gc12292004
09-11 04:53 PM
Taken second FP on 09/03/2009 and waiting!!!
wallpaper cherry blossom branch tattoo. Cherry Blossom Tree Tattoo
IneedAllGreen
06-28 02:45 PM
I have an important question that I need to ask here. What is going to be Job title in employment verification letter. For example if I work in company as a Software consultant and H1B states that I am Programmer Analysts and my PERM labor has stated Software Programmer Engineer.
So out of these 3 which one will going to be in my employment letter. I am unable to get in touch with attorney thru company and our HR doesnt know what to write in Employement letter. Any advise from people who already got their employement letter from their employer.
Thanks
INeedAllGreen
So out of these 3 which one will going to be in my employment letter. I am unable to get in touch with attorney thru company and our HR doesnt know what to write in Employement letter. Any advise from people who already got their employement letter from their employer.
Thanks
INeedAllGreen
nanibabu
10-06 10:49 PM
Nevermind. Online status of my case just changed to Card production ordered. Finally.
2011 Cherry Blossom Tattoos For
ArkBird
06-08 01:53 AM
u got it all wrong there, there is goin to be an h1b increase, the business community wants it, they'll get it wether anyone likes it or not and with that will come all those durbin/ron hira amendments and all this will happen b4 the next h1b date so its a matter of time b4 it all happens again
Could not agree more with you on that... Devil is gone. Now the Deep Sea!!!
Love my(our) life.....
Could not agree more with you on that... Devil is gone. Now the Deep Sea!!!
Love my(our) life.....
more...
MArch172008
06-16 05:03 PM
IS any one processing two GC process one with the current employer and other based on future employment with other employer ?
regards
regards
Pagal
10-17 10:19 PM
Hello,
I underwent two interviews at USCIS offices... be prepared with basic documents, but don't carry a suitcase full of documents and copies etc. The officer wants to ask you questions, not to your documents (otherwise, you would receive a request for documents only). Many people take attorneys with them (generally not necessary, if your case is clean).
You can appear together for the interview. Be relaxed and answer only the questions asked (do not keep talking at length) to you. Let your wife answer any questions posed to her by herself. In case there are any documents that you do not have with you, the officer will give you enough time (typically two weeks) to come back and resubmit the documents.
Good luck!
I underwent two interviews at USCIS offices... be prepared with basic documents, but don't carry a suitcase full of documents and copies etc. The officer wants to ask you questions, not to your documents (otherwise, you would receive a request for documents only). Many people take attorneys with them (generally not necessary, if your case is clean).
You can appear together for the interview. Be relaxed and answer only the questions asked (do not keep talking at length) to you. Let your wife answer any questions posed to her by herself. In case there are any documents that you do not have with you, the officer will give you enough time (typically two weeks) to come back and resubmit the documents.
Good luck!
more...
Berkeleybee
05-11 09:16 PM
Amit's call starts at 13:00 minute of the program if you want to skip and listen directly to his message.
I'd encourage people to listen to the whole program it is overall good -- Jennifer Ludden also talks about the frustration of waiting and losing one's edge while we wait.
I'd encourage people to listen to the whole program it is overall good -- Jennifer Ludden also talks about the frustration of waiting and losing one's edge while we wait.
2010 Cherry blossom tattoo are
tonyHK12
11-24 10:10 AM
The critical mass drives the unity. The indian community is lot lot smaller and even if united it will lack the critical mass. That itself drives them to persue individual subgroup interest by joing other interest groups thereby disuniting. The 90s was the period when
hispanic community got united especially after Pete Wilson in Califonia and in US. There was major naturalization drive and voting effort.
Yes true, besides we as a crowd are generally very diverse among ourselves.Well the 1986 amnesty did give them a lot of motivation to come together.
More reasons for motivation
Net jump in value of an illegal jumping the border = $20,000-$60,000+ a year 100%-500%+++
Net benefit to legal after GC = $500-$5000 a year 1-5%
hispanic community got united especially after Pete Wilson in Califonia and in US. There was major naturalization drive and voting effort.
Yes true, besides we as a crowd are generally very diverse among ourselves.Well the 1986 amnesty did give them a lot of motivation to come together.
More reasons for motivation
Net jump in value of an illegal jumping the border = $20,000-$60,000+ a year 100%-500%+++
Net benefit to legal after GC = $500-$5000 a year 1-5%
more...
EndlessWait
05-24 01:56 PM
i suggested this idea to IV few times.. The only way ppl seem to get attention here is when you show unity and boycott.
But quite honestly, the way Indians are, its hard to get them together. We have never been able to unite desis on any issue since independence ;)
But quite honestly, the way Indians are, its hard to get them together. We have never been able to unite desis on any issue since independence ;)
hair cherry blossom tree branch
sugaur
12-23 12:17 AM
I dont recommend going into Juarez. Even Mexicans are fleeing and there are reports of shooting and murder at the border frequently.
more...
whiteStallion
07-16 05:07 PM
i don't see july processing times...it still shows june times.
Me too...it was posted 15th of June... This is not the July one :p
Me too...it was posted 15th of June... This is not the July one :p
hot cherry lossom tree tattoos.
sledge_hammer
07-11 05:22 PM
www.congress.org is not a government site. Please do not mislead people here into thinking that this site has any affiliation to The Congress.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9979506&content_dir=ua_congressorg
The button below the article lets you send emails to Bush and Cheney...
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=9979506&content_dir=ua_congressorg
The button below the article lets you send emails to Bush and Cheney...
more...
house Cherry Blossom Branch Tattoo.
gcformeornot
02-11 02:39 PM
Hi desi9333, let me answer your question in general and note that this is not a speculation on the OP's case. A common reason for L1 denial could be that the USCIS determines that the petitioner isn't really in a 'specialty' occupation. For example, if his job description mentions java programmer, then he is more likely to get denied since we know there is a surplus of java programmers in this country (US citizens, LPRs and our favorite H1Bs). Since I was on an L1 visa, I know the purpose was really 'specialty' occupation which means you need to be an expert on something that's not easily available in the U.S.
To gchodhry, hope you get clarification and solution on your case soon, if you haven't broken any rules. Good luck.
L1 is intracompany transfer. Means you worked for a foriegn company in some other country and you are expert in their technology(in-house) or products. And they require you at their office in US. That's where they should apply for L1 Visa.
To gchodhry, hope you get clarification and solution on your case soon, if you haven't broken any rules. Good luck.
L1 is intracompany transfer. Means you worked for a foriegn company in some other country and you are expert in their technology(in-house) or products. And they require you at their office in US. That's where they should apply for L1 Visa.
tattoo cherry blossom branch tattoo.
eucalyptus.mp
02-18 02:13 PM
I tried to contact 2-3 employers but no one seems to be intersted in H1 transfer now a days .
more...
pictures friendship symbol tattoos
h1techSlave
08-05 12:18 PM
The fee is for processing your application, which they did. So there is no provision for a refund.
dresses cherry tree branch tattoo.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
makeup Cherry Blossom Branch tattoo
NNReddy
08-26 02:30 PM
My friend's wife got a job. company didn't ask for ead card so far. she filed the employment applicaiton where they asked her if she is a citizen or green card, she filled everything correct, they made an offer and did the background check, she is supposed to start in 2 weeks.
Question, does she need to disclose about EAD now or wait until start give the information while filling I-9 Form. Does employeer right to not hire people on EAD?
Please clarify.
Question, does she need to disclose about EAD now or wait until start give the information while filling I-9 Form. Does employeer right to not hire people on EAD?
Please clarify.
girlfriend japanese cherry tree tattoo.
vdlrao
01-21 03:20 PM
Person traveling with AP does not require Transit Visa if u dont plan to go outside of Frankfurt airport for what so reason.I had traveled via Frankfurt on 01/07/09.
Please do check with German consulate.
Thank you KKTexas
Please do check with German consulate.
Thank you KKTexas
hairstyles cherry blossom. My new tattoo.
vkotval
07-17 11:43 PM
I agree with file485. Blocking the channel is not the answer. Lets put our efforts in getting as many signatures as possible for the petition.
ita
01-23 08:30 PM
Suggestions.
1 Since the main reason behind the retrogression is the lack of Visa numbers I feel it would be a great idea to process the 485 applications , make a decision on the case and let the applicant know about the decision though the actual card can be mailed when the Visa Numbers become available . This would reduce the anxiety on behalf of the applicants and would also give USCIS ample time to process all the applications.
2. Yearly extension of EAD/AP is getting so expensive especially when one doesn't know how many years we have to keep doing the extensions.
It's a known fact that except for the July 07 bulletin EB3 India PD has hardly touched year 2002 since Dec 2004.
Some of the EB3 I folks with a 2005 PD, that I know have been issued one year extension on their EAD though they applied for the extensions in mid July(2008).
Example of EAD/AP anxiety:
AP document says that it should be used for emergency travel. This rule on AP
was formed at a time when 485 processing would take not more than 6 months.
In the present scenario with 485 processing taking years I think a person using EAD would end up using AP many times . Officers at the POE sometimes remind us the rule that AP should be used only in emergency and some of them give the person hard time if they believe the travel was not for emergency purpose.
I guess we are supposed to have a proof of emergency travel.
Though AC21 lets one change jobs 180 days after filing the 485 application with the I40 approved for more than 180 days when reentering the country some of the officer(s) sometimes ask the person if they are still with the same company that filed their GC.I don't know yet what they would do/say if one had changed their jobs because the people who were asked this question did not change their employer at that time. But the fact that they ask us this question makes us apprehensive about changing jobs.
With so many rules where most of them were formed long back it's making applicant's life increasingly tough as the applicants themselves don't want to do anything that would be construed/fall on the wrong side of the rules.We are forced to watch our steps multiple times even in the case of simple things like job changes,travelout of country etc.
When I repeatedly read about how USICS is inundated with 485 applications due to July 2007 bulletin I keep wondering why USCIS would want to increase it's work load every year with all these EAD/AP renewal applications.
Suggestion
Once upon a time when the 485 processing took like 6 months, EAD/AP had different meaning. In the present scenario when not many of us know how many more yeras it's going to be before (especially EB3 I folks) we get our GreenCard I would think it would be better to use the pending 485 application to change jobs and reenter the country.
This would save money/time for the applicant and lot of time for USICS.
Thank you.
1 Since the main reason behind the retrogression is the lack of Visa numbers I feel it would be a great idea to process the 485 applications , make a decision on the case and let the applicant know about the decision though the actual card can be mailed when the Visa Numbers become available . This would reduce the anxiety on behalf of the applicants and would also give USCIS ample time to process all the applications.
2. Yearly extension of EAD/AP is getting so expensive especially when one doesn't know how many years we have to keep doing the extensions.
It's a known fact that except for the July 07 bulletin EB3 India PD has hardly touched year 2002 since Dec 2004.
Some of the EB3 I folks with a 2005 PD, that I know have been issued one year extension on their EAD though they applied for the extensions in mid July(2008).
Example of EAD/AP anxiety:
AP document says that it should be used for emergency travel. This rule on AP
was formed at a time when 485 processing would take not more than 6 months.
In the present scenario with 485 processing taking years I think a person using EAD would end up using AP many times . Officers at the POE sometimes remind us the rule that AP should be used only in emergency and some of them give the person hard time if they believe the travel was not for emergency purpose.
I guess we are supposed to have a proof of emergency travel.
Though AC21 lets one change jobs 180 days after filing the 485 application with the I40 approved for more than 180 days when reentering the country some of the officer(s) sometimes ask the person if they are still with the same company that filed their GC.I don't know yet what they would do/say if one had changed their jobs because the people who were asked this question did not change their employer at that time. But the fact that they ask us this question makes us apprehensive about changing jobs.
With so many rules where most of them were formed long back it's making applicant's life increasingly tough as the applicants themselves don't want to do anything that would be construed/fall on the wrong side of the rules.We are forced to watch our steps multiple times even in the case of simple things like job changes,travelout of country etc.
When I repeatedly read about how USICS is inundated with 485 applications due to July 2007 bulletin I keep wondering why USCIS would want to increase it's work load every year with all these EAD/AP renewal applications.
Suggestion
Once upon a time when the 485 processing took like 6 months, EAD/AP had different meaning. In the present scenario when not many of us know how many more yeras it's going to be before (especially EB3 I folks) we get our GreenCard I would think it would be better to use the pending 485 application to change jobs and reenter the country.
This would save money/time for the applicant and lot of time for USICS.
Thank you.
sodh
07-24 10:17 PM
Thanks for the responses.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get an affidavit signed by a magistrate from your country which has the corrected names, the Lawyers will have the format for that.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get an affidavit signed by a magistrate from your country which has the corrected names, the Lawyers will have the format for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment