yabadaba
08-07 09:26 AM
are you dumb or something????
this has been out for weeks...we are waiting for the september bulletin
what a moron!
this has been out for weeks...we are waiting for the september bulletin
what a moron!
whoever
07-20 01:56 PM
we did the same. it seems your marriage in india was just marriage ceremony and not legal marriage.
snathan
08-25 06:15 PM
Is a lawyer necessary to file PERM? What are the cons of not hiring a lawyer and doing it ourselves?
You are not even supposed to involve in any of the PERM process. Its plain illegal. only your employer should handle it.
You are not even supposed to involve in any of the PERM process. Its plain illegal. only your employer should handle it.
dummgelauft
04-30 08:50 AM
I had said this all along. Nothing is going to happen. Not now, not ever, atleast for a long long time.
Happy Friday. Those who are disappointed, it comes at an appropriate time of the week to drink Daroo to forget the disaapointment..
Happy Friday. Those who are disappointed, it comes at an appropriate time of the week to drink Daroo to forget the disaapointment..
more...
rbalaji5
07-17 07:55 PM
Really Thank and Appreciate Mr Gonzales.
Thank you so much Mr. Emilio Gonzalez
Thank you so much Mr. Emilio Gonzalez
purethoughts
01-24 12:00 PM
The cheapest way will be to give some $50-75 to the immigrationpro.com attorney. They will answer your questions through email. At least you have some opinion to verify with. I would also suggest to go through the yellow pages and find immigration lawyers who give you first hour free consultation. Do not rely on people like me for the prefessional opinion. Even though we have good things in mind, we are not prefessional lawyers. Get 4-5 professional opinion and then you will automatically know what is the truth.
Best luck !
Best luck !
more...
GCPagla
02-20 01:03 PM
To bring more details to my question:
a) Though my job title is like programmer analyst, my SOC job code is given as 17-2071.00 which is "Electrical Engineer"
I was never an electrical engineer (not even by my education). I do not know why the original filer used such a SOC code. Now my new role (lead technical architect) will have a SOC code as 15-1031 as that is for computer architect.
Morever my new employer will not provide me a Ac21 portability matching my labor cert.
My role responsibility is following as per labor cert.
Job Title: Programmer/ Analyst/Systems, Software/Engineer/Developer, or Related to IT
Reponsibility:
develop, create and modify general computer application software. Analysis user needs and design, develop software solutions. Design, develop, analyse and implement software and end user product. Coordinate various account projects with IT consultants; nurture close relationship with the major account customers by providing quality technical support and apply principles of computer science, engineering and mathematical analysis.
Do you feel that changing the job as lead architect willl be a paradigm shift for me causing my GC gone denied?
Thankis in advance.
a) Though my job title is like programmer analyst, my SOC job code is given as 17-2071.00 which is "Electrical Engineer"
I was never an electrical engineer (not even by my education). I do not know why the original filer used such a SOC code. Now my new role (lead technical architect) will have a SOC code as 15-1031 as that is for computer architect.
Morever my new employer will not provide me a Ac21 portability matching my labor cert.
My role responsibility is following as per labor cert.
Job Title: Programmer/ Analyst/Systems, Software/Engineer/Developer, or Related to IT
Reponsibility:
develop, create and modify general computer application software. Analysis user needs and design, develop software solutions. Design, develop, analyse and implement software and end user product. Coordinate various account projects with IT consultants; nurture close relationship with the major account customers by providing quality technical support and apply principles of computer science, engineering and mathematical analysis.
Do you feel that changing the job as lead architect willl be a paradigm shift for me causing my GC gone denied?
Thankis in advance.
willwin
08-11 11:23 AM
What is the purpose of this poll? Why start from 2005 (and not from 2001) ?
Sorry guys!
I overlooked it.
How do I modify a poll?
I can add two more entries in my poll.
Sorry guys!
I overlooked it.
How do I modify a poll?
I can add two more entries in my poll.
more...
ganguteli
06-04 03:17 PM
This is a good thing.
These consulting companies who were abusing the visa will be taught a lesson.
People used to complain a lot about desi companies and now when USCIS has finally become tough they are complaining about it.
You cannot have it both ways.
These consulting companies who were abusing the visa will be taught a lesson.
People used to complain a lot about desi companies and now when USCIS has finally become tough they are complaining about it.
You cannot have it both ways.
bp333
10-29 04:31 PM
Thanks for your info..and I wish you good luck. By any chance are you aware whether i need to send new fees or old fees? As a precaution I am going to sending the diff amount in a separate check.
They should be OK with the old fee, however to be safe I would send an extra check to make up the difference for new fee. Explain it in the cover letter and let them decide.
They should be OK with the old fee, however to be safe I would send an extra check to make up the difference for new fee. Explain it in the cover letter and let them decide.
more...
transpass
08-02 01:23 PM
USCIS will approve 2 yrs EAD only if the dates are not current and visa is not available for that particular case. in my case my pd is always current and visa is available.
Dude/Dudet...
It's better for you if you fill form 7001 with ombudsman office and get going...It's insane...:eek:
Dude/Dudet...
It's better for you if you fill form 7001 with ombudsman office and get going...It's insane...:eek:
kanyewest
04-22 10:16 AM
Thank you for your comments.
For the period, I was on valid H1, employed, and not paid by my employer - I have a WH4 complaint registered and an acknowledgement from DOL that they have received the complaint.
I understand that this situation requires premium processing of H1. In case the COS is denied, which as pointed out is more likely, I understand that I will need to travel abroad to obtain a new I-94 with the new H1 approval.
1. If the COS is denied, can I use the unexpired H1B visa in my passport at the POE to enter the country and obtain a new I-94 based on the new H1 approval notice.
2. Is it wise and practical to make the new employer aware of my DOL complaint against previous employer during the H1 transfer process? Unless it is needed, I would prefer not disclosing that information to the new employer.
Thank you again for your time and recommendations.
For the period, I was on valid H1, employed, and not paid by my employer - I have a WH4 complaint registered and an acknowledgement from DOL that they have received the complaint.
I understand that this situation requires premium processing of H1. In case the COS is denied, which as pointed out is more likely, I understand that I will need to travel abroad to obtain a new I-94 with the new H1 approval.
1. If the COS is denied, can I use the unexpired H1B visa in my passport at the POE to enter the country and obtain a new I-94 based on the new H1 approval notice.
2. Is it wise and practical to make the new employer aware of my DOL complaint against previous employer during the H1 transfer process? Unless it is needed, I would prefer not disclosing that information to the new employer.
Thank you again for your time and recommendations.
more...
hemanth22
07-10 09:43 AM
I feel there is no better country than India in the long run..believe me!!!
thats correct , india is booming right now and it will only go up
So i think that even if we succeed in getting the green card , we should always have one option to going back.
thats correct , india is booming right now and it will only go up
So i think that even if we succeed in getting the green card , we should always have one option to going back.
shreekhand
08-28 04:42 PM
Actually it completely depends on the attorney. I know a couple of people in my company who changed employers and used the old attorney to file AC21 papers for them! and it is a big employer and a big attorney firm !
you should use another attorney. How can you go to your employer's attonery(even though he represents you) and ask about taking another job?. Its same as asking your employer.:eek:
you should use another attorney. How can you go to your employer's attonery(even though he represents you) and ask about taking another job?. Its same as asking your employer.:eek:
more...
tdasara
04-16 02:16 PM
Is there a 120 day advance filing period to file for AP?
jennyucf
07-19 03:47 PM
Who is the chapter chair in the Indy area? Can we get the contact information?
Thanks! :)
Thanks! :)
more...
eb3India
09-25 10:19 AM
Here is the mail from AILA,
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
September 25, 2006
Dear Immigration Advocates-
Your help is STILL needed TODAY! Senate Appropriators will meet late THIS AFTERNOON to decide if enforcement-only bills will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's appropriations package. Urge your Senators to oppose efforts to attach anti-immigration measures to this must-pass bill. Call or email your Senators TODAY - encourage them to weigh-in with Senate Appropriators about this urgent matter.
You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
Email your Senators through Contact Congress on AILA's website. We've already created a sample letter for you to send. All you need to do is enter your zip code, hit send, and your voice will be heard in Congress.
Call your Senators, you can find their telephone numbers in our Congressional Directory and you can use these talking points to help you when you call:
� Congress should stop playing politics with immigration and pass comprehensive immigration reform. These enforcement-only bills will do nothing to enhance border security and will not move us one inch closer to fixing our broken immigration system.
� Attaching these bills to DHS appropriations circumvents the legislative process on an issue of critical national importance; it undermines the intense and unflagging efforts of the Senate to solve this crisis; and it rewards the House for spending the summer attacking the Senate while abdicating its responsibility to the American people.
� Senators should forcefully oppose this effort by the House to nullify the Senate's bi-partison solution. If the Senate acquiesces on these provisions, the House will only be emboldened and will never return to debate comprehensive reform. This will not be "enforcement-first", it will be "enforcement-only."
� For laws to work, they must be realistic and fair. Our current immigration laws are neither: proposals like these that ignore the reality that immigrants come here to work and to be with their families are destined to fail.
� Giving the government unchecked powers to punish immigrants, and making local police chase after immigrants, will only drive undocumented immigrants further underground. It will not fix the problem; it will make matters worse.
We called you to action last week to alert you to an underhanded political strategy from immigration restrictionists to attach three enforcement-only bills to the DHS appropriations bill, a bill that must pass this year. You and your colleagues sent close to 2,000 letters to Congress, but we'll need more letters and phone calls in order to ensure that Senate Appropriators exclude these measures from the bill.
Leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives are working behind closed doors and using procedural mechanisms to attach enforcement-only provisions contained in three bills (H.R. 6094, H.R. 6095, and H.R. 4830) to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, a piece of legislation that must pass this year. Although House leaders label these bills "border security" legislation, they are in fact harsh enforcement measures lifted from Rep. Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4437 that endanger due process rights and do little to make our borders more secure. You can find general information about the three bills below and a section-by-section analysis of each one on InfoNet.
If these provisions are attached to the must-pass DHS bill, it will be nearly impossible to defeat them. Our best defense against this backdoor strategy is to put pressure on each U.S. Senator and encourage them to oppose any attempt to attach, or further these three enforcement-only bills. We're working hard in Washington to derail these political machinations, but we can't do it alone. We need your help. Please email or call both of your Senators today.
Over the summer House leadership used dozens of faux hearings to stage public displays of aversion to immigration reform. While they kept the media busy and their restrictionist base roiled, they failed to change the minds of the majority of Americans who support a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system. Nor did they succeed in backing down the U.S. Senators who supported S. 2611, a strong step towards comprehensive immigration reform. Now that House leaders know that the full Senate won't pass their enforcement-only agenda, they have resorted to closed-door politicking. We must fight to prevent the breach of justice that would result from attaching these enforcement-only bills to must-pass legislation.
Please call and email your Senators today. Now is the time for action.
Sincerely,
Marshall
Marshall Fitz
Director of Advocacy, AILA
Email Marshall
The enforcement-only provisions are:
� Sections 101 and 102 of the Dangerous Alien Detention Act contained in H.R. 6094, which seek to legitimize the practice of indefinite detention of aliens awaiting removal, despite Supreme Court decisions requiring elimination of this practice;
� Section 201 of the Criminal Alien Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would expand the use of expedited removal proceedings to individuals already in the United States - even individuals who have resided here for years - in ways that would significantly increase the risk of deporting innocent people;
� Sections 301-303 of the Alien Gang Removal Act contained in H.R. 6094, which would grant unfettered discretion to the executive branch to designate "criminal street gangs" and then strip members of such gangs of virtually all rights;
� Section 101 of H.R. 6095, which gives state and local police authority to investigate, arrest, and detain noncitizens for civil violations of immigration status;
� Sections 301 and 302 of the Ending Catch and Release Act contained in H.R. 6095, which would limit the power of federal courts to grant injunctive relief in civil immigration proceedings, despite acknowledgement by DOJ that such relief does not interfere with efforts to end the practice of catch-and-release.
CADude
07-02 03:05 PM
People can married because date are current. :D INDEED AMERICA IS GOOD PLACE. :p
USCIS and DOS played ping pong on us.
USCIS played June Fool.
We are panned.
I told my wife that I will get her EAD in 3 months. Now what I should I say. I am insulted embarassed.
I planned to leave my company in 6 months. Now again I am struck.
I decided to marry a girl just because the dates are current. Now I am struck.
Oh USCIS(GOD)!!, Why did you do this me?
USCIS and DOS played ping pong on us.
USCIS played June Fool.
We are panned.
I told my wife that I will get her EAD in 3 months. Now what I should I say. I am insulted embarassed.
I planned to leave my company in 6 months. Now again I am struck.
I decided to marry a girl just because the dates are current. Now I am struck.
Oh USCIS(GOD)!!, Why did you do this me?
amitjoey
08-23 10:40 AM
I do not understand what the need is to change to F1. One can do Masters while on H4. If you are thinking she needs OPT to work after Masters, It is a 2 year course, right?. You can decide after 1-1/2 yrs if you want her to move to F1.
gccovet
02-17 05:04 PM
Hi.
Most of us who filed during jul/aug 2007 got our FPs done later that year.
Aren't those FPs valid for only 15 months or so?
So have folks started receiving their second FP notice yet?
Thanks.
va_dude
I was wondering the same thing. On other hand, I don't remember exactly where, read that as USCIS has updated their software, hence, FP's will not be required again. I may be wrong here, I myself, am interested to know if I need to follow up with USCIS after my jul-07 filing.
GCCovet
Most of us who filed during jul/aug 2007 got our FPs done later that year.
Aren't those FPs valid for only 15 months or so?
So have folks started receiving their second FP notice yet?
Thanks.
va_dude
I was wondering the same thing. On other hand, I don't remember exactly where, read that as USCIS has updated their software, hence, FP's will not be required again. I may be wrong here, I myself, am interested to know if I need to follow up with USCIS after my jul-07 filing.
GCCovet
lj_rr
07-30 01:16 PM
Thanks for clarifying/
I believe my 140 was sent to Texas.
No , I dont work for CTS.
I would go with the FAQ released on July 23 (since it is the latest) instead of the Direct Filing update released on June 21.
Where was your I-140 applied (if it is not concurrent with 485)?
Also, Q6 says the following:
Q6: What happens if an application is filed at the wrong Service Center?
A6. Forms I-485 should be filed at either the Texas or Nebraska Service Centers. However, through August 17, 2007 only, employment-based adjustment applications filed at the California and Vermont Service Centers will not be rejected and will be relocated to the appropriate Service Center.
Do NOT split hairs! You are okay!
P.S.: BTW, are you working for Cognizant?
I believe my 140 was sent to Texas.
No , I dont work for CTS.
I would go with the FAQ released on July 23 (since it is the latest) instead of the Direct Filing update released on June 21.
Where was your I-140 applied (if it is not concurrent with 485)?
Also, Q6 says the following:
Q6: What happens if an application is filed at the wrong Service Center?
A6. Forms I-485 should be filed at either the Texas or Nebraska Service Centers. However, through August 17, 2007 only, employment-based adjustment applications filed at the California and Vermont Service Centers will not be rejected and will be relocated to the appropriate Service Center.
Do NOT split hairs! You are okay!
P.S.: BTW, are you working for Cognizant?