kothuri
07-27 09:54 AM
All,
I sent out my application to USCIS last week and while talking to a friend I realized that I had not filled the Item
"If your native alphabet is in other than Roman letters, write your name in your native alphabet below:"
I neither filled it with my native alphabet nor filled it with a "N/A" Even my lawyer has not detected this.
Is this going to be an issue? What will the USCIS do about it? Since I still have time does it make sense to send a revised form? Is some one out there who have done this?
Please let me know
Thanks
-Sri
I sent out my application to USCIS last week and while talking to a friend I realized that I had not filled the Item
"If your native alphabet is in other than Roman letters, write your name in your native alphabet below:"
I neither filled it with my native alphabet nor filled it with a "N/A" Even my lawyer has not detected this.
Is this going to be an issue? What will the USCIS do about it? Since I still have time does it make sense to send a revised form? Is some one out there who have done this?
Please let me know
Thanks
-Sri
webslinger
08-26 11:32 AM
Hi Vikramy - Do you know of any particular reasons for these transfer denials? Also what could have been the reason in your case? Please explain if you have examples for the company starting with cognXXXXX, I just put my transfer papers in to join them.... :confused:
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDgeVq1MstRx77MJ6U4U5DYGawkReGmF4UWExAnK_SQ4ClNS_eUcuPaCSweBQEfHUo-kxbENxHj0xWvu4cuFLfm9KqD1pOebGMQEXRl1Hb6Jljgtj_eRIpfoGrX32ygxhlL2k2voprUckl/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDgeVq1MstRx77MJ6U4U5DYGawkReGmF4UWExAnK_SQ4ClNS_eUcuPaCSweBQEfHUo-kxbENxHj0xWvu4cuFLfm9KqD1pOebGMQEXRl1Hb6Jljgtj_eRIpfoGrX32ygxhlL2k2voprUckl/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
chanduv23
05-19 01:37 PM
Hello All,
My I485 was filed at TSC and received date is July 26,2007 and notice date is sept 19,2007. MY EAD and AP and other finger prints are done after two months of filed. My priority date (Jun10, 2003) is current for last two months and it is going to retogress after this month end.There is no update for I485 for me and my wife. Now processing times for TSC shows they are working on Aug 08, 2007 filers. In this case cane youguys advice me on following things?
1. Is it good to take Info pass appointment and go for office before end of this month (as it is going to retrogress) and find out status? Before info pass do i need to get any other enquiry?
2. Processing dates for TSC-I485 shows Aug 08, 2007. Is this date recevied date or I485-Notice date?
3.Does Info-pass enquiry cause any negative effects on my I485 processing?
4. Any other guys in the same boat and what you guys are doing?
I really appreciate your advice. Thanks in advance for your good work.
If your case is approvable - it gets approved. Just because you take an infopass - your case will not get denied.
My I485 was filed at TSC and received date is July 26,2007 and notice date is sept 19,2007. MY EAD and AP and other finger prints are done after two months of filed. My priority date (Jun10, 2003) is current for last two months and it is going to retogress after this month end.There is no update for I485 for me and my wife. Now processing times for TSC shows they are working on Aug 08, 2007 filers. In this case cane youguys advice me on following things?
1. Is it good to take Info pass appointment and go for office before end of this month (as it is going to retrogress) and find out status? Before info pass do i need to get any other enquiry?
2. Processing dates for TSC-I485 shows Aug 08, 2007. Is this date recevied date or I485-Notice date?
3.Does Info-pass enquiry cause any negative effects on my I485 processing?
4. Any other guys in the same boat and what you guys are doing?
I really appreciate your advice. Thanks in advance for your good work.
If your case is approvable - it gets approved. Just because you take an infopass - your case will not get denied.
more...
singhsa3
07-25 03:55 PM
That exactly my point too. Any unique protest idea should be shared among us and saved for future use.
