gcformeornot
05-29 04:26 PM
For the record I do not have a problem. Employer is a very large company and I have worked in the same location for close to 10 years with a well maintained LCA history. So chill. My eyes are wide open in matters important to me.
The reason for being pissed is that these bull issues are manufactured for a commercial reason (by ) and with the express purpose to distract from the main and important goals for advocacy to solve this frustrating retrogession problem.
You on the other hand is a desperate fool on someone's illegitimate (from a moral perspective) payroll. Seriously man have some shame. BTW Are you and EASTINDIA the same person? You sound like you are.
Murthy Law Firm Attorney 6
Attorney posted May 29, 2010 12:34 PM
Call the Murthy Law Firm after the holiday weekend and get some help.
We have started to see this issue. The USCIS trying to deny I-485s due to LCA failures. The reason the LCAs aren't proper, usually, is that the employer relocated the person w/o doing a new LCA. The employee usually has no idea, since the LCA is the employer's filing and there used to be a lot less attention/awareness about LCA issues.
We have developed a number of arguments regarding this matter....including the "no fault of your own" concept and arguments regarding status violations vs LCA violations etc. This is a new development.
The reason why it is important is that it is necessary to be in status when filing the I-485. Prior status violations exceeding 180 days prior to or after filing the I-485 are grounds for I-485 denials.
It is a complicated topic. If the USCIS persists in this matter, there are going to be a lot of cases with this type of problem.
Urgent Notice of Intent to Deny I-485, LCA amendment not filed - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=8951088502&r=1511058602#1511058602)
The reason for being pissed is that these bull issues are manufactured for a commercial reason (by ) and with the express purpose to distract from the main and important goals for advocacy to solve this frustrating retrogession problem.
You on the other hand is a desperate fool on someone's illegitimate (from a moral perspective) payroll. Seriously man have some shame. BTW Are you and EASTINDIA the same person? You sound like you are.
Murthy Law Firm Attorney 6
Attorney posted May 29, 2010 12:34 PM
Call the Murthy Law Firm after the holiday weekend and get some help.
We have started to see this issue. The USCIS trying to deny I-485s due to LCA failures. The reason the LCAs aren't proper, usually, is that the employer relocated the person w/o doing a new LCA. The employee usually has no idea, since the LCA is the employer's filing and there used to be a lot less attention/awareness about LCA issues.
We have developed a number of arguments regarding this matter....including the "no fault of your own" concept and arguments regarding status violations vs LCA violations etc. This is a new development.
The reason why it is important is that it is necessary to be in status when filing the I-485. Prior status violations exceeding 180 days prior to or after filing the I-485 are grounds for I-485 denials.
It is a complicated topic. If the USCIS persists in this matter, there are going to be a lot of cases with this type of problem.
Urgent Notice of Intent to Deny I-485, LCA amendment not filed - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=8951088502&r=1511058602#1511058602)
shaikhshehzadali
07-16 07:16 PM
Lets not count the chickens before they are hatched. Its entirely plausible that if anything favourable comes up, its due to combined efforts. Lets not fight out yet, as if we havent seen anything concrete yet.
cheers
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
cheers
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
illinois_alum
05-27 09:35 PM
See answers in Blue below
Can you please help, if there are some instructions handy. I am having difficulty for following fields
1. Manner of Last Entry : I think it should be PAR:PAROLEE YES. I USED SAME FOR MY WIFE
2. Current Immigration Status : Again think should be PAR:PAROLEE YES
3. There is a field where it asks for previous EAD's. I am not sure of the date when i applied last time, what date i should put, the date from which EAD is valid ?
I take this has to be the date of application. We didn't remember the exact application date for one of the EADs - we entered an approximate Date
4. Also i have applied for EAD twice, do we need to put the information for both of them. The information is not required...but its better to enter it
5. Other Names/Aliases : I think it should be 'None' in my case as i never had any other name, am i right or should it be left blank.
6. for Eligibility status i think the value should be : (c)(9) FILED I-485 YES
I am in EB2, pririty date Aug 2006. last entry to US Jan 2010 using Advance Parole.
Thanks and appreciate your help.
Can you please help, if there are some instructions handy. I am having difficulty for following fields
1. Manner of Last Entry : I think it should be PAR:PAROLEE YES. I USED SAME FOR MY WIFE
2. Current Immigration Status : Again think should be PAR:PAROLEE YES
3. There is a field where it asks for previous EAD's. I am not sure of the date when i applied last time, what date i should put, the date from which EAD is valid ?
I take this has to be the date of application. We didn't remember the exact application date for one of the EADs - we entered an approximate Date
4. Also i have applied for EAD twice, do we need to put the information for both of them. The information is not required...but its better to enter it
5. Other Names/Aliases : I think it should be 'None' in my case as i never had any other name, am i right or should it be left blank.
6. for Eligibility status i think the value should be : (c)(9) FILED I-485 YES
I am in EB2, pririty date Aug 2006. last entry to US Jan 2010 using Advance Parole.
Thanks and appreciate your help.
mhathi
02-25 02:51 PM
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
more...
eager_immi
07-19 05:24 PM
She should go on h4. If she wants her ead she can file once you get AOS receipt No. unless u alreaqy filed for it. If u already filed for her ead you should still wait for her to quit her h1 job till the ead comes through.
Can someone give me answer for the second question:
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
Can someone give me answer for the second question:
2. My spouse's AOS was filed with mine as dependent. She has a H1 of her own and is working. Now, after the I485 receipt comes back, if she leaves her job, will she be in status (or does she need to move to H4? I'll stay on H1 and won't invoke EAD unless necessary). My understanding is, with the receipt, she is in status no matter what (unless the I485 gets denied).
Aah_GC
09-21 11:14 PM
Thanks...your replies were compassionate and philosophical in a way.
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
IMO I think that is a question only you can answer. Since we are all chasing some thing or the other -- it makes sense to enjoy the journey, see how we can be happy today and let nature take its course. For some going back to India makes most sense, for some probably not. Either way, the decisions that we take should be based out of our own individual purpose and desires than be guided by externals.
Let me rephrase it. With current Globalization and other means to come to US such as B1,L1 etc....why are we stuck to this phase for years.
See tonnes of people going back----are we chasing something we are not supposed to do?
IMO I think that is a question only you can answer. Since we are all chasing some thing or the other -- it makes sense to enjoy the journey, see how we can be happy today and let nature take its course. For some going back to India makes most sense, for some probably not. Either way, the decisions that we take should be based out of our own individual purpose and desires than be guided by externals.
more...
sujijag
03-11 06:33 PM
If someone does this - its fraud, if they do it themselves - its legitimate.
Seek Lawyer's help, asking such qns in forums only creates backlash ;)
Seek Lawyer's help, asking such qns in forums only creates backlash ;)
amitsri_74
06-27 04:45 PM
I am on H1-B which expired on June 18th (extension filed) and my I-485 is pending since Sep 2007. I got my EAD in Feb 2008 but I am still using my H1-B with my current employer. My wife is on H4 (extension filed with mine) and her EAD is received at USCIS May 13th under processing
I need expert's help to understand the following
1) I am getting a good job offer and want to move to other employer July 31 on EAD.
2) Since my H1-Extension is no received I cannot transfer it now but I get it I will transfer it.
3) Can I join my new employer using my EAD (which was not used with my current employer) invoking AC21 and 180 period is passed since the 485 Application receipt date (Sep 14th)
4) If I join using EAD, will my wife be out of status as H4 will be void, however her EAD is under process but not yet received.
Any help will be highly appreciated
Amit
I need expert's help to understand the following
1) I am getting a good job offer and want to move to other employer July 31 on EAD.
2) Since my H1-Extension is no received I cannot transfer it now but I get it I will transfer it.
3) Can I join my new employer using my EAD (which was not used with my current employer) invoking AC21 and 180 period is passed since the 485 Application receipt date (Sep 14th)
4) If I join using EAD, will my wife be out of status as H4 will be void, however her EAD is under process but not yet received.
Any help will be highly appreciated
Amit
more...
jungalee43
06-29 09:05 PM
I have used AC21 replied to all the RFEs about it. Laast year my attorney delayed renewal of my EAD and immediately 485 petition started moving and landed in National benefits Center for scheduling an interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
skdskd
09-27 10:02 AM
Hi All,
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
tinoue I will suggest talk to lawyer,
As per my lawyer, If at the time of filing of I-485 , you already have I-140 approved , you are supposed to write A# I-140 on I-485 Application.
Otherwise they might assign New One..
If you remember on I-485 Application there is place for A#.
I received the I-485 reciept notice yesterday from my lawyer (see below for my info), but the alien number on I-485 is different from the number on my approved I-140. My I-140 has a number starting with A099, but my I-485 reciept notice has a number starting with A088. Someone in this forum mentioned that A099 is for the primary applicant and A088 is for the dependant. I am the primary applicant for I-485, so if it is true, I should get A099, not A088. I am not sure if I can have two different alien numbers or if this is a mistake by USCIS. Is anyone in the same situation?
I am sorry if this issue is discussed previously (I couldn't find the related thread). I would greatly appreciate your input.
Thank you very much.
tinoue I will suggest talk to lawyer,
As per my lawyer, If at the time of filing of I-485 , you already have I-140 approved , you are supposed to write A# I-140 on I-485 Application.
Otherwise they might assign New One..
If you remember on I-485 Application there is place for A#.
more...
chi_shark
09-09 04:30 PM
:eek:
What the h### am i getting the red dots for anyway? it looks kinda cool!
What the h### am i getting the red dots for anyway? it looks kinda cool!
jvs_annapurna
05-07 11:23 PM
sorry guys i was moving to new place. it was with i-94
more...
sankap
07-06 06:05 PM
Why would you need an EVL from your new employer or inform the USCIS of your job change, in this case? AC21 does not require you to "file AC21" (whatever that means), contrary to what has been advised in this forum many times. Please Google "Yates memo;" see, e.g., http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/ac21-51205.pdf. Here are my attorney's comments in this regard:
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
"AC21 is the name of the immigration act that allowed portability for those who have an approved I-140 and I-485 pending over 180 days. There are no regulations for this provision therefore no instructions regarding notification so there is no actual action to "invoke AC21". The Service will sometimes send out an RFE just prior to approving an I-485 to request confirmation that the individual is either still employed by the sponsoring employer or if not, that he/she was portable when changing positions which is evidenced by a letter from the new employer."
I don't think you should request any thing from your new employer other than a job offer. You need an EVL *only* in case of an RFE. And no need to "file AC21!"
Green.Tech
09-16 04:28 PM
Whatever problems you have today :- RFE, NOID, TAXES.. You have 4 weeks to 12 weeks time.
For the most important task today, you have barely a few hours left. So leave everything else for tomorrow and it would not be too late.
If you don't call today it would be too late.
...it would be "years and years" late if we don't call today!
For the most important task today, you have barely a few hours left. So leave everything else for tomorrow and it would not be too late.
If you don't call today it would be too late.
...it would be "years and years" late if we don't call today!
more...
eastindia
09-23 11:14 AM
As long as greedy corporations like microsoft exist noting will happen to H1B program..its the economy that's it ..once it start moving up h1b will become l1b and the import of cheap labor starts once again .....you guys are just spreading fear nothing else ....
You hate Microsoft because you cannot a job there. Why don't you spend time upgrading your skills and get rid of your hatred for H1B workers.
If you think it is too much for you and you would rather blame Immigrants for your incompetence, then you may want to try apply as a Janitor in Microsoft or Google. Maybe they will hire you. You can then tell all your friends that you work for Microsoft. :D
You hate Microsoft because you cannot a job there. Why don't you spend time upgrading your skills and get rid of your hatred for H1B workers.
If you think it is too much for you and you would rather blame Immigrants for your incompetence, then you may want to try apply as a Janitor in Microsoft or Google. Maybe they will hire you. You can then tell all your friends that you work for Microsoft. :D
smmakani
05-14 07:20 PM
Thanks IV Core. We are all with you.
more...
FredG
August 27th, 2004, 08:57 AM
I'm with Don.. although I have a camera in phone, it's got less resolution that a hungover coke bottle dipped in vaseline jelly peering through the polar ice cap after a three night binge on beer, whisky and crack. ...
resolution lower than a cockroaches left testicle and more shakey than a sneezing 99 year old geriatric having a seisure.....Rob, What have you been eating? :D
resolution lower than a cockroaches left testicle and more shakey than a sneezing 99 year old geriatric having a seisure.....Rob, What have you been eating? :D
sapota
08-22 02:50 PM
I know some of you will be attending the Rally in DC on Sep 18th.
But most wont be attending the rally in DC on the 18th. Wouldnt it be good if the people who are not able to attend the DC rally conduct a rally in Texas at the same day.
This way, there will be a multi pronged effect. In fact, it would have an even greater effect if simultaneous rallies are held in other places too. Like
West Coast (Bay area )
Midwest (Chicago)
Texas (one of the major cities - Dallas, Austin or Houston)
Think of all the local media attention this gets & also the ripple effect into national media.
Any thoughts ??
But most wont be attending the rally in DC on the 18th. Wouldnt it be good if the people who are not able to attend the DC rally conduct a rally in Texas at the same day.
This way, there will be a multi pronged effect. In fact, it would have an even greater effect if simultaneous rallies are held in other places too. Like
West Coast (Bay area )
Midwest (Chicago)
Texas (one of the major cities - Dallas, Austin or Houston)
Think of all the local media attention this gets & also the ripple effect into national media.
Any thoughts ??
raju123
06-26 02:51 PM
Numberusa reported following possible 24 amendments and Cantwell/Kyl amendment is not there. I hope this news is not right.
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
Democratic Amendments
* Dodd-Menendez S.A. 1199: would increase the annual cap on green cards for parents and extend the parent visitor visa.
* Webb S.A. 1313: Community ties for [amnesty]
* Baucus-Tester S.A. 1236: would strike all reference[s] to REAL ID.
* Sanders-Grassley S.A. 1332 : prohibits companies that have announced mass lay-offs from receiving any new visas, unless these companies could prove that overall employment at their companies would not be reduced by these lay-offs.
* Byrd-Gregg-Cochran S.A. 1344: adds a $500 fee to obtain [amnesty] and sets aside the revenues collected in order to fund border and interior enforcement.
* Menendez-Obama-Feingold S.A. 1317: increases family points in merit system
* Brown S.A. 1340: requires that before employers can be approved to employ Y-1 workers, they must have listed the specific job opportunity with the state employment service agency.
* McCaskill S.A. 1468: increases ban on federal contracts, grants or cooperative agreements to employers who are repeat violators of hiring immigrants who are not authorized to work
* Levin-Brownback S.A.1486: gives access to Iraqis to apply for refugee status under existing U.S. law.
* Leahy S.A. 1386: protect scholars who have been persecuted in their home countries on account of their beliefs, scholarship, or identity.
* Schumer: provides for tamper-proof biometric social security cards
* Boxer S.A. 1198: reduces Y visa cap by number of Y workers who overstay
Republican Amendments
* Alexander S.A. 1161: requires DHS and the Department of State to notify a foreign embassy when one of their nationals has become a U.S. citizen
* Bond S.A. 1255: prohibits green cards for [illegal aliens granted amnesty]
* Coleman S.A. 1473: outlaws state and local policies that prevent public officials * including police and health and safety workers (except for emergency medical assistance)*from inquiring about the immigration status of those they serve if there is �probable cause� to believe the individual being questioned is undocumented.
* Domenici S.A. 1335/1258: increases Federal judgeships
* Ensign S.A. 1490: redetermines work history for current beneficiaries of social security depending on their citizenship status
* Graham S.A. 1465: enforcement. Still being drafted.
* Grassley-Baucus-Obama S.A. 1441: strikes and replaces Title III on employer enforcement
* Hutchinson S.A. 1440: changes the �touchback� requirement from the time of applying for adjustment of status, as it currently stands in the Senate proposed bill, to the time of applying for the Z visa. Increases the number of individuals required to touchback
* Thune S.A. 1174: prevents [illegal aliens] from [being granted amnesty] until all triggers have been met.
* Chambliss S.A. 1318: Totalization agreements
* Isakson S.A. 1282: Preemption/Home Depot
* Graham: Criminal penalties/mandatory minimums for overstays
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
dummgelauft
04-13 12:40 PM
You are talking about needs? Then US needs all EB's over illegals by much, much more than US needs EB1 over EBn (n>1). So let's not talk of who contributes and who does not. It doesn't matter, all have same raw deal
If there was the slightest doubt that you are technically qualified person, you removed it 100% by by giving that equation Ebn(n>1) LOL!!
If there was the slightest doubt that you are technically qualified person, you removed it 100% by by giving that equation Ebn(n>1) LOL!!
PHANI_TAVVALA
12-02 02:26 PM
FinalGC, Thanks for your reply. I am partially paying for this process. I heard that if the labor is approved and h1b is about to expire, I can apply I-140 under premium processing due to a recent rule change. Is that true? If so, will I be able apply concurrent I-140 and h1B extension?
No comments:
Post a Comment