waiting for GC
09-24 05:49 PM
Got the CPO mails for myself and spouse.
11 years wait is over finally. I wish all the best for the remaining folks !!
11 years wait is over finally. I wish all the best for the remaining folks !!
wallpaper Just check the efore
va_dude
11-10 11:12 PM
gc4me....
sorry to hear about the problem with your app.
I think at this point it's best you hired a good attorney to help you through this RFE and work with him/her on the best way to present your case.
good luck.
va_dude
sorry to hear about the problem with your app.
I think at this point it's best you hired a good attorney to help you through this RFE and work with him/her on the best way to present your case.
good luck.
va_dude
keshtwo
07-13 01:51 PM
Jeez,
This guy has moved from an anti H1 visa platform to an anti-India platform. This is bordering on racism. And no one saying anything. Wonder what all this is leading to.
People must remember that all of them are immigrants or descendants of immigrants.
This guy has moved from an anti H1 visa platform to an anti-India platform. This is bordering on racism. And no one saying anything. Wonder what all this is leading to.
People must remember that all of them are immigrants or descendants of immigrants.
2011 Is Lady Gaga A Man
chanduv23
01-29 06:41 PM
I had already mentioned my EAD status when they had the interview. But after acceptiing it I mentioned it again in the conext of I9 form. Then they said they cant offer me emp;oyment due to my being on EAD.
This is a pretty big company. I understand that H1B is not protected under anti-discrimination for employment, but EAD holders, specifically those with AOS pending, are a protected against employment discrimination.
Does anyone have any links to the above conclusion ? I am so tired of this BS. I have spent long enough in this immigration c**p that if I have leave, might as well leave with a fight.
regards
just anotherone of the expendable non-citizens
OK, unless you never initiated the EAD conversation, technically they are supposed to ask ONLY if you are legally authorized to work in the US or you need sponsership. At the time of joining, they are supposed to give you the i-9 form and you have 72 hours to return the form back with your documentation to prove that you can work for any employer. A valid EAD with a future expiration is very much a valid document and must be acccepted as a valid.
This is a pretty big company. I understand that H1B is not protected under anti-discrimination for employment, but EAD holders, specifically those with AOS pending, are a protected against employment discrimination.
Does anyone have any links to the above conclusion ? I am so tired of this BS. I have spent long enough in this immigration c**p that if I have leave, might as well leave with a fight.
regards
just anotherone of the expendable non-citizens
OK, unless you never initiated the EAD conversation, technically they are supposed to ask ONLY if you are legally authorized to work in the US or you need sponsership. At the time of joining, they are supposed to give you the i-9 form and you have 72 hours to return the form back with your documentation to prove that you can work for any employer. A valid EAD with a future expiration is very much a valid document and must be acccepted as a valid.
more...
DallasBlue
09-13 03:00 PM
Caught in a Bureaucratic Black Hole
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 10 September 2007
Applicants seeking US citizenship languish for years as the FBI conducts cumbersome records checks. Lawsuits are a result.
Seeking to become a U.S. citizen, Biljana Petrovic filed her application, completed her interview and passed her civics test.
More than three years later, she is still waiting to be naturalized - held up by an FBI name-check process that has been criticized as slow, inefficient and a danger to national security.
Petrovic, a stay-at-home mother in Los Altos, Calif., who has no criminal record, has sued the federal government to try to speed up the process. She said it's as if her application has slipped into a "black hole."
"It's complete frustration," said Petrovic, who is originally from the former Yugoslavia and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. "It's not like I am applying to enter the country. I have been here for 19 years."
Nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of Aug. 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years.
Applicants for permanent residency or citizenship have lost jobs, missed out on student loans and in-state tuition, and been unable to vote or bring relatives into the country. The delays have prompted scores of lawsuits around the country.
Already this fiscal year, more than 4,100 suits have been filed against the citizenship and immigration agency, compared with 2,650 last year and about 680 in 2005. The mandamus suits ask federal judges to compel immigration officials to adjudicate the cases. The majority of the cases were prompted by delays in checking names, spokesman Chris Bentley said.
"There is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd," said Ranjana Natarajan, an ACLU staff attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in Southern California last year on behalf of applicants waiting for their names to be checked. "People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
In addition to the bureaucratic nightmare that the lengthy delays present, attorneys and government officials say there is a far more serious concern: They could be allowing potential terrorists to stay in the country.
Fallout From 9/11
The backlog began after 9/11, when Citizenship and Immigration Services officials reassessed their procedures and learned that the FBI checks were not as thorough as they had believed. So "out of an abundance of caution," the agency resubmitted 2.7 million names in 2002 to be checked further, Bentley said.
Rather than simply determining if the applicants were subjects of FBI investigations, the bureau checked to see if their names showed up in any FBI files, including being listed as witnesses or victims. About 90% of the names did not appear in the agency's records, FBI spokesman Bill Carter said.
But for the 10% who were listed, authorities carefully reviewed the files to look for any "derogatory" information, Carter said. Because many documents aren't electronic and are in the bureau's 265 offices nationwide, that process can take months, if not years.
"It is not a check of your name," said Chuck Roth, director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, which also filed a class-action suit. "It is a file review of anywhere your name happens to appear. It has just created a giant bureaucratic mess."
Although many of those stuck in the backlog are from predominantly Muslim countries, there are also people from Russia, China, India and elsewhere. They include government employees and Iraq war veterans. Many have been in the U.S. legally for decades.
In one case decided in Washington, D.C., recently, a federal judge wrote that a Chinese man's four-year wait for permanent residency was unreasonable and ordered the government to decide on the application within three months. Petrovic, who has two U.S.-born teenagers, doesn't know what delayed her application. The only explanation she can think of is that her name is common in her native country.
She and her husband, Ihab Abu-Hakima, also a Canadian citizen, applied for citizenship in April 2003 and had their interviews in February 2004. Her husband was sworn in that summer, while her application continued to languish. She checked the mail daily.
When she still didn't hear anything, Petrovic contacted immigration officials, who told her that the FBI had her file and that it was still active. She also contacted her representative and her senator, whose offices asked Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite the application. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her FBI file, which simply showed that she had never been arrested.
"I have a feeling that the system has broken down," she said.
Joining a Different Group
In August, Petrovic joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in Northern California against the federal government. She is waiting to become a U.S. citizen so she can sponsor her elderly parents, who live in Canada and visit often.
"Every time they leave, I feel bad," she said. "This is their life here, more than there."
The problem extends beyond the disruption of personal lives.
In his yearly report to Congress in June, immigration services ombudsman Prakash wrote that the policy on checking names "may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country." questioned the overall value of the process, writing that it was the "single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits."
The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged the threat, last month announcing plans to work with the FBI to address the backlog and reduce delays. Citizenship and Immigration Services will reassess the way name checks are done and earmark $6 million toward streamlining the process, Bentley said.
Though 99% of the agency's name checks are completed within six months, Bentley said, the lengthy delays for some applicants is "unacceptable."
"That requires a lot of patience on the part of an applicant because they have to wait sometimes multiple years," he said.
Nevertheless, he said, no benefit will be approved until that name check comes back clear. Security checks have produced information about sex crimes, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism, according to the agency.
Carter, the FBI spokesman, said he understands that applicants waiting for answers are anxious, but he said the process is complicated and involves dozens of agencies and databases - and, in some cases, foreign governments.
"The FBI's No. 1 priority remains to protect the United States from terrorist attack," Carter said. "To that end, we must ensure the proper balance between security and efficiency."
In addition to clearing the backlog and processing the 27,000 new name checks it receives each week from immigration officials, the FBI is trying to accelerate the process by making more documents electronic. It is also adding more staff and moving resources to a new records facility in Virginia, Carter said.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, said the government needs to make sure that it carefully checks every application. And working with foreign governments is inevitably going to slow the process down, he said.
"We correctly have much more stringent standards for immigration," he said. "I am not really sure that there is any way to do this kind of deep background check efficiently."
But attorneys said that because of the inefficiency, the program isn't serving its purpose.
"Let's say this guy is a terrorist or a criminal," Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said. "Why wouldn't the FBI rush the case?"
Mervyn Sam, a South African native who got a green card in 1998, has been waiting more than four years for the FBI to complete his name check. Sam said his career has been affected by the delay. He lives in Anaheim and is a project manager at a software company but cannot work on certain government projects because he is not a U.S. citizen. He has sued the federal government.
"I am not sure what the hiccup is on my end," he said. "It is very, very frustrating."
Shusterman, whose office is representing Sam, said applicants waste their time by contacting the immigration services agency, the FBI or their legislators.
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court," he said.
--------
anna.gorman@latimes.com
By Anna Gorman
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 10 September 2007
Applicants seeking US citizenship languish for years as the FBI conducts cumbersome records checks. Lawsuits are a result.
Seeking to become a U.S. citizen, Biljana Petrovic filed her application, completed her interview and passed her civics test.
More than three years later, she is still waiting to be naturalized - held up by an FBI name-check process that has been criticized as slow, inefficient and a danger to national security.
Petrovic, a stay-at-home mother in Los Altos, Calif., who has no criminal record, has sued the federal government to try to speed up the process. She said it's as if her application has slipped into a "black hole."
"It's complete frustration," said Petrovic, who is originally from the former Yugoslavia and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. "It's not like I am applying to enter the country. I have been here for 19 years."
Nearly 320,000 people were waiting for their name checks to be completed as of Aug. 7, including more than 152,000 who had been waiting for more than six months, according to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. More than 61,000 had been waiting for more than two years.
Applicants for permanent residency or citizenship have lost jobs, missed out on student loans and in-state tuition, and been unable to vote or bring relatives into the country. The delays have prompted scores of lawsuits around the country.
Already this fiscal year, more than 4,100 suits have been filed against the citizenship and immigration agency, compared with 2,650 last year and about 680 in 2005. The mandamus suits ask federal judges to compel immigration officials to adjudicate the cases. The majority of the cases were prompted by delays in checking names, spokesman Chris Bentley said.
"There is nothing in immigration law that says that a citizenship application should take two, three, four years. That's absurd," said Ranjana Natarajan, an ACLU staff attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit in Southern California last year on behalf of applicants waiting for their names to be checked. "People who have not been any sort of threat ... have been caught up in this dragnet."
In addition to the bureaucratic nightmare that the lengthy delays present, attorneys and government officials say there is a far more serious concern: They could be allowing potential terrorists to stay in the country.
Fallout From 9/11
The backlog began after 9/11, when Citizenship and Immigration Services officials reassessed their procedures and learned that the FBI checks were not as thorough as they had believed. So "out of an abundance of caution," the agency resubmitted 2.7 million names in 2002 to be checked further, Bentley said.
Rather than simply determining if the applicants were subjects of FBI investigations, the bureau checked to see if their names showed up in any FBI files, including being listed as witnesses or victims. About 90% of the names did not appear in the agency's records, FBI spokesman Bill Carter said.
But for the 10% who were listed, authorities carefully reviewed the files to look for any "derogatory" information, Carter said. Because many documents aren't electronic and are in the bureau's 265 offices nationwide, that process can take months, if not years.
"It is not a check of your name," said Chuck Roth, director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, which also filed a class-action suit. "It is a file review of anywhere your name happens to appear. It has just created a giant bureaucratic mess."
Although many of those stuck in the backlog are from predominantly Muslim countries, there are also people from Russia, China, India and elsewhere. They include government employees and Iraq war veterans. Many have been in the U.S. legally for decades.
In one case decided in Washington, D.C., recently, a federal judge wrote that a Chinese man's four-year wait for permanent residency was unreasonable and ordered the government to decide on the application within three months. Petrovic, who has two U.S.-born teenagers, doesn't know what delayed her application. The only explanation she can think of is that her name is common in her native country.
She and her husband, Ihab Abu-Hakima, also a Canadian citizen, applied for citizenship in April 2003 and had their interviews in February 2004. Her husband was sworn in that summer, while her application continued to languish. She checked the mail daily.
When she still didn't hear anything, Petrovic contacted immigration officials, who told her that the FBI had her file and that it was still active. She also contacted her representative and her senator, whose offices asked Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite the application. She filed a Freedom of Information Act request for her FBI file, which simply showed that she had never been arrested.
"I have a feeling that the system has broken down," she said.
Joining a Different Group
In August, Petrovic joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in Northern California against the federal government. She is waiting to become a U.S. citizen so she can sponsor her elderly parents, who live in Canada and visit often.
"Every time they leave, I feel bad," she said. "This is their life here, more than there."
The problem extends beyond the disruption of personal lives.
In his yearly report to Congress in June, immigration services ombudsman Prakash wrote that the policy on checking names "may increase the risk to national security by extending the time a potential criminal or terrorist remains in the country." questioned the overall value of the process, writing that it was the "single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits."
The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged the threat, last month announcing plans to work with the FBI to address the backlog and reduce delays. Citizenship and Immigration Services will reassess the way name checks are done and earmark $6 million toward streamlining the process, Bentley said.
Though 99% of the agency's name checks are completed within six months, Bentley said, the lengthy delays for some applicants is "unacceptable."
"That requires a lot of patience on the part of an applicant because they have to wait sometimes multiple years," he said.
Nevertheless, he said, no benefit will be approved until that name check comes back clear. Security checks have produced information about sex crimes, drug trafficking and individuals with known links to terrorism, according to the agency.
Carter, the FBI spokesman, said he understands that applicants waiting for answers are anxious, but he said the process is complicated and involves dozens of agencies and databases - and, in some cases, foreign governments.
"The FBI's No. 1 priority remains to protect the United States from terrorist attack," Carter said. "To that end, we must ensure the proper balance between security and efficiency."
In addition to clearing the backlog and processing the 27,000 new name checks it receives each week from immigration officials, the FBI is trying to accelerate the process by making more documents electronic. It is also adding more staff and moving resources to a new records facility in Virginia, Carter said.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, said the government needs to make sure that it carefully checks every application. And working with foreign governments is inevitably going to slow the process down, he said.
"We correctly have much more stringent standards for immigration," he said. "I am not really sure that there is any way to do this kind of deep background check efficiently."
But attorneys said that because of the inefficiency, the program isn't serving its purpose.
"Let's say this guy is a terrorist or a criminal," Los Angeles immigration attorney Carl Shusterman said. "Why wouldn't the FBI rush the case?"
Mervyn Sam, a South African native who got a green card in 1998, has been waiting more than four years for the FBI to complete his name check. Sam said his career has been affected by the delay. He lives in Anaheim and is a project manager at a software company but cannot work on certain government projects because he is not a U.S. citizen. He has sued the federal government.
"I am not sure what the hiccup is on my end," he said. "It is very, very frustrating."
Shusterman, whose office is representing Sam, said applicants waste their time by contacting the immigration services agency, the FBI or their legislators.
"There is only one thing that works, and that is suing them in federal court," he said.
--------
anna.gorman@latimes.com
thakurrajiv
11-25 04:07 PM
People like you and boreal are doing much better because you decided that a 2 bed room house for rent is what you can afford because the prices shot up by guys like punjabi who wanted to make money and overbid on an house they cannot afford. Otherwise guys like you and many others would have bought house at a resonable price.
Don't you see what is happening? They live a rich man's life buying house that they cannot afford and then they foreclose with banks taking the hit. The banks in turn gets money from Governement, which they tax on people like you and many others who are renting, so that the guys like pubjabi are entitled to big house and bailouts. This is sick. Where is my bail out money. I want my rent to be subsidized too. I think boreal 's anger is real.
As I said I am against bailout. As none of these people/organizations should be bailed out. On this issues I resonate with you and boreal.
But if I am in situation like Punjabi I will think in similar way. I think he has got enough suggestions for him. He needs to decide whether 20k is worth foreclosing.
On living rich, I prefer living decent in long run than living rich for a few days and then suffering later ..
Don't you see what is happening? They live a rich man's life buying house that they cannot afford and then they foreclose with banks taking the hit. The banks in turn gets money from Governement, which they tax on people like you and many others who are renting, so that the guys like pubjabi are entitled to big house and bailouts. This is sick. Where is my bail out money. I want my rent to be subsidized too. I think boreal 's anger is real.
As I said I am against bailout. As none of these people/organizations should be bailed out. On this issues I resonate with you and boreal.
But if I am in situation like Punjabi I will think in similar way. I think he has got enough suggestions for him. He needs to decide whether 20k is worth foreclosing.
On living rich, I prefer living decent in long run than living rich for a few days and then suffering later ..
more...
neerajkandhari
11-22 04:52 PM
Have You Heard About Hope For Homeowners Programme
Try Going To Fha.gov
Try Going To Fha.gov
2010 LADY GAGA BEFORE
.jpg "Lady Gaga Before")
485Mbe4001
09-24 05:37 PM
My reasoning for less than 3k visas for EB3 I
Assume EB3 I has 2800 available per year
2800/12 = 233.33 per month.
The spread sheet shows that there are 135 pending with PD of March 01 or less. Which is less than 233 the PD did not cross April because there are 452 applications in april. A PD of April makes sense. Using calculation the PD will be July 2001 in Dec.
if you assume 8080 visas per year then there will be 673 visas availble per month and the PD should have crossed to May 2001 because the total pending 485s on May 1st are 587. If we go with your assumption then the PD in December will be at Jan 2002...I
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
Assume EB3 I has 2800 available per year
2800/12 = 233.33 per month.
The spread sheet shows that there are 135 pending with PD of March 01 or less. Which is less than 233 the PD did not cross April because there are 452 applications in april. A PD of April makes sense. Using calculation the PD will be July 2001 in Dec.
if you assume 8080 visas per year then there will be 673 visas availble per month and the PD should have crossed to May 2001 because the total pending 485s on May 1st are 587. If we go with your assumption then the PD in December will be at Jan 2002...I
This is not the correct understanding. I know this myth is propogated millions of times in millions of board and so now this myth has become "truth" for millions. But that is not the correct way USCIS does things.
Country specific limit - 9% does NOT have any realtion to "assigning numbers". it is just meant to "approve 485 - mail you a real physical green card".
In ROW cataegory other countries are also bound with this 9 (7 + 2) % limit for Visa granting. For an example - For Pakistan USCIS will never grant more than 9% visa per year no matter how many applications from Pakistan have been assigned a valid visa number. Same will go true for Britain or any "other" country.
In reality How USCIS divide 28.6% among countires - That is unknown mystery and nobody surely know that. And that is why I had to assume "equal shares - 5 part" in my analysis assuming USCIS works fairly but we all know that is a bullshit too :)
more...
whitecollarslave
03-26 02:37 PM
Just a silly question popped up in my mind...
Doesn't DOL have a directive telling employers, they have to try to recruit US Citizens first, and only if they do not find properly qualified US Citizens they can go on to search for people having 'other work authorizations' . Isn't that the whole basis for the approval of our Labor certifications in the first place???
So can the employers not use that directive as a legal loophole and try to prescreen the candidates and ask them whether they are US Citizens or GC or EAD or H1 and so on... as a hidden ploy to figure out whether you are GC or EAD while externally they can still put on a facade that they are just strictly following the legal directives that DOL has laid out?
Doesn't this 'Try to hire US Citizens first' policy of DOL in total contradiction with the I9 statement of 'no discrimination based on work authorization' ???? I am a bit confused here :confused:
Where does it say (please quote official DHS/USCIS/DOL publication or a bill) that employers must hire "US Citizens" first? I think the regulations are to give preference to US workers (note that its not US citizens) before brining somebody from abroad.
You do make a very good observation and we should clarify with the experts. Can anybody help clarifying this from the lawyers?
Doesn't DOL have a directive telling employers, they have to try to recruit US Citizens first, and only if they do not find properly qualified US Citizens they can go on to search for people having 'other work authorizations' . Isn't that the whole basis for the approval of our Labor certifications in the first place???
So can the employers not use that directive as a legal loophole and try to prescreen the candidates and ask them whether they are US Citizens or GC or EAD or H1 and so on... as a hidden ploy to figure out whether you are GC or EAD while externally they can still put on a facade that they are just strictly following the legal directives that DOL has laid out?
Doesn't this 'Try to hire US Citizens first' policy of DOL in total contradiction with the I9 statement of 'no discrimination based on work authorization' ???? I am a bit confused here :confused:
Where does it say (please quote official DHS/USCIS/DOL publication or a bill) that employers must hire "US Citizens" first? I think the regulations are to give preference to US workers (note that its not US citizens) before brining somebody from abroad.
You do make a very good observation and we should clarify with the experts. Can anybody help clarifying this from the lawyers?
hair Lady GaGa has revealed
sobers
02-21 04:04 PM
what i mean is you should take out the H1B part from the letter and then send it to your lawmakers. the letter is modifiable- you can add, delete or change content before sending it.
that is what i have done. Took me less than 5 minutes!
that is what i have done. Took me less than 5 minutes!
more...
sundarpn
01-28 10:15 AM
Finally received my passport this morning. Consulate sent it to VFS on Friday and I received it today through Blue Dart.
Int Date: Dec 17, 2007 @ Chennai Consulate
PP Rec. Date: Jan 28, 2008
what was the approval date on ur h1b and what uscis center approved it? thanks
Int Date: Dec 17, 2007 @ Chennai Consulate
PP Rec. Date: Jan 28, 2008
what was the approval date on ur h1b and what uscis center approved it? thanks
hot But Lady GaGa#39;s backstage
pappu
06-20 04:05 PM
question: can I file without employer letter
For an employment-based petition, in order to proceed and be valid,
they
need to still INTEND to be employed by the sponsoring employer if and
when
they get their green card. The employer however, does not need to sign
any
forms per se with relation to the adjustment petition. If the alien is
currently working for the sponsoring employer (on H-1B or other) he or
she
can port or transfer employers without penalty or without losing the
green
card process 180 days after they file the I-485 petition. At that
point,
they can change employers and work for whomever they wish (provided
they
have a valid work permit)
The forms which need to be filed with the I-485 include;
Form I-485 for EACH applicant with $325 filing fee ($225 if under age
14)
Proof of approved I-140
Form G-325A for each applicant
G-28, if attorney involved
Form I765 Work Permit (optional) (filing fee of $180)
Form I-131 Travel Permit (optional) (filing fee of $170)
Fingerprint fee of $70 for each
Medical examination by INS approved doctor
Passport, visa, approval notices and I-94 card showing all years in the
US
in valid status and maintenance of status
Marriage certificate, birth certificates of children.
Form I-134 Affidavit of Support (notarized) or I-864, with tax returns
(1
year must be attached, but income for three years must be listed); job
letter from the alien's current employer; and pay-stubs.
If the alien is NOT yet working for the sponsoring employer, I like to
include a letter from the employer stating that if and when the alien
gets
his residency, they still intend to hire him or her.
Hope this answers the questions.
For an employment-based petition, in order to proceed and be valid,
they
need to still INTEND to be employed by the sponsoring employer if and
when
they get their green card. The employer however, does not need to sign
any
forms per se with relation to the adjustment petition. If the alien is
currently working for the sponsoring employer (on H-1B or other) he or
she
can port or transfer employers without penalty or without losing the
green
card process 180 days after they file the I-485 petition. At that
point,
they can change employers and work for whomever they wish (provided
they
have a valid work permit)
The forms which need to be filed with the I-485 include;
Form I-485 for EACH applicant with $325 filing fee ($225 if under age
14)
Proof of approved I-140
Form G-325A for each applicant
G-28, if attorney involved
Form I765 Work Permit (optional) (filing fee of $180)
Form I-131 Travel Permit (optional) (filing fee of $170)
Fingerprint fee of $70 for each
Medical examination by INS approved doctor
Passport, visa, approval notices and I-94 card showing all years in the
US
in valid status and maintenance of status
Marriage certificate, birth certificates of children.
Form I-134 Affidavit of Support (notarized) or I-864, with tax returns
(1
year must be attached, but income for three years must be listed); job
letter from the alien's current employer; and pay-stubs.
If the alien is NOT yet working for the sponsoring employer, I like to
include a letter from the employer stating that if and when the alien
gets
his residency, they still intend to hire him or her.
Hope this answers the questions.
more...
house Lady GaGa is a man? not true.
h1techSlave
04-17 09:41 PM
In technology field, your trump card is your superior knowledge in your field. If you are very thorough in your area of expertise, employers would anything for you.
After numerous job searches and process I have been associated with, I have found following things:
All skilled people get the job they want. Hiring process in US is very slow and if you hold your ground eventually employers agree to your demands. I understand that the applicant here wants to work for capital 1. However, I would not advise on confronting an HR person directly. That may play against your long term interest with the company. Listen to whatever HR says and just thank them and say if there is any future opportunity you will be willing to consider.
After that report the matter to DOJ. Do not come across as someone who is creating trouble for employer. You will make your case difficuilt for future opportunities with that employer. AOS, 485 are all temporary things but you and capital 1 are staying there for ever. So report such cases without employers getting any hint of who did it.
After numerous job searches and process I have been associated with, I have found following things:
All skilled people get the job they want. Hiring process in US is very slow and if you hold your ground eventually employers agree to your demands. I understand that the applicant here wants to work for capital 1. However, I would not advise on confronting an HR person directly. That may play against your long term interest with the company. Listen to whatever HR says and just thank them and say if there is any future opportunity you will be willing to consider.
After that report the matter to DOJ. Do not come across as someone who is creating trouble for employer. You will make your case difficuilt for future opportunities with that employer. AOS, 485 are all temporary things but you and capital 1 are staying there for ever. So report such cases without employers getting any hint of who did it.
tattoo Lady GaGa? Before and After?
HV000
08-07 04:47 PM
if one is taunting , " Look FBI bosses , i am stuck in security check, still i am a working with my H1B/EAD . How dare you allow to people remain here - for many years - if you suspect something is fishy with their record "
That's not correct. FBI cannot deny somebody a visa JUST BECAUSE they cannot do their job in a TIMELY FASHION. Law states that "YOU ARE GUILTY ONLY WHEN ITS PROVEN"
Also, Please keep in mind there are over 12 MILLION ILLEGALS WITH NO RECORD!
I hope it helps.
That's not correct. FBI cannot deny somebody a visa JUST BECAUSE they cannot do their job in a TIMELY FASHION. Law states that "YOU ARE GUILTY ONLY WHEN ITS PROVEN"
Also, Please keep in mind there are over 12 MILLION ILLEGALS WITH NO RECORD!
I hope it helps.
more...
pictures Lady GaGa gave Beyoncé
sam_hoosier
10-05 03:40 PM
Hows ALLVOI quality compared to Vonage for India calls?
Hows their customer service?
I know Vonage's CS is bad.
Thanks
I have been pretty impressed with both call quality & customer service for ALLVOI. But I have not used Vonage, so cannot compare the two.
I went from spending $130-140 a month on India calls + phone line to $ 14.99. It couldn't get any better :)
Hows their customer service?
I know Vonage's CS is bad.
Thanks
I have been pretty impressed with both call quality & customer service for ALLVOI. But I have not used Vonage, so cannot compare the two.
I went from spending $130-140 a month on India calls + phone line to $ 14.99. It couldn't get any better :)
dresses hairstyles Lady Gaga Before
Saralayar
01-05 09:37 PM
Yes we can consider that too for our argument. 10 years in another country without citizenship is meaningless (most important part of our life is being spent here).
more...
makeup lady gaga before and after
DesiGuy
09-11 07:11 AM
3 more co-sponsors added, the total is now 31.:)
Also noticed only 8 Republicans v/s/ 23 Dems.
Although number of republicans so-sponsoring is lower, it's still 25% of the total so there is hope that more will support it when it comes to voting. ;)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5882
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2008-09-10]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D-TX]
Rep. Artur Davis [D-AL]
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA]
Rep. Linda S�nchez [D-CA]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
Also noticed only 8 Republicans v/s/ 23 Dems.
Although number of republicans so-sponsoring is lower, it's still 25% of the total so there is hope that more will support it when it comes to voting. ;)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5882
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2008-09-10]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D-TX]
Rep. Artur Davis [D-AL]
Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA]
Rep. Linda S�nchez [D-CA]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D-CA]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R-WI]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R-TX]
Rep. John Shadegg [R-AZ]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
girlfriend lady gaga nosejob
rockstart
06-15 01:14 PM
I have a question if some one has been out of status during F1 period will it affect the 485 how can one mitigate it.
hairstyles lady gaga before and after
logiclife
01-09 12:05 AM
Thanks,
logiclife.
logiclife.
pitha
07-01 11:21 AM
Lets say DOS revises bulletin on july 2, does that mean applications recieved on july 2 are accepted and all applications recieved after 2 will be rejected or will USCIS reject all applications recieved on july 2 also.
veera72
09-14 03:56 PM
My company applied 100 485's . 85 from NSC and 15 from TSC (140 aproval). All NSC people got receipts, some of got FP's also. But TSC people still waiting for checks to be cleared.
140 approved by TSC
LUD on I-140 of 8-5-07
I-485 filed with NSC on 2nd july:mad:
140 approved by TSC
LUD on I-140 of 8-5-07
I-485 filed with NSC on 2nd july:mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment