don't even have their green card yet, and no, they are not going to face any problems during 485 approval either.
Look through some of my old posts, and you'll find a thread with information on legal aliens owning guns in America, although a lot of the information on that thread pertains to non-immigrant aliens. You being a permanent resident, have it much easier. Go through that thread and if you still have questions, ask, and I'm sure you'll get an answer.
Good luck, be a safe, responsible, and proud gun owner.
javadeveloper
07-26 04:51 PM
If I am not wrong your EAD/AP will not be processed until after your I140 is approved.Maybe some one comment on this
You can get EAD even if your I-140 is pending.Correct me if I am wrong.
You can get EAD even if your I-140 is pending.Correct me if I am wrong.
2011 quot;Cloud and Sephiroth - Kingdom
enthu999
03-27 01:40 AM
Just an idea, if emails or letters doesn't reach Obama...may be IV should consider an open letter to Obama,Congress and Senate by buying space in major news papers
and suggesting the obvious economic benefits(buying homes, home renovations, buying durable goods etc) of speeding legal immigration.
and suggesting the obvious economic benefits(buying homes, home renovations, buying durable goods etc) of speeding legal immigration.
more...
gctoget
09-26 12:22 PM
How long does it take to get EAD card by post after Finger printing is done?
acecupid
08-21 05:45 PM
My checks were cashed on Aug 20th for RD of Jul 16th :)
more...
bkn96
02-18 11:06 AM
Did you work during this period?
Yes, I worked during that time using EAD as I dont have H1b. My Lawyer said I can work as EAD was not revoked. I work for myself (self employment) through my own company.
Again I didn't get refund of MTR money... that is good news if we get our $585 fee back..
Yes, I worked during that time using EAD as I dont have H1b. My Lawyer said I can work as EAD was not revoked. I work for myself (self employment) through my own company.
Again I didn't get refund of MTR money... that is good news if we get our $585 fee back..
2010 sephiroth kingdom hearts. house Kingdom Hearts Sephiroth
sathishav
03-07 01:39 PM
To remain in status, please file asap. large companies, do revoke H1 after layoffs.
If you don't get laid off, you can just ignore the H1 you filed. its also a challenge to get H1 sponsors these days.
If you don't get laid off, you can just ignore the H1 you filed. its also a challenge to get H1 sponsors these days.
more...
LegalIndianInUSA
06-18 10:52 PM
yes it is the red colored number on the visa stamp
My visa stamp was issued in the US (revalidation locally), which they have now stopped.
The stamp says place of issue: "DEPARTMENT".
Is that sufficient to put on the 485 ?
My visa stamp was issued in the US (revalidation locally), which they have now stopped.
The stamp says place of issue: "DEPARTMENT".
Is that sufficient to put on the 485 ?
hair Kingdom Hearts - Sephiroth
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
vdlrao
06-01 09:26 PM
labor certificate for gc application and LCA for H1 are two different things. labor certificate for gc application is for a future job and employer is certifying that they will pay you per gc labor certificate once you get your gc and has nothing to do with h1 LCA.
really good information.
really good information.
hot Kingdom Hearts Gathering
sgupta33
03-20 05:05 PM
Thank you ZCool for the information.
more...
house Sephiroth
GC Struggle
04-16 02:46 PM
Ask your attorney to file an MTR. (ensure it done within 30 days of denial). When you file an MTR it sent back to the service center that had actually denied the petetion (in your case NSC) asking the IO to revisit his decsion (with any additional information that your attorney would add). If the IO is unable to make a decision, then he will refer your case to Administrative Appeals Unit.
tattoo Like the Sephiroth fight,
rameshvaid
03-12 09:45 PM
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
congrats.. enjoy the freedom and keep praying for others in line..
RV
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
congrats.. enjoy the freedom and keep praying for others in line..
RV
more...
pictures and Kingdom Hearts games.
nixstor
03-05 11:52 AM
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
Choose USCIS for the agency and click submit. That returns the proposed fee increase which is open for comments. I doubt it makes any difference but nothing to lose leaving a comment on the portal
Alternatives
You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS- 2006-0044 by one of the following methods:
� Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
� E-mail: OSComments@dhs.gov. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
� Facsimile: Federal eRulemaking portal at 866-466-5370.
� Mail: Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2006-0044 on your correspondence. This mailing address may also be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.
� Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. Contact Telephone Number (202) 272-8377.
Choose USCIS for the agency and click submit. That returns the proposed fee increase which is open for comments. I doubt it makes any difference but nothing to lose leaving a comment on the portal
Alternatives
You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS- 2006-0044 by one of the following methods:
� Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
� E-mail: OSComments@dhs.gov. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
� Facsimile: Federal eRulemaking portal at 866-466-5370.
