CantLeaveAmerica
12-08 05:43 PM
by the way, I forgot to mention that I was in India when my GC was adjudicated on Oct 22.
At the immigration POE, I told the officer that my GC was granted while I was away. They took me to a room, I waited for 10 minutes, they checked on their system and later told me that I'm good to enter on GC. I looked at my passport where they had canceled my H1 visa and stamped LPR on the immigration stamp which stands for Legal Permanent Resident.
So, no probs returning to the U.S. I even took the liberty to stand in the GC/ citizen Q at the airport :D
At the immigration POE, I told the officer that my GC was granted while I was away. They took me to a room, I waited for 10 minutes, they checked on their system and later told me that I'm good to enter on GC. I looked at my passport where they had canceled my H1 visa and stamped LPR on the immigration stamp which stands for Legal Permanent Resident.
So, no probs returning to the U.S. I even took the liberty to stand in the GC/ citizen Q at the airport :D
wallpaper nicki minaj booty before and
amitga
05-28 01:21 PM
I think the easiest solution would be to get married ASAP.
pjalan
03-31 04:45 PM
Hi All Gurus:
I am changing my employer with pending I-140 and I-485 both > 180 days.
RD: 07/23
ND: 09/13
EB2/TSC
PD:12/04
I might recieve an RFE as I did not submit experience letters from my previous employers. I have a masters degree from US.
Just in case I get an RFE on I-140 and old lawyers/old company chose not to respond what are my options? I have letters with me now and can myself respond to RFE if I know what it is about.
if RFE goes unresponded is MTR the only option left??
Thanks in anticipation.
I am changing my employer with pending I-140 and I-485 both > 180 days.
RD: 07/23
ND: 09/13
EB2/TSC
PD:12/04
I might recieve an RFE as I did not submit experience letters from my previous employers. I have a masters degree from US.
Just in case I get an RFE on I-140 and old lawyers/old company chose not to respond what are my options? I have letters with me now and can myself respond to RFE if I know what it is about.
if RFE goes unresponded is MTR the only option left??
Thanks in anticipation.
2011 makeup nicki minaj booty efore
whiteStallion
10-17 02:55 PM
Just an advice, please do not accept 1099 from your consulting company. I had the experience and paid a lot more in tax at the end of the year than I would have paid in W2 as 1099 is considered as business income. You'll be paying more taxes than W2.
So always stick to W2 when you are getting your salary from your consulting company. If Consulting company is paying you in 1099, then they do not pay Payroll taxes on your salary and thus save money. If they are paying you in w2, which they are supposed to(you being on H1), they have to pay payroll taxes themselves.
So always stick to W2 when you are getting your salary from your consulting company. If Consulting company is paying you in 1099, then they do not pay Payroll taxes on your salary and thus save money. If they are paying you in w2, which they are supposed to(you being on H1), they have to pay payroll taxes themselves.
more...
Bpositive
08-13 12:16 PM
Have heard of US citizens in India who are having problems getting work visa. And are getting paid in cash! Seems like the number of illegal US citizen aliens in India may be going up over the next ten years....
chaukas
08-28 03:20 AM
Have sent several mails , but to no avail ....
more...
pcbadgujar
10-24 06:01 PM
How long the old I-140 needs to be valid ? Should it be valid only until one gets the new I-140 cleared with the Old PD ? Or does it needs to be valid until the 485 is filed and status is adjusted ?
2010 ooty, nicki minaj before
bobby
04-03 02:18 PM
see answers in CAPS:
Couple of questions, if you don't mind.
1. Did you go on your vaction after getting your 3 year extension based on your approved I-140? NO MY H1B HAD BEEN EXTENDED FOR 1 YEAR AS I HAD ALREADY COMPLETED SIX YEARS BUT DID NOT HAVE AN APPROVED LABOR CERTIFICATION OR I-140 YET
2. Did you apply for 3 year H1-b extension even though your passport was not renewed? YES IN EARLY JAN 07
3. Did you renew your passport before you travelled on your vacation? I am asking this just to know which passport had your visa stamp? NO, "OLD" PASSPORT HAS VISA STAMPS FROM FIRST SIX YEARS ON H1B
4. Did UCSIS approve your H!-b extension for 3 years and does the I-94 on your I-797 indicate that the new H1-b is valid for 3 years? PENDING CASE NOT APPROVED YET. USCIS WORKING ON RECEIPT DATES OF 1/13 AND MY RECEIPT DATE IS 1/26
WHEN YOU RECEIVE YOUR EXTENSION APPROVAL A NEW I-94 IS ATTACHED TO THE EXTENSION NOTICE AS IN THE CASE WITH PREVIOUS RENEWALS/EXTENSIONS
Couple of questions, if you don't mind.
1. Did you go on your vaction after getting your 3 year extension based on your approved I-140? NO MY H1B HAD BEEN EXTENDED FOR 1 YEAR AS I HAD ALREADY COMPLETED SIX YEARS BUT DID NOT HAVE AN APPROVED LABOR CERTIFICATION OR I-140 YET
2. Did you apply for 3 year H1-b extension even though your passport was not renewed? YES IN EARLY JAN 07
3. Did you renew your passport before you travelled on your vacation? I am asking this just to know which passport had your visa stamp? NO, "OLD" PASSPORT HAS VISA STAMPS FROM FIRST SIX YEARS ON H1B
4. Did UCSIS approve your H!-b extension for 3 years and does the I-94 on your I-797 indicate that the new H1-b is valid for 3 years? PENDING CASE NOT APPROVED YET. USCIS WORKING ON RECEIPT DATES OF 1/13 AND MY RECEIPT DATE IS 1/26
WHEN YOU RECEIVE YOUR EXTENSION APPROVAL A NEW I-94 IS ATTACHED TO THE EXTENSION NOTICE AS IN THE CASE WITH PREVIOUS RENEWALS/EXTENSIONS
more...
shirish
09-15 11:43 AM
It still says Aug 15th. I don't think they will release it yet.
USCIS is posting the processing times on the same date as they mentioned on the document......unbelievable, Hope its not a USCIS mistake.
USCIS is posting the processing times on the same date as they mentioned on the document......unbelievable, Hope its not a USCIS mistake.
hair nicki minaj booty before;
gunsnkars
10-17 12:10 PM
Contract - Corp-to-Corp - Slave
Contract - W2 - Slave
Contract to Hire - Independent - Slave
Contract to Hire - Last but not the least "SLAVE"
"Any one with genuine answers"
Contract - W2 - Slave
Contract to Hire - Independent - Slave
Contract to Hire - Last but not the least "SLAVE"
"Any one with genuine answers"
more...
h1bemployee
06-25 01:57 PM
Hi Prasanthi,
In the denial letter they stated that
"The beneficiary may remain in the current immigration status until date indicated on Form I94.. ". My I-94 is valid till sep 30 2009 .... so even though my H1b transfer got denied ,will that save me from being out-of-status?
In the denial letter they stated that
"The beneficiary may remain in the current immigration status until date indicated on Form I94.. ". My I-94 is valid till sep 30 2009 .... so even though my H1b transfer got denied ,will that save me from being out-of-status?
hot Nicki Minaj booty is fake
Roger Binny
05-12 10:05 PM
First trying infopass is the right idea, even if you contact congress man and senators they may ask you to go through info pass first.
Google your statename and senators you should get the list, its not hard to find their home pages.
These are my opinons.
By the ways what is the reason they cited when the EB2 I-140 was denied?
Google your statename and senators you should get the list, its not hard to find their home pages.
These are my opinons.
By the ways what is the reason they cited when the EB2 I-140 was denied?
more...
house Nicki Minaj Booty, Butt Before
jsb
10-26 03:06 PM
Has anybody changed from Attorney to No Attorney? G-28 form has instructions on how to change an attorney, but there is nothing to cancel it altogether.
tattoo nicki minaj fake ooty before
pitha
05-22 04:40 PM
Its not clear yet if priority date comes into the picture at all. Nothing is clear yet, for example for the Canadian points system does not have a country quota or any limits on the number of gc every year. There is a cetain pass mark and if you have the required pass marks you make it.
With the CIR points system there is an annual limit and also a country quota, so how will they select candiddates,
1. based on pass marks?
2. based on who has the highest number of points for each country
3. Does the priority date come into plat at all?
hope somebody has the answers for these questions.
If you have I140 cleared from company A you can use Priority date if you change Job and apply fresh GC from Company B in any catergory.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
With the CIR points system there is an annual limit and also a country quota, so how will they select candiddates,
1. based on pass marks?
2. based on who has the highest number of points for each country
3. Does the priority date come into plat at all?
hope somebody has the answers for these questions.
If you have I140 cleared from company A you can use Priority date if you change Job and apply fresh GC from Company B in any catergory.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
more...
pictures hot ooty efore nicki minaj
go_gc_way
05-10 11:54 AM
I think too .. It helps people like me to read opinions and summarized comments on news articles and developments .. rather than links.
It would be nice , if they more closely relate to our problems.
Thanks Learning & Immi , for your efforts.
It would be nice , if they more closely relate to our problems.
Thanks Learning & Immi , for your efforts.
dresses hairstyles nicki minaj before
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
makeup tattoo nicki minaj before and
nixstor
10-30 02:18 PM
Has any one sent an email to editor@usatoday.com?
girlfriend Nicki Minaj is looking HOT
bikram_das_in
05-21 04:40 PM
Doe anybody have any doubt who developed USCIS software?............ Loser's Guild.
hairstyles nicki minaj fake ooty before
zofa30
09-14 05:04 PM
Thanks a_yaja and thanks for all who helped me in this issue,
Yes I am on EB2+PERM. Thanks for the explanation. I now understand the situation.
I have a couple of questions that will help me to figure out what to do:
1-When legally I can start applying for new EB2+PERM with the new employer? Can I start right away from day one or I should work for the new employer for a certain period?
2-What is the best way to have a safe H1B transfer? In other words should I ask my new employer to transfer H1B then resign from the current job once I received the new H1B or how it should be? Please advice.
Thanks.
Yes I am on EB2+PERM. Thanks for the explanation. I now understand the situation.
I have a couple of questions that will help me to figure out what to do:
1-When legally I can start applying for new EB2+PERM with the new employer? Can I start right away from day one or I should work for the new employer for a certain period?
2-What is the best way to have a safe H1B transfer? In other words should I ask my new employer to transfer H1B then resign from the current job once I received the new H1B or how it should be? Please advice.
Thanks.
rockstart
05-04 09:25 AM
I changed my address using online AR11 on friday May 1st. I checked my case portfolio next day and saw a soft LUD on my I 485 application. Same with my wife. I think it is always better to get the address change done in the system because later it can be a big headache to solve. I will update forum if I hear anything from CIS.
yabadaba
09-26 05:21 PM
Hello,
I am in serious trouble. Sometime ago I tried to switch my I-140 from EB3 to EB2. Now I get NOID to deny 140. Something related to prevailing wage (lawyer has actual letter). In my LC the offered wage was OK for EB3 but low for EB2. Lawyer says he'll try to reinstate EB3, but not sure. Has any one of you been able to reinstate EB3 140? Please help...
this is good stuff. hopefully they have more of these noids so that people can stop this insanity with switching categories, priority dates, labor substitution and exploiting the system.
I am in serious trouble. Sometime ago I tried to switch my I-140 from EB3 to EB2. Now I get NOID to deny 140. Something related to prevailing wage (lawyer has actual letter). In my LC the offered wage was OK for EB3 but low for EB2. Lawyer says he'll try to reinstate EB3, but not sure. Has any one of you been able to reinstate EB3 140? Please help...
this is good stuff. hopefully they have more of these noids so that people can stop this insanity with switching categories, priority dates, labor substitution and exploiting the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment