GCBy3000
09-20 08:52 AM
This exact issue is clearly discussed by Mathew Q&A section at www.immigration-law.com. He clearly says you are responsible for USCIS mistake if you did not bring that mistake to their notice. You have to get it corrected for one year ASAP and should contact the attorney at the earliest to do this.
YOU WILL BE OUT OF STATUS AFTER ONE YEAR EVEN IF YOU HAVE THREE YEAR EXTN IF USCIS DECIDES TO DO SO.
YOU WILL BE OUT OF STATUS AFTER ONE YEAR EVEN IF YOU HAVE THREE YEAR EXTN IF USCIS DECIDES TO DO SO.
wallpaper amor omnia vincit tattoo. amor
a_yaja
04-27 11:47 AM
Get I-140 approved for EB3 case and then swtich to another company and start fresh GC and once you are ready to file I-140 at new company, take this approved I-140 for EB3 and port it.
Hope this helps.
Might be an issue as the EB2 I-140 is already approved. Talk to a good lawyer and see what is the best course of action.
Although it is late now, you should have withdrawn the original LC and refiled in PERM with same PD. That way you would have maintained the original priority date for EB2. Your lawyer must have told you that when you refiled your LC.
Hope this helps.
Might be an issue as the EB2 I-140 is already approved. Talk to a good lawyer and see what is the best course of action.
Although it is late now, you should have withdrawn the original LC and refiled in PERM with same PD. That way you would have maintained the original priority date for EB2. Your lawyer must have told you that when you refiled your LC.
whatamidoinghere
03-26 10:04 PM
Hi,
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
Andy
H4 can do volunteer work for non-profit organizations only.
Does anyone know if people on H4 are allowed to work unpaid? For example, can a person on an H4 visa file for an H1B visa with a start date of October 1st, 2007 but work on a volunteer basis (i.e., unpaid) at the same job while waiting for the H1B to come?
Thanks,
Andy
H4 can do volunteer work for non-profit organizations only.
2011 omnia vincit amor tattoos. amor omnia vincit tattoo.
americandesi
04-13 02:58 PM
I was in this situation few years back. I was on bench for 8 months (not paid). I chose not to reply to the DOL letter. I feared that accepting that I was on bench for 8 months will make you out of status.
Every time you go for H1 revalidation, you will be asked were you out of status any time.
Later I have done 3 H1 revalidations (Canada), no problems. If sending reply is not mandatory then keep quiet. Six months later my employer filed for bankruptcy.
Not getting paid on bench for >180 days has serious consequences during the adjudication of I-485. Read the following thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6205
Every time you go for H1 revalidation, you will be asked were you out of status any time.
Later I have done 3 H1 revalidations (Canada), no problems. If sending reply is not mandatory then keep quiet. Six months later my employer filed for bankruptcy.
Not getting paid on bench for >180 days has serious consequences during the adjudication of I-485. Read the following thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6205
more...
WaldenPond
01-07 12:54 PM
Hi All,
I am a new user to this forum. I have been reading all the messages in this forum silently from the past couple of weeks. This is very interesting to see lot of efforts are going on to get the relief from the retrogression. I am also one of the victim for this. Here are my details.
Labor PD: 19 Nov 2003.
Labor Approved: 17 Nov 2005
140 filed: 5 Dec 2005.
AD???????
Hello gcloker,
It was very nice talking to you just now. We feel that motivated individuals like you can really make the difference with this effort.
Thanks You for extending your active volunteering and participation with this effort. Please continue to invite more of your friends and we will together make it happen.
-WP
I am a new user to this forum. I have been reading all the messages in this forum silently from the past couple of weeks. This is very interesting to see lot of efforts are going on to get the relief from the retrogression. I am also one of the victim for this. Here are my details.
Labor PD: 19 Nov 2003.
Labor Approved: 17 Nov 2005
140 filed: 5 Dec 2005.
AD???????
Hello gcloker,
It was very nice talking to you just now. We feel that motivated individuals like you can really make the difference with this effort.
Thanks You for extending your active volunteering and participation with this effort. Please continue to invite more of your friends and we will together make it happen.
-WP
satishku_2000
02-21 11:02 AM
Hey
I thought I am the only poor soul looking for whole month to see the processing dates, Finally they have published today.
I have seen that I-140 EB3 moved siginificantly But still away from the my receipt date.
Hopefully you have a good news :)
I thought I am the only poor soul looking for whole month to see the processing dates, Finally they have published today.
I have seen that I-140 EB3 moved siginificantly But still away from the my receipt date.
Hopefully you have a good news :)
more...
nixstor
07-01 01:26 PM
I am not sure if I am reading this right or not, go this page
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/3-7.html
and read the first para. It says G-325A has to be processed only if the applicant has entered the US in non immigrant status less than one year prior to current calendar date of review.
So any one who has entered US before (07/02/06) will have their G-325A trashed? I was under the impression that USCIS does use the biographic information to check with local law enforcement for the the past 5 years as stated in the G-325A. Any ideas?
Guys,
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
http://www.imminfo.com/resources/cis-sop-aos/3-7.html
and read the first para. It says G-325A has to be processed only if the applicant has entered the US in non immigrant status less than one year prior to current calendar date of review.
So any one who has entered US before (07/02/06) will have their G-325A trashed? I was under the impression that USCIS does use the biographic information to check with local law enforcement for the the past 5 years as stated in the G-325A. Any ideas?
Guys,
Can some read the SOP in the above quote and figure out what they are trying to say?
2010 amor omnia vincit tattoo.
wandmaker
02-26 05:37 PM
wandmaker ..Please read Phony postings and do not respond to these guys , they are just playing .. I m surprised senior members are not understanding the intend of the posts .
What can we help if he had problems with employer ? what can we help if he had h1-h4-h1 issues ? Every one just relax and stop replying .
I know every one wants to help others in our community but think twice before replying
I see the good intentions of your statement. Not sure, whether you really got what I really wanted to convey to to OP. Giving 1% of benefit of doubt based on (2), I was trying to find out
(1) The reason for amendment denial
(2) Whether the employer is exploiting him due to his ignorance
(3) Whether the employer is abusing the immigration system.
BTW, Dig through my posts on this thread and other - You will realize that I'm against everyone who abuses the system.
What can we help if he had problems with employer ? what can we help if he had h1-h4-h1 issues ? Every one just relax and stop replying .
I know every one wants to help others in our community but think twice before replying
I see the good intentions of your statement. Not sure, whether you really got what I really wanted to convey to to OP. Giving 1% of benefit of doubt based on (2), I was trying to find out
(1) The reason for amendment denial
(2) Whether the employer is exploiting him due to his ignorance
(3) Whether the employer is abusing the immigration system.
BTW, Dig through my posts on this thread and other - You will realize that I'm against everyone who abuses the system.
more...
veni001
02-03 03:53 PM
thank you veni, that is very informative and solid reference.
looks like under 'advanced degree' category, just having a US Masters or foreign equivalent (4+2) is enough. lot of people are under the impression, its MS+3yrs. but the description in USCIS link states just an advanced degree (higher than baccalaureate) is enough. am i reading this right?
BS+5years is equivalent to having an Advanced degree.
But, I think its BS+5yrs, not BS Equivalent + 5 yrs.
That's correct.
Good luck!
looks like under 'advanced degree' category, just having a US Masters or foreign equivalent (4+2) is enough. lot of people are under the impression, its MS+3yrs. but the description in USCIS link states just an advanced degree (higher than baccalaureate) is enough. am i reading this right?
BS+5years is equivalent to having an Advanced degree.
But, I think its BS+5yrs, not BS Equivalent + 5 yrs.
That's correct.
Good luck!
hair omnia vincit amor tattoos.
aranya
07-01 11:42 AM
Thanks for your replies.
I understand the use of AC21 and I think I am fine as far as GC process goes. My main concern is the continuity of the H1B visa. Since the designation and the location of the employment will change, will there have to be H1B amendment, since the employer is same so there won't be any H1B transfer.
I am eventually going to contact the employer's lawyer, but wanted to do my own research ahead of that. I couldn't get very clear answer from online sources and blogs. Any suggestion here would be very help full. Thanks!
Only yesterday I had a converstion with my compnay lawyer on this topic.
Her view is that I would have to amend the H1 for any location and/or responsibility changes.
I understand the use of AC21 and I think I am fine as far as GC process goes. My main concern is the continuity of the H1B visa. Since the designation and the location of the employment will change, will there have to be H1B amendment, since the employer is same so there won't be any H1B transfer.
I am eventually going to contact the employer's lawyer, but wanted to do my own research ahead of that. I couldn't get very clear answer from online sources and blogs. Any suggestion here would be very help full. Thanks!
Only yesterday I had a converstion with my compnay lawyer on this topic.
Her view is that I would have to amend the H1 for any location and/or responsibility changes.
more...
mchundi
02-23 06:01 PM
Here is my honest opinion.... you guys need to highlight the fact that IV is equlally concerned about PBEC issue. This is what i have heard and read from a lot of folks... Just to let u guys know that even my app is stuck with PBEC..
Sorry that u r stuck at PBEC. It is more than 4 months since i tuned into labor forums. Is there any progress at PBEC? Has the RIR Q moved to mid 2002 consistantly? Earlier Non RIR Q was ahead. Is this still the case?
I can understand those without labor not coming fully forward.
U must understand that it will be 4-6 months atleast by the time we see the fruits of any new law, but if we miss this chance, the options are very bleak. Here is why.
If u dont get any relief now, there will be none for may be another couple of years.
There are enough aspirants that can consume this years and next years quota whose PD is in 2002 for some countries like INDIA (even for Eb2). Dont be fooled by the forward movement of PD now.
The way the USCIS works and the way priority date moves, u will see some forward movement till sep' 06 and again they will move back a couple of years. For those who come out of labor process from PBEC the situation is no different than it is today, if u cant file I-485 and get portability. U will be even more dissapointed.
--MC
Sorry that u r stuck at PBEC. It is more than 4 months since i tuned into labor forums. Is there any progress at PBEC? Has the RIR Q moved to mid 2002 consistantly? Earlier Non RIR Q was ahead. Is this still the case?
I can understand those without labor not coming fully forward.
U must understand that it will be 4-6 months atleast by the time we see the fruits of any new law, but if we miss this chance, the options are very bleak. Here is why.
If u dont get any relief now, there will be none for may be another couple of years.
There are enough aspirants that can consume this years and next years quota whose PD is in 2002 for some countries like INDIA (even for Eb2). Dont be fooled by the forward movement of PD now.
The way the USCIS works and the way priority date moves, u will see some forward movement till sep' 06 and again they will move back a couple of years. For those who come out of labor process from PBEC the situation is no different than it is today, if u cant file I-485 and get portability. U will be even more dissapointed.
--MC
hot amor omnia vincit tattoo. amor vincit omnia tattoo ribs.
GotGC??
06-21 09:22 AM
Any idea what constitutes a "simple, str forward" case? At 485 stage, what are the things that could potentially make it a more complicated case?
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
Although that the rule..I dont think USCIS actively follows it. The reason for that being the ombudsman report that states that the adjudicating officers pick low hanging fruit first (simple strforward cases) and that is reflected on where people have been getting their 485 approved within 90 days (which the ombudsman's report states is uscis's goal). right now the processing date is holding at 9 months. maybe to dissuade people from continously calling the NSC 1800 number.
more...
house amor omnia vincit tattoo. amor vincit omnia side tattoo.
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
tattoo amor vincit omnia tattoo ribs
virginia_desi
05-15 12:15 PM
Thanks for your reply.
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
There can only one AOS as the main beneficiary. You can have another AOS where you are a dependent or may be a family based AOS.
Once AOS is filed under EB3, it can't be simply upgraded to EB2.
However, what happens if one gets a RFE on I-140 and there is a pending I-485. Are you allowed to refile using EB3 approved petition if the dates are still current for EB3?
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
There can only one AOS as the main beneficiary. You can have another AOS where you are a dependent or may be a family based AOS.
Once AOS is filed under EB3, it can't be simply upgraded to EB2.
However, what happens if one gets a RFE on I-140 and there is a pending I-485. Are you allowed to refile using EB3 approved petition if the dates are still current for EB3?
more...
pictures amor vincit omnia tattoo on
ajay
04-05 09:54 AM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
The last updated date is 04/02/2009. Seems like they have updated something quite recently!!!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
The last updated date is 04/02/2009. Seems like they have updated something quite recently!!!
dresses amor omnia vincit tattoo; amor omnia vincit. Omnia Vincit Amor Rectangle
bergotti
08-23 05:27 PM
Is this category seen as one or is it split into many countries and if so how do you find out about a particular country within ROW?
Thanks
Thanks
more...
makeup amor omnia vincit tattoo. amor vincit omnia chest tattoo
eb_retrogession
01-06 09:32 AM
This is a good effort towards solving the retrogression issue. Like many silent readers, I do have concern about contributing to a new organization.
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
girlfriend amor omnia vincit. amor omnia
JeffDG
01-27 07:09 AM
This bill is probably stuck in some committee and will not see the light!
Everyone here is talking about the DV if eliminated would benefit the EB, does the FB have a say in it?
The bill in question specifically allocates the 55,000 visas from the DV Lottery to EB visas.
Everyone here is talking about the DV if eliminated would benefit the EB, does the FB have a say in it?
The bill in question specifically allocates the 55,000 visas from the DV Lottery to EB visas.
hairstyles Amor Vincit Omnia by
brb2
08-10 05:14 PM
The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security (finally!). The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.
Full press release:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070810.html
Full press release:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070810.html
boreal
02-25 08:02 PM
I would like to ask the same question but a bit more specific.
For someone who is an MBA (Finance) with 7-8 yrs of Financial and HR benefits experience who wants to move to IT or IT related field what would you advice would be the best field to move to or best certification to take ?
Thanks
Field to move to would probably be SAP/Oracle Financials/PeopleSoft ..
For someone who is an MBA (Finance) with 7-8 yrs of Financial and HR benefits experience who wants to move to IT or IT related field what would you advice would be the best field to move to or best certification to take ?
Thanks
Field to move to would probably be SAP/Oracle Financials/PeopleSoft ..
vroapp
08-07 08:05 AM
I'm afraid I can't help you with your application but Congrats! on getting married, i.e... :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment