desiin_va
01-14 10:17 PM
To port PD from Eb3 to EB2, He does not require to qulify for EB2 before Nov 2001, He is eligible if he is qualified at time of filing EB2.
Folks redhagd's statement is correct, i checked with Atorney Sheela Murhty on Friday. To port from EB3 to EB2, you must be eligible for EB2 at the time of filing Labor in Eb2.
Folks redhagd's statement is correct, i checked with Atorney Sheela Murhty on Friday. To port from EB3 to EB2, you must be eligible for EB2 at the time of filing Labor in Eb2.
wallpaper Selena Gomez-Justin Bieber
glus
01-03 10:15 AM
You will need to switch to an F1 (Student Visa). You cannot enroll for a full time MBA course on an H1. The college you enroll in will insist on an F1.
As for the GC application, it is for future employment. Meaning that if you company is willing to hire you back once you get your GC and they don't withdraw the I-140, then the application can continue.
However, I think that if and when yr GC gets approved, you will mostly likely have to abandon full time studies and go back to working full time for yr company right away. I only think this and I'm not sure.
Hello,
Respectfully, but Yinzak is incorrect. While working for a law office, we researched the issue for a client. There is a memo issued by uscis many years ago. There is NOTHING in INA that says that a person on H-1B visa or status can't attend college and the memo states that as long as attendance to college is "incidental" to the H-1B, not a problem. As such, if a person Maintains H-1B employment, and all the H-1B requirements continue to exist, one can attend college part of full time. In fact, some colleges offer in-state tuition for H-1B applicants. Changing to F-1 is impossible because of immigrant intent showed by GC petition pending for this person.
Brooklyn college is one that offers in-state tuition for H-1s and does not require change in status at all.
As for the GC application, it is for future employment. Meaning that if you company is willing to hire you back once you get your GC and they don't withdraw the I-140, then the application can continue.
However, I think that if and when yr GC gets approved, you will mostly likely have to abandon full time studies and go back to working full time for yr company right away. I only think this and I'm not sure.
Hello,
Respectfully, but Yinzak is incorrect. While working for a law office, we researched the issue for a client. There is a memo issued by uscis many years ago. There is NOTHING in INA that says that a person on H-1B visa or status can't attend college and the memo states that as long as attendance to college is "incidental" to the H-1B, not a problem. As such, if a person Maintains H-1B employment, and all the H-1B requirements continue to exist, one can attend college part of full time. In fact, some colleges offer in-state tuition for H-1B applicants. Changing to F-1 is impossible because of immigrant intent showed by GC petition pending for this person.
Brooklyn college is one that offers in-state tuition for H-1s and does not require change in status at all.
ARUNRAMANATHAN
05-31 09:41 AM
Contributed More than 100$ recently
Plus the ongoing contribution.
As mentioned above, TRUST ... As you must be aware that IV is only non-profit organisation fighting for our rights. So please extended your helping hand .... !
Plus the ongoing contribution.
As mentioned above, TRUST ... As you must be aware that IV is only non-profit organisation fighting for our rights. So please extended your helping hand .... !
2011 2011 justin bieber selena
CADude
07-23 11:22 PM
Take alternative opnion from good Attorney and take a chance.
Hi,
My situation is as follows:
1) approved RIR labor 2002
2) approved perm labor 2005
3) approved i-140 2006 (PD 2005)
4) ALL of above for company-A. 2006 company-B took over.
My lawyer said i cannot file and have to start again with new labor as merger/acquistion was 'asset only' type.
I want to self-file i-485 giving the company "name change" letter as the only proof along with the rest of regular documents. Company-B employer is in 100% support of my application.
SHOULD I just waste $$$$ money or take a chance ? PLEASE HELP...TIRED OF WAITING FOR LAST 5 years :(
Regards,
-Ravi
Hi,
My situation is as follows:
1) approved RIR labor 2002
2) approved perm labor 2005
3) approved i-140 2006 (PD 2005)
4) ALL of above for company-A. 2006 company-B took over.
My lawyer said i cannot file and have to start again with new labor as merger/acquistion was 'asset only' type.
I want to self-file i-485 giving the company "name change" letter as the only proof along with the rest of regular documents. Company-B employer is in 100% support of my application.
SHOULD I just waste $$$$ money or take a chance ? PLEASE HELP...TIRED OF WAITING FOR LAST 5 years :(
Regards,
-Ravi
more...
irrational
04-04 11:33 AM
Folks,
Here is some update. Hopefully, someone might find this useful.
Today (4/4/2008) I took an InfoPass appointment in Dallas:
The lady at the window said, the case is in TSC and that particular office(Local Office???) has not recieved the file yet. So she asked me to write a letter to TSC.
I thought I would call the TSC first and see if I can get a quicker response:
I called the TSC using the key combo (Thanks guys)
The agent was helpful:
- The Notice which was returned was the Reciept Notices..It seems those will not be resent, so I should not worry about it.
- My Wife's address was still wrong on the file, I recorrected it. This is after I got a confirmation in the mail :confused: :( -- Is there anyway we/Lawyer can confirm it ?
- Our Finger Print Notices are initiated but not yet scheduled by the local ASC. We'll get notices once the FPs are scheduled (What does this mean???)
Key Combo used:
1-800-375-5283
1 -> 2 -> 2 -> 6 -> 1 .. Application Number .. 1 -> 1 -> 3 -> 4
If the message something like, "No agents are available at TSC.. trasfering to NSC" hangup and try again.
Hope this helps someone else too.
Here is some update. Hopefully, someone might find this useful.
Today (4/4/2008) I took an InfoPass appointment in Dallas:
The lady at the window said, the case is in TSC and that particular office(Local Office???) has not recieved the file yet. So she asked me to write a letter to TSC.
I thought I would call the TSC first and see if I can get a quicker response:
I called the TSC using the key combo (Thanks guys)
The agent was helpful:
- The Notice which was returned was the Reciept Notices..It seems those will not be resent, so I should not worry about it.
- My Wife's address was still wrong on the file, I recorrected it. This is after I got a confirmation in the mail :confused: :( -- Is there anyway we/Lawyer can confirm it ?
- Our Finger Print Notices are initiated but not yet scheduled by the local ASC. We'll get notices once the FPs are scheduled (What does this mean???)
Key Combo used:
1-800-375-5283
1 -> 2 -> 2 -> 6 -> 1 .. Application Number .. 1 -> 1 -> 3 -> 4
If the message something like, "No agents are available at TSC.. trasfering to NSC" hangup and try again.
Hope this helps someone else too.
prom2
11-26 10:30 AM
I saw in four Jun filers approvals at TSC dated 11/24.
Good luck
Good luck
more...
vactorboy29
06-24 04:13 PM
Make sure Hotel is Safe and not with short term stay like pros.... .Even you have to to spend little more go for that.I had very bad experience.I had lost my documents that time.
2010 Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
MrWaitingGC
05-22 04:58 PM
What will happen in this case.
more...
GCNirvana007
10-08 05:03 PM
You have to actually work for company A- be on their staff, be on their payroll, be there full time employee. W2 is only issued if u work with them and draw salary.
Ok. So whoever runs my payroll is my employer. Lets say its Company C.
Question is
Am I obligated to Company A in any way?
Am I obligated to Company B which had my recent H1B?
Based on the answers i am assuming no but will wait to hear from you guys.
Ok. So whoever runs my payroll is my employer. Lets say its Company C.
Question is
Am I obligated to Company A in any way?
Am I obligated to Company B which had my recent H1B?
Based on the answers i am assuming no but will wait to hear from you guys.
hair Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
kaisersose
05-07 11:38 AM
Just go to the doctor get a new set of paperwork for the vaccines he originally gave you.
My wife did not take vaccines as she was pregnant. We were waiting for an RFE to get it done. We got the RFE last week, but there is nothing about medicals in there! Instead they have asked for a birth certificate copy - something that was already sent with the 485 app.
My wife did not take vaccines as she was pregnant. We were waiting for an RFE to get it done. We got the RFE last week, but there is nothing about medicals in there! Instead they have asked for a birth certificate copy - something that was already sent with the 485 app.
more...
ddeka
07-09 12:35 PM
You can take info pass and get an interim EAD
hot Justin Bieber and Selena
rb_248
07-16 05:22 PM
Me too...it was posted 15th of June... This is not the July one :p
That is why this GCKabhayega has so many red dots....
That is why this GCKabhayega has so many red dots....
more...
house justin bieber selena gomez
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.
tattoo May 27, 2011. justin
CatsintheCraddle
05-04 03:31 PM
Thanks for the reply. You're right, emotion or logic has nothing to do with USCIS:):)http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
I don't have the letter with me but the denial is based on a law pertaining to me only submitting a partial answer to their request. How true that is is up to debate as my cosponsor says no but really, it doesn't matter what we say when the USCIS say something different.
We will not be getting a lawyer, we cannot afford that right now but we will probably file for the motion to reopen my case. I have a somewhat good understanding of what I need to do but not sure how successful we will be. Hopefully, they will accept our fee waiver form becuase we probably won't be sending them money. We would still like to know if anyone has tried to have their case reopened and how long it took and how it went.
I don't have the letter with me but the denial is based on a law pertaining to me only submitting a partial answer to their request. How true that is is up to debate as my cosponsor says no but really, it doesn't matter what we say when the USCIS say something different.
We will not be getting a lawyer, we cannot afford that right now but we will probably file for the motion to reopen my case. I have a somewhat good understanding of what I need to do but not sure how successful we will be. Hopefully, they will accept our fee waiver form becuase we probably won't be sending them money. We would still like to know if anyone has tried to have their case reopened and how long it took and how it went.
more...
pictures justin bieber and selena gomez
ujjvalkoul
08-10 05:14 PM
Un-freakin'-believable......................
dresses tattoo 2011 Selena Gomez and
Milind123
07-27 12:31 PM
Instead of starting a new thread. I would appreciate if someone answers a few questions regarding Check details that we send out to USCIS.
Went to lawyers office last week and signed all the applications. I made out onc check in the amount of $745 ($395 I-485 + $170 I-131 (AP) + $180 I-765 (EAD)) Payble to U.S Citizenship and Immigration Service. Now when I see the forms online it says the checks should be payable to Department of Homeland Security. Should I ask the lawyer to hold on to the application and send new checks.
Also , should I write three separate checks for $395 $170 $180. Just to make sure if there is an error in say Advanced payroll application, USCIS will keep the two check and send me back the Advanced Parol application.
Went to lawyers office last week and signed all the applications. I made out onc check in the amount of $745 ($395 I-485 + $170 I-131 (AP) + $180 I-765 (EAD)) Payble to U.S Citizenship and Immigration Service. Now when I see the forms online it says the checks should be payable to Department of Homeland Security. Should I ask the lawyer to hold on to the application and send new checks.
Also , should I write three separate checks for $395 $170 $180. Just to make sure if there is an error in say Advanced payroll application, USCIS will keep the two check and send me back the Advanced Parol application.
more...
makeup Justin Bieber And Selena Gomez
chanduv23
12-31 02:08 PM
sept 11 notice date, EAD approved for spouse and me. case transferred to TSC, no FP yet
Same here, september 11 notice date case transferred to TSC, EAD and AP recieved for self and spouse but no FP yet.
Some say it is not an issue, some say it can be an issue
Same here, september 11 notice date case transferred to TSC, EAD and AP recieved for self and spouse but no FP yet.
Some say it is not an issue, some say it can be an issue
girlfriend Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
parablergh
08-31 07:55 PM
Cant i use the I 94 attached to my 797 document.Will it not solve my problem.
Unfortunately the 'last action rule' takes precedence over your I-797 approval notice. You will need to either visit a CBP Deferred Inspection office to have this corrected, travel abroad and reenter using the new I-797, or file for another extension.
Next time you travel, don't show BOTH I-797 approval notices. You should have just presented the new document along with your visa stamp and valid passport.
Unfortunately the 'last action rule' takes precedence over your I-797 approval notice. You will need to either visit a CBP Deferred Inspection office to have this corrected, travel abroad and reenter using the new I-797, or file for another extension.
Next time you travel, don't show BOTH I-797 approval notices. You should have just presented the new document along with your visa stamp and valid passport.
hairstyles justin bieber and selena gomez
dealsnet
02-27 09:33 AM
That is why US consulate is not giving visit visa to Indian youths 15-35 years of age.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
They know, these guys will come here and work then marry a US citizen to remain legal.
So need legal entry is required, then remain illegal, without any problem, just marry a US citizen.
This is giving a problem to deserving visit visa applicants.
Thank you. I was going to reply to Dealsnet and state that, but you beat me to it.
On a side note, i was going to add that out of status itself does not determine the start of the clock, for the 3 and 10 year bans, .. that would be "unlawful stay" determined from the expiration of the date on the I-94 OR an administrative determination of unlawful stay based on when they discovered the out of status situation. However, for the above purposes [GC based on marriage], this point is moot.
cjain
07-23 04:03 PM
^^^^
krishna.ahd
02-08 08:14 AM
my opinion what ever route u go u will have minimum 2 stops . IF u take direct flights like ny/chicago to delhi then u will have to fly from delhi to ahd.
what ever route u fly cost will be from $1300 to $1500
so my take would be this.
Atlanta - LA - singapore - ahmedabad (via singapore airlines).
no transist visa needed
service and food/drinks of singapore airline just superb.
singapore airport is also superb. nice entertainment area / food court. btw it has desi fast food place so you can enjoy good food there too.
last thing singapore to ahd direct flight :)
aj
Yes , your best bet is via LA , singapore or something like that
Or
Delta non stop to JFK - BOM
or
Any other non stop to Delhi/Bom
what ever route u fly cost will be from $1300 to $1500
so my take would be this.
Atlanta - LA - singapore - ahmedabad (via singapore airlines).
no transist visa needed
service and food/drinks of singapore airline just superb.
singapore airport is also superb. nice entertainment area / food court. btw it has desi fast food place so you can enjoy good food there too.
last thing singapore to ahd direct flight :)
aj
Yes , your best bet is via LA , singapore or something like that
Or
Delta non stop to JFK - BOM
or
Any other non stop to Delhi/Bom
No comments:
Post a Comment