� Mail: Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2006-0044 on your correspondence. This mailing address may also be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.
� Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. Contact Telephone Number (202) 272-8377.
dresses SEPHIROTH! dum dum dum dum
gbof
04-27 09:50 AM
Thanks vhd999,
That is what I am talking about. Even after confirming with cust serv reps, the check-in counters behave differently. I will also carry a printout of the website that says 2 bags for the worldwide option.
desigirl,
There is no problem at India's end..we all know how to handle that. Also, it does matter if there are 2 bags or 1 from here. If I have 3 extra bags, then I end up paying more...rather than assuming that they will be checked in free. You pack your luggage accordingly assuming x no of bags are involved. Also, I will make sure my wife travels comfortably, that's why i am asking these questions in the first place.
I had 2-bags but I guess lot more heavier than allowed-- They put the 'excess baggage' stickers. But they did not advise or demand money at check-in (I was ready to part with extra stuff, if advised). I thought they may demand money.......at check out --but no body demanded. I guess they were quite liberal atleast in my case....may be an exception
That is what I am talking about. Even after confirming with cust serv reps, the check-in counters behave differently. I will also carry a printout of the website that says 2 bags for the worldwide option.
desigirl,
There is no problem at India's end..we all know how to handle that. Also, it does matter if there are 2 bags or 1 from here. If I have 3 extra bags, then I end up paying more...rather than assuming that they will be checked in free. You pack your luggage accordingly assuming x no of bags are involved. Also, I will make sure my wife travels comfortably, that's why i am asking these questions in the first place.
I had 2-bags but I guess lot more heavier than allowed-- They put the 'excess baggage' stickers. But they did not advise or demand money at check-in (I was ready to part with extra stuff, if advised). I thought they may demand money.......at check out --but no body demanded. I guess they were quite liberal atleast in my case....may be an exception
more...
makeup Sephiroth By: TRuFLiP
gc4me
02-09 10:17 AM
You should not let this opportunity of 'Retaining your 1998 PD' go and need to act as quickly as possible. If you are from India and EB3 and if you have a new PD (from Y) of 2002+, it will take you 10+ yrs to get your GC. No kidding!!!
Do this fast:
01. try to find out a new company (if Y does not agree, generally if Y is a big corporation like MS, Verizon, Merrill Lynch , GE etc. will not agree for sure) who are willing to file a PERM LC for you for future employment.
02. Use your approved I-140 (from X) and retain your PD while filling PERM LC from the new company (company Z :-))
03. File I-140/485 together once you get your perm LC cleared (in 2/3 months including advertisement. filling etc.) and get you EAD/AP done by 60 days :-)). WOW. Rest of us can only dream about it!!
04. After you file 485, after 180 days, you are able to change your current company (Z) and take perm job in a reputable company (say A).
05. Sorry to say that you have to leave company Y and especially it is difficult if you make big bucks there.
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
Do this fast:
01. try to find out a new company (if Y does not agree, generally if Y is a big corporation like MS, Verizon, Merrill Lynch , GE etc. will not agree for sure) who are willing to file a PERM LC for you for future employment.
02. Use your approved I-140 (from X) and retain your PD while filling PERM LC from the new company (company Z :-))
03. File I-140/485 together once you get your perm LC cleared (in 2/3 months including advertisement. filling etc.) and get you EAD/AP done by 60 days :-)). WOW. Rest of us can only dream about it!!
04. After you file 485, after 180 days, you are able to change your current company (Z) and take perm job in a reputable company (say A).
05. Sorry to say that you have to leave company Y and especially it is difficult if you make big bucks there.
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
girlfriend Sephiroth (Kingdom Hearts 2)
prioritydate
03-27 09:58 PM
It will not be a problem at all. I know a person who was without a job for 9 months during that time period and still got his green card, so I would assume that you are safe. You should be worried about this at all. This is just my opinion. The final outcome depends upon the person who is approving the case.
hairstyles Sephiroth - Kingdom Hearts by
reddymjm
01-02 06:43 PM
Even if it is close to that 2020 do not get surprised
bmoni
07-12 03:57 PM
Good write up . Being on EB3 you know my pain. I strongly believe if we need any change that can come through only by a lawsuit.
pm me if you need any help from me.
pm me if you need any help from me.
buehler
07-06 10:03 AM
I thought that Kaiser was only for Western States. Is it there for other places also?
No comments:
Post a Comment