Soltan
05-06 08:03 PM
Soltan
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
Krishmunn, thanks for your reply. I understand that I have to apply labor and I140 again. But my question was how do I port the priority date when I do not have the approved copy of my I140 with me. What if the old employer cancels my i140?
All I have is the old i140 receipt and the receipt number online shows approved status.
Thanks
But you cannot directly use the old 140 for filing a new 485
Krishmunn, thanks for your reply. I understand that I have to apply labor and I140 again. But my question was how do I port the priority date when I do not have the approved copy of my I140 with me. What if the old employer cancels my i140?
All I have is the old i140 receipt and the receipt number online shows approved status.
Thanks
wallpaper 1989 Ford Probe GT Turbo
gc_lover
06-20 12:24 PM
Hi gc_lover,
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
Did u get this information from your attorney? My attorney has a different view and tells me we cannot proceed without the actual papers of certification from PBEC.
Also can u check for me what is required if we do not have the certification papers from DOL(like a print out of CERTIFIED status from DOL website) to file
for 140/485. I will try to pursue with my attorney if I get this info.
Thanks.
Case Details
TR PBEC Priority Date : 03/2003 Stauts : CERTIFIED since last week
Waiting for Certification docs. to file 140/485.
Hello,
I got this from immigration-law.com website
=======================================
06/05/2007: I-140 Petitions Ineligible for Premium Processing
Under the regulation, the USCIS is authorized to suspend certain types of I-140 petitions for the premium processing on its website notice. As of now, the following I-140 petitions are not eligible for the premium processing:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
It appears that the third category includes any I-140 petitions filed without the original labor certification regardless of whether they should obtain a duplicate labor certification from the DOL. It also appears that they refuse to process on the premium processing basis the I-140 petitions to request the priority date transfer unless the original labor certification application is filed with the request.
===============================================
You can apply for 140/485 but you cannot go for premium processing. I also know a case who has done this. You do not need any extra documents to file without LC. My lawyer had confirmed this thing. However, I am planning to send print out of website and email I have from BEC.
Yes, you can file without actual LC papers, so don't wait!
Nov2004
08-26 01:08 PM
Bump^^^^
can you please let us know some details. I am in the same situation.
Nov2004, eb3, i140 approved and i485 applied.
1. What happens to the present ead, after filing the new i140.
2.after i140 do we have to apply for new i485?
can you please let us know some details. I am in the same situation.
Nov2004, eb3, i140 approved and i485 applied.
1. What happens to the present ead, after filing the new i140.
2.after i140 do we have to apply for new i485?
2011 89 ford probe turbo, bought another one. engine fire pics.
harrydr
08-03 09:36 AM
Hello IV friends,
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
My PD is May 2008 and currently i have an approved i-140. I have been wanting to change my job but always been scared of the impact on my GC processing as i heard if i change my job prior to filing for I-485 (which i cannot as the PD is not current), i would have start the process all over again. What are my options here? Thanks in advance.
more...
sumant18
07-17 08:03 PM
Today (7/17/08), I received a reply from USCIS by mail in response to an "expedite" service request I opened with regards to my biometric finger printing on last Friday (7/11/08).
Under the heading of status, the letter says:
"Due to the high volume of expedite requests of this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
While your situation appears serious, you have not provded evidence of an extreme emergent need.
A request for finger prints will be sent.
XM0625"
Although the first part says that I have not submitted the evidence, the last but one line above contardicts somewhat, in that it says that the fingerprinting request WILL BE SENT.
Anybody have any idea what this means? Should I be looking forward to somethig or call USCIS? Does "XM0625" mean anything or is is some system generated code?
Under the heading of status, the letter says:
"Due to the high volume of expedite requests of this case type, we are strictly enforcing the criteria that has been set for these expedite requests.
While your situation appears serious, you have not provded evidence of an extreme emergent need.
A request for finger prints will be sent.
XM0625"
Although the first part says that I have not submitted the evidence, the last but one line above contardicts somewhat, in that it says that the fingerprinting request WILL BE SENT.
Anybody have any idea what this means? Should I be looking forward to somethig or call USCIS? Does "XM0625" mean anything or is is some system generated code?
NWISE
03-31 02:59 PM
If there is a loophole and it is being exploited, plug the loophole, not scrap the program. If my head hurts, I don't cut off my head.
And loopholes will be exploited, if they exist. I would do it (and I'm sure majority of us would) if we could. Nothing illegal in that.
Kind of similar to how large corporates avoid paying taxes using every loophole and trick in the book even when they earn billions, while we end up paying tax on every dollar we earn.
P.S. I'm not saying falsifying documents is acceptable... that's illegal and that's an enforcement issue, not taking an advantage issue.
My 2 cents.
And loopholes will be exploited, if they exist. I would do it (and I'm sure majority of us would) if we could. Nothing illegal in that.
Kind of similar to how large corporates avoid paying taxes using every loophole and trick in the book even when they earn billions, while we end up paying tax on every dollar we earn.
P.S. I'm not saying falsifying documents is acceptable... that's illegal and that's an enforcement issue, not taking an advantage issue.
My 2 cents.
more...
neha_garg123
01-08 07:20 PM
You will only be counted against the cap once unless your 6 year limit of H-1 is over and you are out of US for another year. So no problems you can file for your new H-1. Just make sure you send a copy of the old H-1 approval copy as well to prove you are already counted towards cap.
Thanks a lot!!
Thanks a lot!!
2010 89-92 FORD PROBE 2.2 TURBO
gc_kaavaali
12-10 11:52 AM
In my view changing employer when you have pending 140 is risky...
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
any suggestions if 140 is not approved?
Filed in August 2007......doesn't look like there is much movement based on tracker!!!!
EAD in hand
more...
aviko21
10-05 07:59 PM
our paroles were updated on the website as being mailed on sept26, we still haven't received them but we did receive ead cards which were approved on sept 28. No sign or notice of AP or FP yet
hair 97 Ford Probe GT
schandra
11-25 09:10 AM
Febperm, I just did a search in google "USCIS Appeal bachelor" and I got those decisions based on bachelor degree concern.
I demanded for a copy of the Appeal from the lawyer and the company also agreed. In that my lawyer firstly argued Bachelor of Commerce (3yrs) and NIIT qualifies for 4 year US Bachelor, so I should be granted the I-140 based on EB3 "Professional" Category.
Secondly, If USCIS does not agree with Bachelor or equiv based on my education, they also argued that based on the the experience in the same field, I should be granted based on EB3 "Skilled" labor category, thus making case to approve labor in that category.
Becausee it is difficult to convince USCIS that 3yrs Bach or India and NIIT diploma would be considered under Professional Category, I think in my case, I have a chance to get it approved on the basis of "Skilled" Labor.
But i think one has to be mindful to ensure the language of the appeal should be in-line to the labor certification, any inconsistencies makes it difficult to argue as seen in the link i attached in my previous post.
What I would like to know is, what are our options if they Deny the appeal (for cases in Appeal in EB3 and not on EB2).
I demanded for a copy of the Appeal from the lawyer and the company also agreed. In that my lawyer firstly argued Bachelor of Commerce (3yrs) and NIIT qualifies for 4 year US Bachelor, so I should be granted the I-140 based on EB3 "Professional" Category.
Secondly, If USCIS does not agree with Bachelor or equiv based on my education, they also argued that based on the the experience in the same field, I should be granted based on EB3 "Skilled" labor category, thus making case to approve labor in that category.
Becausee it is difficult to convince USCIS that 3yrs Bach or India and NIIT diploma would be considered under Professional Category, I think in my case, I have a chance to get it approved on the basis of "Skilled" Labor.
But i think one has to be mindful to ensure the language of the appeal should be in-line to the labor certification, any inconsistencies makes it difficult to argue as seen in the link i attached in my previous post.
What I would like to know is, what are our options if they Deny the appeal (for cases in Appeal in EB3 and not on EB2).
more...
GCNaseeb
11-15 08:52 AM
When we went for our Biometrics, all our FP Notices were misspelled. We informed the bio technician and she corrected on their system there itself.
After the FP, I see there is an LUD also. I am hoping today's infopass meeting would be fruitful. Let's hope they just certifiy my EAD and AP there itself. :)
My name was misspelt on my FP notice as well.when i went for FP couple of weeks back, they could not make the change there.I told them about the name misspelt, they informed that I have to call the 1-800 number and get it changed.
After the FP, I see there is an LUD also. I am hoping today's infopass meeting would be fruitful. Let's hope they just certifiy my EAD and AP there itself. :)
My name was misspelt on my FP notice as well.when i went for FP couple of weeks back, they could not make the change there.I told them about the name misspelt, they informed that I have to call the 1-800 number and get it changed.
hot 1990 Ford Probe
vine93
03-10 01:12 AM
bump
more...
house I got this 1989 Ford Probe GT
needGCcool
08-29 07:53 PM
Its very ambiguous.....on one hand they say:
and then they also say:
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
Yes, we cannot call them till processing date > received date + 30 days!
and then they also say:
So we cannot call the USCIS even if the RD is July 2. :confused::confused::confused:
Yes, we cannot call them till processing date > received date + 30 days!
tattoo FORD PROBE 2.2 GT TURBO COUPé
vsuri
09-10 08:26 PM
I had no experience with a prior employer when my employer applied for PERM in January 2007.
Education: MS
PERM Category: EB2
Company Sector: Finance
Job Profile: Technology
PERM & I140 were approved by DoL & USCIS respectively without any RFEs. I485 pending since Aug 2007.
hello every1,
I was wondering how many of you are here who had applied their labor with MS + 0 years of experience for EB2 category..