I agree that protest idea should not be misused. They have listened to us once now they will say "what else they want". Though there are more long terms issues but i guess protest ideas can be saved for later on or wait for the momentum to buildup itself.
I agree that protest idea should not be misused. They have listened to us once now they will say "what else they want". Though there are more long terms issues but i guess protest ideas can be saved for later on or wait for the momentum to buildup itself.
jsb
09-03 10:26 AM
Hi guys,
I know J Barrett has been a star of this forum for a while.
I just wanted to check if anyone in a similar situation as mine as received any update on their 485.
140 approved from TSC in May 2006; LUD on 7/28
485 received at NSC on July 2, 2007
485 received and Signed for by J Barrett at 10:25 AM
Thanks.
No receipts yet. Filing delivery details, and I-140 approval/LUD same as yours with EB2 India.
I know J Barrett has been a star of this forum for a while.
I just wanted to check if anyone in a similar situation as mine as received any update on their 485.
140 approved from TSC in May 2006; LUD on 7/28
485 received at NSC on July 2, 2007
485 received and Signed for by J Barrett at 10:25 AM
Thanks.
No receipts yet. Filing delivery details, and I-140 approval/LUD same as yours with EB2 India.
more...
GCOP
07-21 04:01 PM
Really sorry to know your situation. I really hope that attorney on this forum can come up with some idea. In the meantime, check with your attorney. Best of Luck.
krishnam70
07-05 11:55 AM
What has happened has happened. Maybe USCIS and/or DOS did goof up. Or maybe they really did want to reduce the backlog and use up all the available visas, and with all the good faith they could muster, worked themselves into a frenzy and on morning of July 2nd, they realized their blunder.
All the talk of lawsuits and class action, IMHO, is just a gravy train by the lawyers and for the lawyers. We, the 485 filers will just extras in their lush production. What kind of remedy do we expect? The Visa Bulletin is ex cathedra guidance, but subject to revision, even if there is no precedent for such revision. There is no law that spells out the formulation of the monthly Visa Bulletins. It is merely an administrative guidance tool, no different from a train schedule, with all of its implicit caveats.
Anyhow, hard as it is, we have to hunt for the silver lining in this episode. I think if this story got enough traction as a shining example of shoddy treatment of people who respect and follow the law, and contribute positively, in every sense of the word, to the well being of the United States, we will have it in play. Intervention from the Executive and Legislative branch could then be elicited. Individually, all of us should lay out our cases, respectfully and in good detail, to the Senators and Congressmen of our areas, to let them gauge the enormity of the problem at hand. This would be dream issue for the Senators and Congress people to attend to if it gains the critical mass. Doing whatever is required to right this wrong has no downside for any of them. They can even credit themselves for somehow rescuing a remedy out of the CIR fiasco. They can be the heroes here.
The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have already run the story. We need to build up on this. Even the Lou Dobbs and law-and-order types in the public arena can be roped in on this one. After all, we are trying to immigrate the right way, by fastidiously following the law, and dropping significant chunks of dollars all around while doing so.
If our efforts lead to recapturing of unused prior-year visa numbers, a relaxation in per-country limits, a delay on the filing-fee increases, and perhaps some movement on the SKIL Bill, we will have a net gain.
That guy will do more harm than help us. My opinion thought. He speaks from his point of view only..
All the talk of lawsuits and class action, IMHO, is just a gravy train by the lawyers and for the lawyers. We, the 485 filers will just extras in their lush production. What kind of remedy do we expect? The Visa Bulletin is ex cathedra guidance, but subject to revision, even if there is no precedent for such revision. There is no law that spells out the formulation of the monthly Visa Bulletins. It is merely an administrative guidance tool, no different from a train schedule, with all of its implicit caveats.
Anyhow, hard as it is, we have to hunt for the silver lining in this episode. I think if this story got enough traction as a shining example of shoddy treatment of people who respect and follow the law, and contribute positively, in every sense of the word, to the well being of the United States, we will have it in play. Intervention from the Executive and Legislative branch could then be elicited. Individually, all of us should lay out our cases, respectfully and in good detail, to the Senators and Congressmen of our areas, to let them gauge the enormity of the problem at hand. This would be dream issue for the Senators and Congress people to attend to if it gains the critical mass. Doing whatever is required to right this wrong has no downside for any of them. They can even credit themselves for somehow rescuing a remedy out of the CIR fiasco. They can be the heroes here.
The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have already run the story. We need to build up on this. Even the Lou Dobbs and law-and-order types in the public arena can be roped in on this one. After all, we are trying to immigrate the right way, by fastidiously following the law, and dropping significant chunks of dollars all around while doing so.
If our efforts lead to recapturing of unused prior-year visa numbers, a relaxation in per-country limits, a delay on the filing-fee increases, and perhaps some movement on the SKIL Bill, we will have a net gain.
That guy will do more harm than help us. My opinion thought. He speaks from his point of view only..
more...
panacea
08-04 02:25 AM
what does EAD /AP has to do with this?
hsingh82
03-09 10:55 AM
Thanks. Could you tell me more details if possible through a PM? I applied last year. During that month PD had gone from 2004 to 2003 to 2000 to U and then back to 2003. My PD was March 15 2004. Yes I could have waited for PD to become current and of course I would have preferred EAD for my wife. But you know as well as I do how the PD movement is. There is no way to tell what the PD will be next month. Knowing how these consultancies work we had investigated a lot. We talked to couple of people who had worked for him and they recommended him. They said they haldnt got any trouble from him. So we went ahead. I agree it was a mistake. But anyway whats done is done. Now just looking ahead.
I am new to this PD business as you can see from my profile I have no dates (yeah stupid me!!)..my employer working on perm application.Anyways, you can PM me or we can discuss here as it may help others too.
I am new to this PD business as you can see from my profile I have no dates (yeah stupid me!!)..my employer working on perm application.Anyways, you can PM me or we can discuss here as it may help others too.
more...
obviously
11-06 10:00 PM
Dear Friends,
It is great to see so much momentum in writing letters to elected officials. May I suggest that those impacted by retrogression/backlogs take an extra effort to articulate the issues and focus on differentiating it from the H1-B issues.
Here are some ways to frame 'thought provoking' discussions regarding retrogression:
Start off by stating in your letter that you are a non-US Citizen and non-Permanent Resident, currently in the Legal Immigration Queue!!
- In a country where there can be no legal bias on the basis of one's country of origin, why do we tolerate artificial quotas and restrictions during the legal immigration process based on country of origin?
- In an economy known for its dynamism and pace, where meritrocracy and hard work alone matter in principle, partly shored up by its hire and fire policy, granting Green Cards expeditously only enables them to more fully participate in the dynamic economy.
- In a country known for constant innovation and change, where the Top 10 firms of 50 years ago are so very different from the Top 10 firms of today, not enabling value-added immigration by highly skilled workers will only prevent such exponential innovation in the next 50 years.
- In a global economy where knowledge work can be done at any place where you have high speed networks, delays in granting Green Cards to highly skilled workers within the US only risks them and their high tax-paying jobs moving to other countries; including India, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore etc..
- From a public policy perspective, the time delay effect of not implementing a forward-looking policy in this regard will only inhibit economic growth because good ideas, able workers and creative capital finds its natural level over time. If the unreasonable backlogs continue for a foreseeable future, it is the US economy that will suffer in the long term because people and ideas will find a welcome home in other countries.
- Seeking resolution to the retrogression issue is neither a claim of entitlement or social promotion. It is requesting fairness, equity and reasonableness for those that respected the law and sought legal immigration through hard work and economic value-addition.
- Recapturing unused visa numbers does not create a net addition to the immigrant worker pool. In fact, it only creates a more mobile workforce, that can seek higher paying jobs, and in return contribute through taxes and social security.
- Ignoring the retrogression issue, would at one level, amount to gross injustice to citizens of countries that are democratic allies of the US.
Let us list out factual, cause-effect statements of non-resolution and hope that Congressional staffers will present these 'bullet points' in front of lawmakers.
I would urge everyone to send a personal email/ message.
1. Start off the email/message saying that you would like to share your pain points and perspectives so that the lawmakers can better learn about your interests, and that you hope that they will be sympathetic enough to come to the aid of legal high tax paying workers, and their respective employers.
2. Be frank and honest about the pains that you face due to retrogression - e.g. wife unable volunteer/seek work, unable to travel to other countries, unable to seek higher paying jobs, unable to grow professionally, unable to plan personal lives and investments, unable to live the American Dream, unable to move across State lines, unable to quell spouse's frustrations in being under 'house arrest', unable to feel the true freedom of this country, unable to maximize your value to the economy ... and other struggles and sacrifices
3. Take each of the above points and customize it to fit your needs
4. Close the email with a note to the effect that you would like to constantly remind the lawmakers that in their constituency, in this great democracy, in this meritrocratic economy, the current policies have created a slew of issues and hardships on professional and personal fronts due to the state of limbo.
5. Remind the audience that retrogression is an issue of 'backlogging' and is separate from the H1-B issue.
6. Remind them that not long ago, the Civil Rights movement started on the rather simple premise of ensuring that each and every man, woman and child in this country could live free and keep this nation free and make this a better world. The need for legal immigrants of the 21st century is no different in that you have a class of artificially segregated society that is unable to break free of its shackles of artificial quotes and arbitrary waiting times ... for no fault or folly of the person except that they dared to dream that they can live the Great American Dream.
7. Seeking resolution is not something to be ashamed or afraid about, and it definitely is not about 'guest workers not wanting to go back'. There is a legal process for guest workers to seek permanent residency and as applicants in the process, you are only seeking fair, judicious and expeditious resolution to backlogs and artificial 'hold backs'. This is a nation of immigrants and if one went back three to four generations, you would find stories of brave, bold believers that sought out the New World. Legal immigration is the modern Ellis Island. An entrance to the land of the brave, the land of the free.
Please, please take a moment to send out messages so that this features on their radar. Keep the messages professional, yet personable. Don't harrass or 'name call' anyone or any constituent in the messages. Our job should be to highlight the pain point, let us leave the resolution in their capable hands.
There are 1000's of members in IV. If each member seriously committed to sending just 1 message, chances are that we would be reaching ALL the elected members.
Remember, you can come back here and rant and rave as much as you want; or pontificate or predict about the issues. None of that makes a difference as much as your ability to challenge current beliefs and turn the tide in your favor through constant, consistent communication to lawmakers.
It's your turn... with the elections coming to close tomorrow, NOW is the time to set things right. Go ahead, please, I beg each one of you, make a commitment to send A Personal Message of Pain(AMAW)
Obviously
P.S. I would not recommend the 'Message A Week' from one person. I meant to say, if each of us took time to send 1 message each, over the next couple of weeks, together, we would end up having at least 1 message a week from this constituent body reach lawmakers and their offices. Please DO NOT flood them with messages every week, from the same person. This would waste their time and not be respectful of their attention. Again, just 1 message per person with all the points in there, would be helpful.
It is great to see so much momentum in writing letters to elected officials. May I suggest that those impacted by retrogression/backlogs take an extra effort to articulate the issues and focus on differentiating it from the H1-B issues.
Here are some ways to frame 'thought provoking' discussions regarding retrogression:
Start off by stating in your letter that you are a non-US Citizen and non-Permanent Resident, currently in the Legal Immigration Queue!!
- In a country where there can be no legal bias on the basis of one's country of origin, why do we tolerate artificial quotas and restrictions during the legal immigration process based on country of origin?
- In an economy known for its dynamism and pace, where meritrocracy and hard work alone matter in principle, partly shored up by its hire and fire policy, granting Green Cards expeditously only enables them to more fully participate in the dynamic economy.
- In a country known for constant innovation and change, where the Top 10 firms of 50 years ago are so very different from the Top 10 firms of today, not enabling value-added immigration by highly skilled workers will only prevent such exponential innovation in the next 50 years.
- In a global economy where knowledge work can be done at any place where you have high speed networks, delays in granting Green Cards to highly skilled workers within the US only risks them and their high tax-paying jobs moving to other countries; including India, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore etc..
- From a public policy perspective, the time delay effect of not implementing a forward-looking policy in this regard will only inhibit economic growth because good ideas, able workers and creative capital finds its natural level over time. If the unreasonable backlogs continue for a foreseeable future, it is the US economy that will suffer in the long term because people and ideas will find a welcome home in other countries.
- Seeking resolution to the retrogression issue is neither a claim of entitlement or social promotion. It is requesting fairness, equity and reasonableness for those that respected the law and sought legal immigration through hard work and economic value-addition.
- Recapturing unused visa numbers does not create a net addition to the immigrant worker pool. In fact, it only creates a more mobile workforce, that can seek higher paying jobs, and in return contribute through taxes and social security.
- Ignoring the retrogression issue, would at one level, amount to gross injustice to citizens of countries that are democratic allies of the US.
Let us list out factual, cause-effect statements of non-resolution and hope that Congressional staffers will present these 'bullet points' in front of lawmakers.
I would urge everyone to send a personal email/ message.
1. Start off the email/message saying that you would like to share your pain points and perspectives so that the lawmakers can better learn about your interests, and that you hope that they will be sympathetic enough to come to the aid of legal high tax paying workers, and their respective employers.
2. Be frank and honest about the pains that you face due to retrogression - e.g. wife unable volunteer/seek work, unable to travel to other countries, unable to seek higher paying jobs, unable to grow professionally, unable to plan personal lives and investments, unable to live the American Dream, unable to move across State lines, unable to quell spouse's frustrations in being under 'house arrest', unable to feel the true freedom of this country, unable to maximize your value to the economy ... and other struggles and sacrifices
3. Take each of the above points and customize it to fit your needs
4. Close the email with a note to the effect that you would like to constantly remind the lawmakers that in their constituency, in this great democracy, in this meritrocratic economy, the current policies have created a slew of issues and hardships on professional and personal fronts due to the state of limbo.
5. Remind the audience that retrogression is an issue of 'backlogging' and is separate from the H1-B issue.
6. Remind them that not long ago, the Civil Rights movement started on the rather simple premise of ensuring that each and every man, woman and child in this country could live free and keep this nation free and make this a better world. The need for legal immigrants of the 21st century is no different in that you have a class of artificially segregated society that is unable to break free of its shackles of artificial quotes and arbitrary waiting times ... for no fault or folly of the person except that they dared to dream that they can live the Great American Dream.
7. Seeking resolution is not something to be ashamed or afraid about, and it definitely is not about 'guest workers not wanting to go back'. There is a legal process for guest workers to seek permanent residency and as applicants in the process, you are only seeking fair, judicious and expeditious resolution to backlogs and artificial 'hold backs'. This is a nation of immigrants and if one went back three to four generations, you would find stories of brave, bold believers that sought out the New World. Legal immigration is the modern Ellis Island. An entrance to the land of the brave, the land of the free.
Please, please take a moment to send out messages so that this features on their radar. Keep the messages professional, yet personable. Don't harrass or 'name call' anyone or any constituent in the messages. Our job should be to highlight the pain point, let us leave the resolution in their capable hands.
There are 1000's of members in IV. If each member seriously committed to sending just 1 message, chances are that we would be reaching ALL the elected members.
Remember, you can come back here and rant and rave as much as you want; or pontificate or predict about the issues. None of that makes a difference as much as your ability to challenge current beliefs and turn the tide in your favor through constant, consistent communication to lawmakers.
It's your turn... with the elections coming to close tomorrow, NOW is the time to set things right. Go ahead, please, I beg each one of you, make a commitment to send A Personal Message of Pain(AMAW)
Obviously
P.S. I would not recommend the 'Message A Week' from one person. I meant to say, if each of us took time to send 1 message each, over the next couple of weeks, together, we would end up having at least 1 message a week from this constituent body reach lawmakers and their offices. Please DO NOT flood them with messages every week, from the same person. This would waste their time and not be respectful of their attention. Again, just 1 message per person with all the points in there, would be helpful.
conchshell
07-28 01:44 PM
So fine with me if this has already been discussed, Can we promote this and track it. Would it be too much to add a second thread that talks about contributions to IV when i look at 5 threads at the top of the list that all track LUD's :)
k3gc ... there is nothing wrong with opening this new thread. The idea was discussed last time, but there was no tracking. So its the tracking thingy which is new in your proposal. I personally think that discussing this idea is much better than discussing about lord Ganesha's picture on a beer bottle.
k3gc ... there is nothing wrong with opening this new thread. The idea was discussed last time, but there was no tracking. So its the tracking thingy which is new in your proposal. I personally think that discussing this idea is much better than discussing about lord Ganesha's picture on a beer bottle.
more...
meridiani.planum
11-12 02:26 PM
6months is to comply with AC21. I donot recall any one saying wait xyz time to switch after you get a GC.
Its indeed a bit of a grey area, though lawyers say stick for 6 more months to be conservative. See:
MurthyDotCom : 485 FAQs (http://www.murthy.com/485faq.html#13)
How soon can I leave the employer after I get my GC - ImmigrationPortal Forums (http://forums.immigration.com/blog.php?bt=668)
Its indeed a bit of a grey area, though lawyers say stick for 6 more months to be conservative. See:
MurthyDotCom : 485 FAQs (http://www.murthy.com/485faq.html#13)
How soon can I leave the employer after I get my GC - ImmigrationPortal Forums (http://forums.immigration.com/blog.php?bt=668)
vikramy
09-22 01:30 PM
This is what given by my Attorney apart from your labor approval. Better double check..
FOR FORM I-140
Copies of each of the following are acceptable as long as you can provide the originals if the INS so requests.
1. Letters of previous experience detailing dates of employment, title, and duties. Each letter must be on that employer�s letterhead, dated, and signed. Each letter must be in line with the experience shown on Form ETA 750-B of the Labor Certification Application. This may not apply if the Form I-140 is being filed directly from an L-1A visa.
2. All degree certificates, and relevant marksheets.
3. All Forms W-2 from the sponsoring employer.
4. Latest 3 paychecks from the sponsoring employer.
5. All H-1 and H-4 approval notices.
6. Visa and identification pages from the principal alien�s passport, and each member of the family who will be migrating.
7. Latest Form I-94 copies (clear and must show the date and place) of last entry for each migrating member of the family.
8. Filing Fees. These vary and the exact amount will be told to you at the time of submission.
FOR FORM I-140
Copies of each of the following are acceptable as long as you can provide the originals if the INS so requests.
1. Letters of previous experience detailing dates of employment, title, and duties. Each letter must be on that employer�s letterhead, dated, and signed. Each letter must be in line with the experience shown on Form ETA 750-B of the Labor Certification Application. This may not apply if the Form I-140 is being filed directly from an L-1A visa.
2. All degree certificates, and relevant marksheets.
3. All Forms W-2 from the sponsoring employer.
4. Latest 3 paychecks from the sponsoring employer.
5. All H-1 and H-4 approval notices.
6. Visa and identification pages from the principal alien�s passport, and each member of the family who will be migrating.
7. Latest Form I-94 copies (clear and must show the date and place) of last entry for each migrating member of the family.
8. Filing Fees. These vary and the exact amount will be told to you at the time of submission.
more...
vikki76
07-19 08:36 PM
If you have copy of approved I-140, then your priority date would be mentioned there.
insbaby
11-11 12:36 PM
Priority Date Current: Curse or Boon ?
I am EB3 India applicant with PD of August 2001 (own not substitution). Have I 140 approved since November 2005 but was only able to file I 485 in June 2007. With same employer for 10 yrs and on 9th yr of H1.
Earlier this year my PD was correct for 2 months but didnt hear anything from USCIS. My PD is current again this Nov and Dec and havent heard anything yet. Called USCIS customer svc and they said cant do anything as processing date is not current (Yes and they are going by Notice date and not Received date for service request). Lawyer says just stay cool and wait. So USCIS has no logic and no order and all we can do is wait for our stars to be aligned and case getting picked up in a sweep. Other than that being current is a curse rather than a boon because
You can not get 3 yr H1 extension if PD is current (only 1 yr).
You can not get 2 yrs EAD if PD is current.
So those dying for PD to be current think again. Its no use having PD current if USCIS is going to be so random and haphazard. It may turn out to be a curse.
They will take the file based on the received date. But once the file is opened then you get the priority. It appears that they already started working on July 2007 files. So you will get anytime soon.
You have waited for 9 years, just extend H1B one more time and you will never have to do that.
Good luck.
I am EB3 India applicant with PD of August 2001 (own not substitution). Have I 140 approved since November 2005 but was only able to file I 485 in June 2007. With same employer for 10 yrs and on 9th yr of H1.
Earlier this year my PD was correct for 2 months but didnt hear anything from USCIS. My PD is current again this Nov and Dec and havent heard anything yet. Called USCIS customer svc and they said cant do anything as processing date is not current (Yes and they are going by Notice date and not Received date for service request). Lawyer says just stay cool and wait. So USCIS has no logic and no order and all we can do is wait for our stars to be aligned and case getting picked up in a sweep. Other than that being current is a curse rather than a boon because
You can not get 3 yr H1 extension if PD is current (only 1 yr).
You can not get 2 yrs EAD if PD is current.
So those dying for PD to be current think again. Its no use having PD current if USCIS is going to be so random and haphazard. It may turn out to be a curse.
They will take the file based on the received date. But once the file is opened then you get the priority. It appears that they already started working on July 2007 files. So you will get anytime soon.
You have waited for 9 years, just extend H1B one more time and you will never have to do that.
Good luck.
more...
common1
01-25 06:54 PM
sameer2730:
I am sorry for the misleading title...but it was meant for light humor. Emotions run high on this forum so I will keep your suggestion in mind when I post in future.
Thanks.
I am sorry for the misleading title...but it was meant for light humor. Emotions run high on this forum so I will keep your suggestion in mind when I post in future.
Thanks.
rbalaji5
10-30 03:02 PM
We got the same problem for my wife. There is a 'n' missing in her last name (our mistake)- I called the USCIS, they said we need to send the I-765 application again with the wrong EAD card. If it is your mistake we need to pay the application fees again. If it USCIS mistake (like typo), then there is no need to pay the fees.
Since my wife is not going to work / or use EAD till next year, I am planning to submit her application while renewing the EAD. Moreover, I went to SSN office with this wrong EAD, They identified the spelling mistake in the last name, they accepted the SSN application and going to verify with USCIS before issuing SSN. Since all other records in the USCIS has the correct name, We hope this should be ok.
Since my wife is not going to work / or use EAD till next year, I am planning to submit her application while renewing the EAD. Moreover, I went to SSN office with this wrong EAD, They identified the spelling mistake in the last name, they accepted the SSN application and going to verify with USCIS before issuing SSN. Since all other records in the USCIS has the correct name, We hope this should be ok.
LostInGCProcess
08-18 07:36 PM
I thank you all for your encouraging and kind response.
The new job I have is like a contract job to a client. A big consulting firm has hired me. So, I have not yet spoken to them about any letters that I may require in future should there be an RFE.
My situation was very desperate to get a job...i was without job for more then 3 months and its hard to run a family...and I came to the point where we were planning to return back home....but I got the job just in the last minute, i must say....The requirement for the job was, only GC or Citizens. I told them I am on EAD they said fine we can take you as long as we don't have to sponsor you....So, I took it.
The other issue is, I am getting paid far less then what I used to get. ..so, I don't know if that's acceptable or not with regards to the GC process.
But the work is same. What I used to do earlier, I am doing the same kind of job here with the new client.
So, all these factors has caused lot of confusion in my mind whether to continue with old address or not. I still have 2 more months on the lease for the old apt address...so I got some more time to think about this job.
Thanks again for all your advice.
Chanduv, I know you started a thread on "RFE for AR-11" to poll, but I did not followup on that.
The new job I have is like a contract job to a client. A big consulting firm has hired me. So, I have not yet spoken to them about any letters that I may require in future should there be an RFE.
My situation was very desperate to get a job...i was without job for more then 3 months and its hard to run a family...and I came to the point where we were planning to return back home....but I got the job just in the last minute, i must say....The requirement for the job was, only GC or Citizens. I told them I am on EAD they said fine we can take you as long as we don't have to sponsor you....So, I took it.
The other issue is, I am getting paid far less then what I used to get. ..so, I don't know if that's acceptable or not with regards to the GC process.
But the work is same. What I used to do earlier, I am doing the same kind of job here with the new client.
So, all these factors has caused lot of confusion in my mind whether to continue with old address or not. I still have 2 more months on the lease for the old apt address...so I got some more time to think about this job.
Thanks again for all your advice.
Chanduv, I know you started a thread on "RFE for AR-11" to poll, but I did not followup on that.
sparklinks
04-10 08:34 AM
Thanks buddy !
pthoko
08-03 10:02 AM
Hi,
I filed for I-485 in July 2007. At that time I had an out-of-status issue. I had discussed the option of going out of the country and re-enter(to have a clean slate) before filing with my lawyer, she suggested going to Canada was more riskier.
There was a delay in switching from L1 to H1B after H1B and a change of status was approved in Oct 2005. I switched to my H1B employer only on April 1st 2006. So probably was out of status for 182 days.
Is it a given that USCIS will find this issue?
I was reading about the 245(k) memo, that USCIS can forgive up to 180 days of 'out of status' since the last lawful entry.
I haven't gone out of the country since Jan 2005. So still had 182 days of 'out of status' when the 485 was filed.
I'm planning a trip outside of the country by end of October. My question is that, will my re-entry (using H1-B) and subsequent stay in correct status be good enough for 245(k) ?
Will my previous 182 days of 'out of status' will be erased and overlooked for 485 purposes?.
Or did I have to have a clean status at the time when 485 was filed? Re-entry and maintaining status after filing 485 does not count ??
Greatly Appreciate any reply.
Thanks!
I filed for I-485 in July 2007. At that time I had an out-of-status issue. I had discussed the option of going out of the country and re-enter(to have a clean slate) before filing with my lawyer, she suggested going to Canada was more riskier.
There was a delay in switching from L1 to H1B after H1B and a change of status was approved in Oct 2005. I switched to my H1B employer only on April 1st 2006. So probably was out of status for 182 days.
Is it a given that USCIS will find this issue?
I was reading about the 245(k) memo, that USCIS can forgive up to 180 days of 'out of status' since the last lawful entry.
I haven't gone out of the country since Jan 2005. So still had 182 days of 'out of status' when the 485 was filed.
I'm planning a trip outside of the country by end of October. My question is that, will my re-entry (using H1-B) and subsequent stay in correct status be good enough for 245(k) ?
Will my previous 182 days of 'out of status' will be erased and overlooked for 485 purposes?.
Or did I have to have a clean status at the time when 485 was filed? Re-entry and maintaining status after filing 485 does not count ??
Greatly Appreciate any reply.
Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment