good idea
10-25 11:14 AM
If they can be shared with everyone, I am sure they would. But, if I were you and have an option to port to EB2, I 'd probably do that.
If porting going to cost you,you may want to wait till Jan , which is only 3 months away.
As per current situation for EB3 I, without spill over reaching to EB3, its difficult to have hope that something good can happen until something like visa recapture HR 5882 happens. So, there is nothing to loose to wait till Jan 2010 & believing that IV Admin & Seniors are have plans to initiate or have already initiated something.
I googled for 'Immigration bill in Jan 2010', and got News for Immigration bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5765Y420090807), if that is what Admin has referred in his post; (my words can put me in bad list of admin), but still I would say that Admin is very (over) optimistic, If I am not wrong but that's elections year and in other posts IV members have different views about response to this bill in election year.
My GC is just stared, and PD for EB3 I is 2001, I am 8-9 years behind and GC PD calculator of IV shows my PD to be current in 2032 , so may be I am over pessimistic.
If porting going to cost you,you may want to wait till Jan , which is only 3 months away.
As per current situation for EB3 I, without spill over reaching to EB3, its difficult to have hope that something good can happen until something like visa recapture HR 5882 happens. So, there is nothing to loose to wait till Jan 2010 & believing that IV Admin & Seniors are have plans to initiate or have already initiated something.
I googled for 'Immigration bill in Jan 2010', and got News for Immigration bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5765Y420090807), if that is what Admin has referred in his post; (my words can put me in bad list of admin), but still I would say that Admin is very (over) optimistic, If I am not wrong but that's elections year and in other posts IV members have different views about response to this bill in election year.
My GC is just stared, and PD for EB3 I is 2001, I am 8-9 years behind and GC PD calculator of IV shows my PD to be current in 2032 , so may be I am over pessimistic.
wallpaper Kat Von D Wallpaper by
rameshvaid
03-25 04:45 PM
I went to US Consulate Montreal Canada on 3/18/08 and they held back my passport, Copy of LC, Originals of my I 485 and H1/H4. They told me your company is too small 7-8 employees and need to search the company. I had my H1/H4's got stamped in Toronto in 2005 without any problem.
They told me to call me back within 10 days. No Comunication yet.
My I 140 is approved in June 06, Submitted I 485 in June/July 07 got EAD Cards in Oct.-07. I also got my 3 years H1/H4 approvals on Jan-18th, 08.
Any idea how much time they are going to check the status of the company? Does the size of the company really matters? I am paid regularily and my company is a real estate investment firm, due to recent recession the profit of the company is low as compared to previous years. Will this make any difference. I am EB 3 with priority date July 30th, 2003.
Any advise?? Has some one been in the same situation. My older son is in college and has exams on Monday? Any thoughts/suggestions.
RV
They told me to call me back within 10 days. No Comunication yet.
My I 140 is approved in June 06, Submitted I 485 in June/July 07 got EAD Cards in Oct.-07. I also got my 3 years H1/H4 approvals on Jan-18th, 08.
Any idea how much time they are going to check the status of the company? Does the size of the company really matters? I am paid regularily and my company is a real estate investment firm, due to recent recession the profit of the company is low as compared to previous years. Will this make any difference. I am EB 3 with priority date July 30th, 2003.
Any advise?? Has some one been in the same situation. My older son is in college and has exams on Monday? Any thoughts/suggestions.
RV
stones
07-08 05:33 PM
Do you think, I won't have problem even I do not have paystubs for October, 2008. I gave my OPT card, OPT I20 and latest pay stubs of Company B (until September 2008) and Company C (until June, 2009). Would they work? Please let me know. Thanks a lot for your advice.
In my Internationa office ther gave me this email
# On June 4, 2008 you were approved for a change of status to H1B from 10/01/2008-09/02/2011 with employer A.
# 09/16/2008 was your last day of employment at A. At that time your were in F-1 status. Since you did not remain with A until 10/01/2008, your H1B status was never activated.
# On October 28, 2008 employer B, filed an H1B Change of Employer and Extension of Stay petition on your behalf and you began employment under the impression that you were eligible for the benefit of portability. Since your H1B status was never activated, you were still in F-1 status at that time and were not eligible for the benefit of H1B portability. To date, no determination has been made on this application.
# On June 15, 2009 the Employer C filed a Change of Employer petition on your behalf and you began employment at Employer C.
Conclusion: The items that you have provided in response to the RFE show a sequence of events that may
make your extension of stay impossible. You were not in H1B status when employer B filed an H1B transfer for
you. This apparent lapse in visa status since the filing of the employer B H1B petition may exceed 180 days and
we recommend that you speak with an immigration attorney immediately to review your options.
I have attached a list of recommended immigration attorneys.
If one of the recommended immigration attorneys provides information in regard to your situation that would be
helpful in our response to the second RFE. Please forward all information by July 20th.
Moving forward, USCIS will most likely approve employer C's request for H1B employment and deny the extension of
H1B stay. If this occurs, you will need to travel to obtain your H1B status. Please let us know the Consulate
where you will obtain your visa at so we can provide USCIS with this information.
In my Internationa office ther gave me this email
# On June 4, 2008 you were approved for a change of status to H1B from 10/01/2008-09/02/2011 with employer A.
# 09/16/2008 was your last day of employment at A. At that time your were in F-1 status. Since you did not remain with A until 10/01/2008, your H1B status was never activated.
# On October 28, 2008 employer B, filed an H1B Change of Employer and Extension of Stay petition on your behalf and you began employment under the impression that you were eligible for the benefit of portability. Since your H1B status was never activated, you were still in F-1 status at that time and were not eligible for the benefit of H1B portability. To date, no determination has been made on this application.
# On June 15, 2009 the Employer C filed a Change of Employer petition on your behalf and you began employment at Employer C.
Conclusion: The items that you have provided in response to the RFE show a sequence of events that may
make your extension of stay impossible. You were not in H1B status when employer B filed an H1B transfer for
you. This apparent lapse in visa status since the filing of the employer B H1B petition may exceed 180 days and
we recommend that you speak with an immigration attorney immediately to review your options.
I have attached a list of recommended immigration attorneys.
If one of the recommended immigration attorneys provides information in regard to your situation that would be
helpful in our response to the second RFE. Please forward all information by July 20th.
Moving forward, USCIS will most likely approve employer C's request for H1B employment and deny the extension of
H1B stay. If this occurs, you will need to travel to obtain your H1B status. Please let us know the Consulate
where you will obtain your visa at so we can provide USCIS with this information.
2011 Kat Von D from the TLC reality
bidhanc
07-30 07:03 AM
Brasil,
You should contact your local Congressman and Senator ASAP.
Seeing that you are a legal immigrant paying taxes and being put thru obstacles, they should surely be willing to help you out.
Getting the driver's license is not the problem, I know it will come. Problem here is why I cannot drive outside SC for up to 60 days waiting for the DL card? Remember I've to surrender my old SC license. This is serious limitation to my work, e.g. I need to go to Atlanta on 08/19 and I cannot drive there.
In September I will go to Italy, what if I don�t get my DL till then?
And you say �Not sure why you thought of it as being punished�
This is ridiculous
You should contact your local Congressman and Senator ASAP.
Seeing that you are a legal immigrant paying taxes and being put thru obstacles, they should surely be willing to help you out.
Getting the driver's license is not the problem, I know it will come. Problem here is why I cannot drive outside SC for up to 60 days waiting for the DL card? Remember I've to surrender my old SC license. This is serious limitation to my work, e.g. I need to go to Atlanta on 08/19 and I cannot drive there.
In September I will go to Italy, what if I don�t get my DL till then?
And you say �Not sure why you thought of it as being punished�
This is ridiculous
more...
boreal
09-23 12:09 PM
I got an SR response back saying that my application is "waiting to be assigned to an officer"...whatever that means...isnt every application so? I think SRs are just as useless as any other 'customer service' provided by USCIS...
ashkam
09-14 07:42 AM
I watched Schindler's list and I don't know, I feel the Jews had it a bit worse than the "highly skilled immigrant" community. You know, what with the gas chambers and millions executed and what not.
more...
shivarajan
04-07 04:45 PM
I agree TARP revceived firms cannot renew H1B after 6 years or apply for GC. Those rules may change as per time. Most of the firms who like to hire H1B. So don't know whether it will get better or worst for your situation.
I don't think above is correct!
Existing employees are eligible for extensions as of now and did not hear that the no gc clause for existing employees either!
In fact if u r in non-h1b working for TARP companies then u r even eligible for new H1. All rules apply for new hires only.
I don't think above is correct!
Existing employees are eligible for extensions as of now and did not hear that the no gc clause for existing employees either!
In fact if u r in non-h1b working for TARP companies then u r even eligible for new H1. All rules apply for new hires only.
2010 Kat Von D PSP Wallpaper
amitga
07-15 12:47 PM
You are not allowed to re-capture unused photos. This would require a legislative change.:D
When my AP came up for renewal my attorney asked to get new set of photos.
In addition my cousin's EAD application got RFE'ed to get new set of photos even though the photos were recent. The reason given was that they had used same photos to renew their visa few months back (less than 6 months).
Is USCIS coming up some new rule about photos being 'unused' ?? The guidelines say that photos should be recent (taken in last 6 months). However nowhere I do I see that the photos should be 'unused' previously ?
Anyone else had same experience ?
When my AP came up for renewal my attorney asked to get new set of photos.
In addition my cousin's EAD application got RFE'ed to get new set of photos even though the photos were recent. The reason given was that they had used same photos to renew their visa few months back (less than 6 months).
Is USCIS coming up some new rule about photos being 'unused' ?? The guidelines say that photos should be recent (taken in last 6 months). However nowhere I do I see that the photos should be 'unused' previously ?
Anyone else had same experience ?
more...
a_yaja
01-16 11:44 AM
In a way you are right but not entirely. It is the responsibility of the sponsoring company (that filed H1 for the person) to pay while he/she is employed with the company. Its does not matter whether he/she has a client project or not. So, as long as the sponsoring company say they are going to pay him he/she is legal.
The original poster said that she was "laid off". So the question of her sponsoring company paying her does not arise. And hence she is without a job and she knows it. On this basis I said that it would be considered fraud if she goes for H1B stamping.
The original poster said that she was "laid off". So the question of her sponsoring company paying her does not arise. And hence she is without a job and she knows it. On this basis I said that it would be considered fraud if she goes for H1B stamping.
hair kat-von-d-wallpaper.jpg
korient
07-11 02:53 PM
Hope someone is close enough to help.
more...
enthu999
07-17 06:17 PM
Fitz,
Following is some clarification that I got from my Lawyer..
1) Will there be any problem if I am not able to make it back on Oct-1st, due to any unforeseen reason, If 485 is already received by USCIS and pending?
a) You need to be physically present here when I-485 is filed. After that, it doesn't matter where you are. At some point you may be scheduled for fingerprinting, but you will likely have months for that.
2) If we leave on TN after filing AOS is there any chance that USCIS will consider the AOS request abandoned even if we return on Oct-1st in H status?
a) An I-485 can't be abandoned simply because you left the USA
3) Once we file 485 do we need to wait for the receipt before traveling abroad?
a) No.
Following is some clarification that I got from my Lawyer..
1) Will there be any problem if I am not able to make it back on Oct-1st, due to any unforeseen reason, If 485 is already received by USCIS and pending?
a) You need to be physically present here when I-485 is filed. After that, it doesn't matter where you are. At some point you may be scheduled for fingerprinting, but you will likely have months for that.
2) If we leave on TN after filing AOS is there any chance that USCIS will consider the AOS request abandoned even if we return on Oct-1st in H status?
a) An I-485 can't be abandoned simply because you left the USA
3) Once we file 485 do we need to wait for the receipt before traveling abroad?
a) No.
hot kat tattoos. kat von d tattoo
desixp
03-22 12:24 AM
Tragic accident in MO. My heartfelt sympathies to the families.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_us/mo_officer_fatal_accident
DesiXP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_us/mo_officer_fatal_accident
DesiXP
more...
house kat von d wallpaper. la ink
senthil
01-30 07:47 AM
seem like you clearly know the reason what caused this. as mentioned by our friends, right supporting documents and a good attorney should get your job done like a piece of cake. good luck.
tattoo Kat Von D Picture amp; Photo
waitingnwaiting
11-29 10:22 AM
This is where our problem lies. People once they are greened completely forget the troubles and "never ever" look back. Many of us (either directly or as dependents) have been greened and have reached very high positions but never feel the need to help out. I am wondering whether it is because we have failed to ask their help??
Instead on focussing on senators and congressmen/women (which IV members are already doing) would it be worthwile to prepare a list of influential (political, business, scientists) immigrants (particularly chinese and Indians) and then getting their help/input to our cause??
First people who do not have greencard should support.
Right now we do not even have 1% of those people part of IV
Instead on focussing on senators and congressmen/women (which IV members are already doing) would it be worthwile to prepare a list of influential (political, business, scientists) immigrants (particularly chinese and Indians) and then getting their help/input to our cause??
First people who do not have greencard should support.
Right now we do not even have 1% of those people part of IV
more...
pictures Download Kat Von D Wallpaper
joydiptac
06-02 07:52 PM
You cannot be a partner in LLC and work for the same company on H1B.
But my guess is nothing stops you from not be a founding member and work for the same company. Your other two partners can be owners and they will have the right to give you as many shares as they want. This is a guess, so please confirm with a Lawyer. Explore the same option with C Corp/S Corp as well.
Do share with us what you find out. :)
And BTW if you are just three people and making a million you guys are making a killing. What business you guys in?
But my guess is nothing stops you from not be a founding member and work for the same company. Your other two partners can be owners and they will have the right to give you as many shares as they want. This is a guess, so please confirm with a Lawyer. Explore the same option with C Corp/S Corp as well.
Do share with us what you find out. :)
And BTW if you are just three people and making a million you guys are making a killing. What business you guys in?
dresses Kat+Von+D+Wallpaper+1 + Tattoo
for_gc
08-14 08:02 PM
Well, there are exceptions to almost every rule. The fact that there are exceptions does not mean that the rule is not right.
The rule still pretty much seems to be that the processing is done in the order of ND and not RD.
Lets do not confuse ourselves.
The rule still pretty much seems to be that the processing is done in the order of ND and not RD.
Lets do not confuse ourselves.
more...
makeup Search Result for kat von d
vedicman
01-05 08:20 AM
New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez plans to reach out to a South Carolina Republican to craft a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the next Congress.
But it's not clear that Sen. Lindsey Graham will want to work with the top-ranking Hispanic Democrat on Capitol Hill.
Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said last week his boss wants Congress to pass a 10-point plan to boost border security before attempting to overhaul the immigration system.
Menendez introduced an immigration reform bill just before the Nov. 2 elections that he said takes a middle-of-the-road approach, incorporating ideas that Republicans such as Graham, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah have presented in the past.
Menendez said in December that Graham has expressed interest in writing a bipartisan bill.
"If he is, then what I hope to do is to draft something together that will have some level of bipartisan support," Menendez said. "If that doesn't happen in a reasonable time period, then I'd like to introduce the bill again (in the next Congress) as a foundation to get something moving. If there's nothing to have hearings about, nothing to debate over, you will never move forward."
But Bishop said Menendez and Graham haven't discussed working on an immigration bill.
The Menendez proposal, co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., would eventually legalize illegal immigrants, improve border security, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and make it easier for legal residents to bring family members to the U.S.
Graham has a history of working across party lines and often has been the only Republican willing to buck his party to strike political compromises. But that approach may be politically risky now that the GOP has turned more conservative under the influence of the Tea Party movement.
In 2007, Graham joined Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in pushing hard for an immigration reform bill that Menendez helped write. But the measure died in the Senate, with Menendez ultimately voting against it because some of his proposals had been stripped out. The measure never reached the House.
In 2010, Graham collaborated with another liberal Democratic senator, Chuck Schumer of New York, on an immigration reform plan that called for legalizing about 11 million illegal immigrants and improving border security. The two discussed the proposal with President Barack Obama at the White House.
But Graham quickly ended that partnership, accusing Democrats of politicizing the issue and citing his opposition to the Democratic health care reform bill.
Aggressive GOP opposition to Democratic immigration plans was evident during the lame-duck session when Republican senators -- along with some Democrats -- teamed up to kill the DREAM Act, which offered the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they completed two years of university or military service.
"Illegal immigration is a nightmare for America," Graham said in a December statement after the DREAM Act died. "Giving a pathway to citizenship without first securing the border is an inducement to encourage more illegal immigration. This is nothing more than a political game by the Democrats to try and drive a wedge between the Hispanic community and Republicans."
The DREAM Act's failure lessens chances that a broader immigration bill will pass a deeply partisan Congress, Menendez acknowledged.
"These are . . . children who came to this country through no decision of their own," he said. "They were brought here by their parents. Overwhelmingly, they only know America as their country. . . . If you can't get (the DREAM Act) agreed to, then I think the rest of it will be a lot more hard sledding."
In April, Arizona enacted the nation's toughest immigration enforcement law, which allows police to detain and question people about their immigration status. The administration is challenging the law in court. Several other states are likely to pass similar legislation.
In response, Congress approved legislation -- which became law in August -- providing $600 million in emergency funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 250 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and unmanned Predator drones to patrol the border.
NJ Sen. Robert Menendez seeks support for immigration reform bill | APP.com | Asbury Park Press (http://www.app.com/article/20110103/NEWS03/110103074/Sen-Menendez-seeks-support-for-immigration-reform-legislation)
But it's not clear that Sen. Lindsey Graham will want to work with the top-ranking Hispanic Democrat on Capitol Hill.
Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said last week his boss wants Congress to pass a 10-point plan to boost border security before attempting to overhaul the immigration system.
Menendez introduced an immigration reform bill just before the Nov. 2 elections that he said takes a middle-of-the-road approach, incorporating ideas that Republicans such as Graham, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah have presented in the past.
Menendez said in December that Graham has expressed interest in writing a bipartisan bill.
"If he is, then what I hope to do is to draft something together that will have some level of bipartisan support," Menendez said. "If that doesn't happen in a reasonable time period, then I'd like to introduce the bill again (in the next Congress) as a foundation to get something moving. If there's nothing to have hearings about, nothing to debate over, you will never move forward."
But Bishop said Menendez and Graham haven't discussed working on an immigration bill.
The Menendez proposal, co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., would eventually legalize illegal immigrants, improve border security, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and make it easier for legal residents to bring family members to the U.S.
Graham has a history of working across party lines and often has been the only Republican willing to buck his party to strike political compromises. But that approach may be politically risky now that the GOP has turned more conservative under the influence of the Tea Party movement.
In 2007, Graham joined Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in pushing hard for an immigration reform bill that Menendez helped write. But the measure died in the Senate, with Menendez ultimately voting against it because some of his proposals had been stripped out. The measure never reached the House.
In 2010, Graham collaborated with another liberal Democratic senator, Chuck Schumer of New York, on an immigration reform plan that called for legalizing about 11 million illegal immigrants and improving border security. The two discussed the proposal with President Barack Obama at the White House.
But Graham quickly ended that partnership, accusing Democrats of politicizing the issue and citing his opposition to the Democratic health care reform bill.
Aggressive GOP opposition to Democratic immigration plans was evident during the lame-duck session when Republican senators -- along with some Democrats -- teamed up to kill the DREAM Act, which offered the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they completed two years of university or military service.
"Illegal immigration is a nightmare for America," Graham said in a December statement after the DREAM Act died. "Giving a pathway to citizenship without first securing the border is an inducement to encourage more illegal immigration. This is nothing more than a political game by the Democrats to try and drive a wedge between the Hispanic community and Republicans."
The DREAM Act's failure lessens chances that a broader immigration bill will pass a deeply partisan Congress, Menendez acknowledged.
"These are . . . children who came to this country through no decision of their own," he said. "They were brought here by their parents. Overwhelmingly, they only know America as their country. . . . If you can't get (the DREAM Act) agreed to, then I think the rest of it will be a lot more hard sledding."
In April, Arizona enacted the nation's toughest immigration enforcement law, which allows police to detain and question people about their immigration status. The administration is challenging the law in court. Several other states are likely to pass similar legislation.
In response, Congress approved legislation -- which became law in August -- providing $600 million in emergency funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 250 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and unmanned Predator drones to patrol the border.
NJ Sen. Robert Menendez seeks support for immigration reform bill | APP.com | Asbury Park Press (http://www.app.com/article/20110103/NEWS03/110103074/Sen-Menendez-seeks-support-for-immigration-reform-legislation)
girlfriend Kat Von D Dress
gc28262
07-16 07:30 AM
Murthy Bulletin
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
hairstyles Kat+Von+D+Wallpaper+2 +
inthehole
08-24 01:15 PM
"You need information or other services"
I used this option. I tried in the afternoon around 1.00PM
Hope this helps!
Hi aps1,
Thanks for your response. I selected the option you mentioned and I am able to get the appointment.
The reason for my infopass is its been more than 90 days since I filed for EAD. There is one option specifically for this scenario. When I selected this option I am getting "No appointments available" message for the past one month.
May I know what is the reason for your infopass?. Is your infopass is due to the delay in EAD renewal process?
I used this option. I tried in the afternoon around 1.00PM
Hope this helps!
Hi aps1,
Thanks for your response. I selected the option you mentioned and I am able to get the appointment.
The reason for my infopass is its been more than 90 days since I filed for EAD. There is one option specifically for this scenario. When I selected this option I am getting "No appointments available" message for the past one month.
May I know what is the reason for your infopass?. Is your infopass is due to the delay in EAD renewal process?
nixstor
07-09 08:09 PM
Thanks Nixtor, I am in CA, but would have been more than eager to join you otherwise. Could you record (handycam) a few shots.
AJ,
Thanks for the offer. I am not sure if I have permission to shoot any thing on a federal govt agency premises, but will do my best. My sources tell me that some main stream media will cover it. For us to be able to make a good impact, we need to have people there.
AJ,
Thanks for the offer. I am not sure if I have permission to shoot any thing on a federal govt agency premises, but will do my best. My sources tell me that some main stream media will cover it. For us to be able to make a good impact, we need to have people there.
LOL123
07-30 01:29 PM
Please advise..............
No comments:
Post a Comment