Could you please shed some light on your profile and current standing in GC process ??
Thank youu....
Education: MS
PERM Category: EB2
Company Sector: Finance
Job Profile: Technology
PERM & I140 were approved by DoL & USCIS respectively without any RFEs. I485 pending since Aug 2007.
hello every1,
I was wondering how many of you are here who had applied their labor with MS + 0 years of experience for EB2 category..
Could you please shed some light on your profile and current standing in GC process ??
Thank youu....
more...
pictures This is my 1989 Ford Probe GT
jonty_11
03-14 03:12 PM
You can travel back to India on an expired US VISA also.
As long as you are travelling back to india (Country of citizenship)
I did that last yr
someone posted link to German Cosul in LA, which states this clearly...
As long as you are travelling back to india (Country of citizenship)
I did that last yr
someone posted link to German Cosul in LA, which states this clearly...
dresses this is my 1989 ford probe lx.
Bimmer740i
07-10 07:39 PM
http://www.ilbsg.com
They charge $600 for H-1B
They charge $600 for H-1B
more...
makeup 1989 Probe GT Turbo - 460 Ford
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
girlfriend Ford Probe I 2.2 Turbo (108kW)
desi3933
06-25 10:38 AM
Here is the reply from my attorney
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don’t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Read the bold part again. The condition that maintaining H4 status is not correct. Your spouse is running a business and using EAD and therefore, she is not in H4 status. This is the key difference.
One can't be in valid employment unless has valid EAD (or H-1B status). Unlike H-1B, filing an extension for EAD does not confer right to continue employment authorization while it is pending and current authorization is expired.
________________
Not a legal advice.
hairstyles Ford Probe Power Steering Rack
vgayalu
01-24 11:33 AM
Please do not raise old hot topics.
The confusion created is enough. Do not confuse more and more.
Let IV work on one issue which ever is under consideration.
We need not to scare any body by mentioning H4 and nonsense.
Let everybody get some drink first. Then everyone wait for solid stuff.
[QUOTE=dionysus]My view is that IV must reassess and realign its goals. The goal of I-485 filing without a current PD is too ambitious to start with. Remember, I-485 is the most time-consuming and lengthy stage of a GC, what with security and background checks, tax records checks, prior legal stays in US and medical tests to name just a few. CIS is swamped with many I-485 applications as it is. If it opens the flood gates for 485 filing, its system will simply collapse under the stampede of estimated 1 million GC seekers. There is no chance in hell that CIS will throw open the gates of I-485 filing for all and sundry.
The confusion created is enough. Do not confuse more and more.
Let IV work on one issue which ever is under consideration.
We need not to scare any body by mentioning H4 and nonsense.
Let everybody get some drink first. Then everyone wait for solid stuff.
[QUOTE=dionysus]My view is that IV must reassess and realign its goals. The goal of I-485 filing without a current PD is too ambitious to start with. Remember, I-485 is the most time-consuming and lengthy stage of a GC, what with security and background checks, tax records checks, prior legal stays in US and medical tests to name just a few. CIS is swamped with many I-485 applications as it is. If it opens the flood gates for 485 filing, its system will simply collapse under the stampede of estimated 1 million GC seekers. There is no chance in hell that CIS will throw open the gates of I-485 filing for all and sundry.
minimalist
11-16 10:39 PM
Nope. That is not true. Either the company/lawyer is screwing your friend!
You can avoid the waiting period by using "Notice and Consider".
I had the same experience with FDBL lawyers, those guys were awful.
Luckily BAL took over, and they mentioned about "Notice and Consider" and did make use of that for labor filing.
Hope this helps.
You cannot file labor when there are lay-offs. Something to do with how can you hire some foreign labor when youbjusrt fired some.
Unlike belmontboy,I don't have first hand experience though. Hopefully other members will shed some more light.
You can avoid the waiting period by using "Notice and Consider".
I had the same experience with FDBL lawyers, those guys were awful.
Luckily BAL took over, and they mentioned about "Notice and Consider" and did make use of that for labor filing.
Hope this helps.
You cannot file labor when there are lay-offs. Something to do with how can you hire some foreign labor when youbjusrt fired some.
Unlike belmontboy,I don't have first hand experience though. Hopefully other members will shed some more light.
rockstart
07-16 11:24 AM
Can any one tell what is written on Eb3 I 140. I am assuming it will be
Sec 203 (b) (3)
but is there any text associated?
For example, if it says 'Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2)' it is EB2. So it's what's checked in when u file your 140, and what it is approved for.
Sec 203 (b) (3)
but is there any text associated?
For example, if it says 'Mem of Profession w/Adv Deg, or Exceptional ability Sec 203 (b) (2)' it is EB2. So it's what's checked in when u file your 140, and what it is approved for.
No comments:
Post a Comment