glus
07-17 04:46 PM
Guys,
August visa bulletin does not look good, but see point D which states that I485 in in JULY will be accepted.
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdraw
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html:D
August visa bulletin does not look good, but see point D which states that I485 in in JULY will be accepted.
D. JULY EMPLOYMENT-BASED VISA AVAILABILITY
After consulting with Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Visa Office advises readers that Visa Bulletin #107 (dated June 12) should be relied upon as the current July Visa Bulletin for purposes of determining Employment visa number availability, and that Visa Bulletin #108 (dated July 2) is hereby withdraw
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3269.html:D
chi_shark
03-25 03:47 PM
BTW isn't I-485 for a future job ? How does the current work location matter ?
thats what scared me when i read this thread... so, basically, they are using even the pending 485s to raise issues on 140 etc... this i bad stuff.
thats what scared me when i read this thread... so, basically, they are using even the pending 485s to raise issues on 140 etc... this i bad stuff.
Immigstories
01-21 06:56 PM
Gurus
Please share your thoughts on my question above.....
Please share your thoughts on my question above.....
ghost
09-21 12:04 PM
i kept telling you guys since last week
send faxes to congress /house...it is in the house where bills get structured.
make sure u add only the SKIL bill...just remove cap for ppl with advanced us degrees...that was the only thing the house had agreed to consider
but everyone on this forum ignored me
no it might be too little too late
i am not saying all i slost...atleast we got some action going amongst the members of this site
it aint rocket science guys....think about it from the lawmakers point of view....would they allow for more immigration frindly reforms now....no way...so be ready to compromise and suggest the ones which are truly benefecial to the US economy....
the bottom line was always...borders secure first..then talk about immigration reforms....
for the coming seasons....we have to push for nothing but the SKIL bill
that is the only bill that has hope
the other glimmer of hope in all this is the house has inadverently left out the fact on how they are going to fund the building of the wall
it is here that we step in...
fees for filing I485 for people under SKIL
fees for being able to file 485 before visa numbers
etc etc etc
we have to take advantage of this opportunity
in the mean while....SEND FAXES ABOUT SKIL BILL
You remind me of Katrina fiasco....Red Cross was asking for money and you are bent on sending food and clothes. Let the people in close proximity of washington decide what we need to do at this moment.
send faxes to congress /house...it is in the house where bills get structured.
make sure u add only the SKIL bill...just remove cap for ppl with advanced us degrees...that was the only thing the house had agreed to consider
but everyone on this forum ignored me
no it might be too little too late
i am not saying all i slost...atleast we got some action going amongst the members of this site
it aint rocket science guys....think about it from the lawmakers point of view....would they allow for more immigration frindly reforms now....no way...so be ready to compromise and suggest the ones which are truly benefecial to the US economy....
the bottom line was always...borders secure first..then talk about immigration reforms....
for the coming seasons....we have to push for nothing but the SKIL bill
that is the only bill that has hope
the other glimmer of hope in all this is the house has inadverently left out the fact on how they are going to fund the building of the wall
it is here that we step in...
fees for filing I485 for people under SKIL
fees for being able to file 485 before visa numbers
etc etc etc
we have to take advantage of this opportunity
in the mean while....SEND FAXES ABOUT SKIL BILL
You remind me of Katrina fiasco....Red Cross was asking for money and you are bent on sending food and clothes. Let the people in close proximity of washington decide what we need to do at this moment.
more...
a_yaja
06-18 05:24 PM
Here is my situation:
I-140 approved and about to file 485.
Employer says he can file only 485 and no EAD for me. But he can file EAD/AP for my wife.
Can I file EAD/AP for me separately on my own? What are the consequences from my employer if I quit after six months of applying 485 (by that time I would've got my EAD/AP)? Can he reject my 140 and/or 485?
You can apply for EAD at anytime. All you will need is a copy of your I-485 AOS receipt (which I think USCIS will send to you, but I am not sure).
After 6 months (180 days to be exact), your employer cannot revoke I-140 (and hence I-485) if you invoke AC21.
I-140 approved and about to file 485.
Employer says he can file only 485 and no EAD for me. But he can file EAD/AP for my wife.
Can I file EAD/AP for me separately on my own? What are the consequences from my employer if I quit after six months of applying 485 (by that time I would've got my EAD/AP)? Can he reject my 140 and/or 485?
You can apply for EAD at anytime. All you will need is a copy of your I-485 AOS receipt (which I think USCIS will send to you, but I am not sure).
After 6 months (180 days to be exact), your employer cannot revoke I-140 (and hence I-485) if you invoke AC21.
werc
03-28 03:22 PM
So a person on H1B goes onto a H4 and wants to come back onto a H1B 3 months down the line. As per your statement , the person is subjected to the cap. Was that what you were implying ?
I think you were referring to this in the link.
b) Persons who have previously been counted against the H1B quota (a person would only be counted once against the cap unless s/he has a year outside the U.S., thereby resetting the clock on the six-year limit.)
I understand this to mean that aperson who has spent a year outside the US has 2 options.
1. To apply for a new H1 (subject to the cap)
2. To use the remainder of the 6 years he has from his prior H1B.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you don't have 1 year gap. otherwise you are subjected to.
I think you were referring to this in the link.
b) Persons who have previously been counted against the H1B quota (a person would only be counted once against the cap unless s/he has a year outside the U.S., thereby resetting the clock on the six-year limit.)
I understand this to mean that aperson who has spent a year outside the US has 2 options.
1. To apply for a new H1 (subject to the cap)
2. To use the remainder of the 6 years he has from his prior H1B.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you don't have 1 year gap. otherwise you are subjected to.
more...
pd052009
01-03 10:41 AM
As this bill hurts big corporations, the govt may try something like this. But I sincerely doubt "Indian" Govt will seriously do something for this.
Nw2GC
04-30 12:16 PM
I was wondering if they have restarted premium processing for I-140 yet?
more...
saxx
01-26 05:05 AM
Perlin circles man, that's great.
ItIsNotFunny
09-22 04:31 PM
Some loser gave me red with the following message.
Don't keep posting same message.
Let me tell you A**H***, when ppl like you do not call I have to post same message again & again & again....
So do your part & call.
Ignore them. Someone gave me red with following comment:
"not funny but silly "
These people don't do anything and they even can't see someone doing something. Keep Calling again and again and again and again.
Don't keep posting same message.
Let me tell you A**H***, when ppl like you do not call I have to post same message again & again & again....
So do your part & call.
Ignore them. Someone gave me red with following comment:
"not funny but silly "
These people don't do anything and they even can't see someone doing something. Keep Calling again and again and again and again.
more...
chanduv23
02-14 04:39 PM
This is awesome. I wish I went to Medical school like most of my cousins..too late now
I wished too :), though i am happy helping Paskal in his efforts now :)
I wished too :), though i am happy helping Paskal in his efforts now :)
saketkapur
12-02 06:58 PM
This in from Ron Gotcher website....I guess they are reading our letters.....
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received some very good news over the weekend. In October and November, our office was contacted by a number of adjustment of status applicants who had received denials based on "revocations" of their approved I-140 petitions by former employers. All of these applicants had AOS applications that had been pending for more than 180 days before they left their sponsoring employers. They also had approved I-140 petitions. Nonetheless, vindictive employers in each case attempted to revoke the approved I-140 petitions. The CIS accepted these "revocations" and promptly denied the AOS applications. We were contacted by six different individuals with these types of cases and we filed motions to reconsider in their cases.
Earlier, in September, we handled this type of case and the MTR was granted and the denial successfully reversed. This happened before any of these October/November cases came in or were filed.
I was disappointed to see that the CIS was still attempting to deny cases on this basis. There is absolutely no law to support this type of denial and, in fact, such denials are directly contrary to both statutory law and explicit CIS policy.
I was gratified to see that all six of the MTRs we field in October/November were granted and the denials reversed. I am also encouraged that the CIS accepted our request to reopen the denials of the dependents as well, on their own motion, and spare the pricipal applicants the cost of paying filing fees for MTRs for the denials of dependents' AOS applications.
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.
__________________
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received some very good news over the weekend. In October and November, our office was contacted by a number of adjustment of status applicants who had received denials based on "revocations" of their approved I-140 petitions by former employers. All of these applicants had AOS applications that had been pending for more than 180 days before they left their sponsoring employers. They also had approved I-140 petitions. Nonetheless, vindictive employers in each case attempted to revoke the approved I-140 petitions. The CIS accepted these "revocations" and promptly denied the AOS applications. We were contacted by six different individuals with these types of cases and we filed motions to reconsider in their cases.
Earlier, in September, we handled this type of case and the MTR was granted and the denial successfully reversed. This happened before any of these October/November cases came in or were filed.
I was disappointed to see that the CIS was still attempting to deny cases on this basis. There is absolutely no law to support this type of denial and, in fact, such denials are directly contrary to both statutory law and explicit CIS policy.
I was gratified to see that all six of the MTRs we field in October/November were granted and the denials reversed. I am also encouraged that the CIS accepted our request to reopen the denials of the dependents as well, on their own motion, and spare the pricipal applicants the cost of paying filing fees for MTRs for the denials of dependents' AOS applications.
I hope this means that the supervisors at the service centers involved are now aware of the blatant illegality of these types of denials and will put and end to them in the future. We can only hope that we have seen an end to this nonsense.
__________________
more...
arnet
11-22 06:31 PM
hey nivasch, can you use H1 to work if you didnt use it to enter at port of entry? can you please explain your experience? thanks.
Arnet
Arnet
milind70
06-21 01:48 PM
My friends recently went to the consulte in Nogales to get their H1B stamped and they told me that we can enter Nogales with out any visa ... You might want to explore that or find any other places that are closer to where u live and do not need a visa to get a new I94 ...
I am in the same boat as u and i donot even have my new passport with me yet ...
GoodLuck ... Hope things work out for you ... do post your experiences when u are done with all this ...
Nogales is in Mexico,i think u require a mexican visa to enter Nogales.
I am in the same boat as u and i donot even have my new passport with me yet ...
GoodLuck ... Hope things work out for you ... do post your experiences when u are done with all this ...
Nogales is in Mexico,i think u require a mexican visa to enter Nogales.
more...
Hopeful123
05-19 06:45 PM
Has anybody in this group(i.e. whose I-140 was transferred to TSC from NSC recently) seen any movements in their case? I am in the same boat, I-140 filed May'07 at NSC and moved to TSC in Apr'08. I saw one more related thread but haven't seen any approvals recently.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18566
Please do update if you have any recent updates. Thank you
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18566
Please do update if you have any recent updates. Thank you
walking_dude
12-05 12:02 PM
True, it covers only Citizenship (naturalization) applicants. However, it's worthwhile to explore if this lawsuit can be extended to cover GC applicants or ACLU is willing to file another for GC applicants too . It may provide a chance to those on IV still stuck in Namechecks.
Class-actions may be slow, but they provide benefits to all future GC applicants (if successful) unlike WOM cases which benefit only the applicant.
ACLU Press release - http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/32422prs20071029.html
ACLU Immigrants rights project E-mail - immrights@aclu.org
Class-actions may be slow, but they provide benefits to all future GC applicants (if successful) unlike WOM cases which benefit only the applicant.
ACLU Press release - http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/32422prs20071029.html
ACLU Immigrants rights project E-mail - immrights@aclu.org
more...
EB3Ind
07-25 09:57 AM
hi,
what i heard from my new employer is that it is not advisible to invoke Ac21 as long as you get RFE from where you have filed your 485 application or through attroney,
they told me that if you invoke AC21 it may delay your process. so what i feel is that it is better not to invoke AC21 as long as previous employer is in good terms with you....
what i heard from my new employer is that it is not advisible to invoke Ac21 as long as you get RFE from where you have filed your 485 application or through attroney,
they told me that if you invoke AC21 it may delay your process. so what i feel is that it is better not to invoke AC21 as long as previous employer is in good terms with you....
aniltatikonda
05-12 10:39 AM
Congrats!! Wish you Good Luck
morchu
06-01 04:54 PM
1. Indian passport holders are exempt from the 6-month rule. Link.... I will search when I get time and post.
2. Regarding intention of permanent residence, see "greg siskind" s explanation on a similar topic (after GC) here: http://www.visalaw.com/06feb1/2feb106.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=344473#post344473
Greg mentioned that....
"There are no black and white tests for what will be deemed to be an abandonmnet of permanent residency. Rather, USCIS will look at a variety of factors to determine a person's intent. Financial ties to the US, maintain a US employer, maintaining a residence in the US, keeping a car registered in the US, family remaining behind, etc. can all be evidence."
Hi Morchu,
I searched travel.state.gov with 'six-month rule', but couldn't come up with anything specific to this. Can you please post me the link? And I have an Indian Passport.
Ok, so how can one prove his intention at the POE for GC?
....would appreciate your reply.
2. Regarding intention of permanent residence, see "greg siskind" s explanation on a similar topic (after GC) here: http://www.visalaw.com/06feb1/2feb106.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=344473#post344473
Greg mentioned that....
"There are no black and white tests for what will be deemed to be an abandonmnet of permanent residency. Rather, USCIS will look at a variety of factors to determine a person's intent. Financial ties to the US, maintain a US employer, maintaining a residence in the US, keeping a car registered in the US, family remaining behind, etc. can all be evidence."
Hi Morchu,
I searched travel.state.gov with 'six-month rule', but couldn't come up with anything specific to this. Can you please post me the link? And I have an Indian Passport.
Ok, so how can one prove his intention at the POE for GC?
....would appreciate your reply.
Ann Ruben
07-23 11:37 PM
The AC21 determination of whether a new job is in "the same or similar occupation" is made based on a comparison of the new job duties and those set forth on the original labor certification application. Job titles are not controlling. So, you need to have a copy of your original LC application and then compare the job description it contains to the duties of the new position.
USCIS has not provide much guidance on what will or will not qualify as the "same or similar" occupational classification. What little guidance exists comes from a 2005 memo to Service Centers from Michael Aytes:
"Question 3. What is “same or similar” occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?
Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the “same or similar” occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:
A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the “same or similar” occupational classification.
B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of “same or similar” occupational classification.
C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).
Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?
Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien’s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is 'same or similar.'"
The bottom line is that in order to establish that your new position is in the same or similar occupational classification, you must first compare the specific job duties described in the original application for labor certification to the specific job duties of the new position. Nothing from USCIS specifically addresses what percentage of identical job duties would be required, but the closer to 100% the better. Job titles do not matter, job duties do. Next, you need to find the DOT USDOL/Office of Administrative Law Judges Home Page and/or SOC Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes written on your original LC/I-140 and compare the occupational descriptions for those codes to the job duties of your new position. USCIS has never indicated what percentage of identical/similar job duties will suffice in either of the comparisons. Most likely it must be more than 50%, and the closer to 100% the better. Finally, a substantial difference in salary is not determinative, but, in a close case may lead to a denial. To combat this, reference can be made to the DOL's Online Wage Library FLCDataCenter.com current wage survey for the occupation. If the new salary is within the range indicated for the original SOC occupation, you can make a strong argument that the increase is due to the passage of time and not to a change in occupational classification.
USCIS has not provide much guidance on what will or will not qualify as the "same or similar" occupational classification. What little guidance exists comes from a 2005 memo to Service Centers from Michael Aytes:
"Question 3. What is “same or similar” occupational classification for purposes of I-140 portability?
Answer: When making a determination if the new employment is the “same or similar” occupational classification in comparison to the employment in the initial I-140, adjudicators should consider the following factors:
A. Description of the job duties contained in the ETA 750A or the initial I-140 and the job duties of the new employment to determine if they are the “same or similar” occupational classification.
B. The DOT code and/or SOC code assigned to the initial I-140 employment for petitions that have a certified ETA 750A or consider what DOT and/or SOC code is appropriate for the position for an initial I-140 that did not require a certified ETA 750A. Then consider the DOT code and/or SOC code, whichever is appropriate for the new position to make a determination of “same or similar” occupational classification.
C. A substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage. (See Question 5 of this section for further clarification).
Question 5. Should service centers or district officers use a difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification and initial I-140, and the new employment as basis for denial in adjustment portability cases?
Answer: No. As noted above the relevant inquiry is if the new position is the same or similar occupational classification to the alien’s I-140 employment. A difference in the wage offered on the approved labor certification, initial I-140 and the new employment cannot be used as a basis of a denial. However, a substantial discrepancy between the previous and the new wage may be taken into consideration as a factor in determining if the new employment is 'same or similar.'"
The bottom line is that in order to establish that your new position is in the same or similar occupational classification, you must first compare the specific job duties described in the original application for labor certification to the specific job duties of the new position. Nothing from USCIS specifically addresses what percentage of identical job duties would be required, but the closer to 100% the better. Job titles do not matter, job duties do. Next, you need to find the DOT USDOL/Office of Administrative Law Judges Home Page and/or SOC Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) System codes written on your original LC/I-140 and compare the occupational descriptions for those codes to the job duties of your new position. USCIS has never indicated what percentage of identical/similar job duties will suffice in either of the comparisons. Most likely it must be more than 50%, and the closer to 100% the better. Finally, a substantial difference in salary is not determinative, but, in a close case may lead to a denial. To combat this, reference can be made to the DOL's Online Wage Library FLCDataCenter.com current wage survey for the occupation. If the new salary is within the range indicated for the original SOC occupation, you can make a strong argument that the increase is due to the passage of time and not to a change in occupational classification.
needhelp!
02-13 01:09 PM
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/78355623a0ffd5d61a20d391bee048804g.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment