seebi
03-14 01:10 AM
http://www.murthy.com/mb_pdf/030609_P.html
See under Improper Denials of I-485 AOS on Priority Date Issue
I did check the USCIS website for the July 17, 2007 (reinstating the July Visa Bulletin) and July 23, 2007 (about I-485 fees) notices that are specified on murthy.com link you provided, but did not find them. So if any of you know how and where to get them from please let me know. Appreciate your help. Thank you.
See under Improper Denials of I-485 AOS on Priority Date Issue
I did check the USCIS website for the July 17, 2007 (reinstating the July Visa Bulletin) and July 23, 2007 (about I-485 fees) notices that are specified on murthy.com link you provided, but did not find them. So if any of you know how and where to get them from please let me know. Appreciate your help. Thank you.
wallpaper rihanna makeup no Dress up
crazyghoda
05-08 10:53 AM
Did they issue your EAD from the time the previous one expired or from the current date. If current date, you'd have lost about 3 months or validity.
Some people I know got EADs from the next day following the expiration of their current EAD. I however got from approval date. Its all so inconsistent.
I got EAD in 2 weeks from filing to receipt of cards in hand.
USCIS has certainly improved a lot.
Some people I know got EADs from the next day following the expiration of their current EAD. I however got from approval date. Its all so inconsistent.
I got EAD in 2 weeks from filing to receipt of cards in hand.
USCIS has certainly improved a lot.
sundarpn
06-30 10:55 PM
eb3retro,
You changed on h1b transfer right? not on EAD?
I am just curious if a new employer can keep extending h1b based on previous employers I140 (and the fact that 180 days have passed since 485).
thanks
You changed on h1b transfer right? not on EAD?
I am just curious if a new employer can keep extending h1b based on previous employers I140 (and the fact that 180 days have passed since 485).
thanks
2011 A few days before, Rihanna
arnab221
10-29 03:11 PM
Source: NumbersUSA.com
A new immigration enforcement bill that would remove the jobs magnet for illegal immigration is expected to be introduced in the House very soon. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement) will be sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and is expected to have bi-partisan support. NumbersUSA believes this bill originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans. Specifically, The SAVE Act would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system, identifying all illegal aliens and removing any "glitches" that once allowed them to pass through the system and into the workforce undetected.
--------------------
I don't see anything wrong with this act, infact I was wondering if there was any possibility that we can ride this bill and add EB reforms to it.
Right.. Here they go again . I heard "ENFORCEMENT ONLY" Bills from the past 2 years now . The White House has a "NO MATCH" rule which was exactly like the SAVE :D Act ( How do they come up with these names ) ? The NO MATCH rule was blocked 2 times in a row by US Judges . I wonder why do they waste time drafting these non starters. Waste of paper and Printer ink is at the most that these Bills go to .. "SAVE" the trees at least .
A new immigration enforcement bill that would remove the jobs magnet for illegal immigration is expected to be introduced in the House very soon. The SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement) will be sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and is expected to have bi-partisan support. NumbersUSA believes this bill originating on the Democratic side of the House is just the vehicle to give us a chance to actually pass immigration legislation through a Democratic-controlled Congress that would significantly improve the lives of most Americans. Specifically, The SAVE Act would eventually require every employee in America to go through the E-Verify system, identifying all illegal aliens and removing any "glitches" that once allowed them to pass through the system and into the workforce undetected.
--------------------
I don't see anything wrong with this act, infact I was wondering if there was any possibility that we can ride this bill and add EB reforms to it.
Right.. Here they go again . I heard "ENFORCEMENT ONLY" Bills from the past 2 years now . The White House has a "NO MATCH" rule which was exactly like the SAVE :D Act ( How do they come up with these names ) ? The NO MATCH rule was blocked 2 times in a row by US Judges . I wonder why do they waste time drafting these non starters. Waste of paper and Printer ink is at the most that these Bills go to .. "SAVE" the trees at least .
more...
gsc999
07-11 01:34 AM
Lets take this offline. It will be a shame if we let this sour our success. Let the core team figure this out with USINPAC.
We sent flowers now we need help with the San Jose peaceful protest. Let us keep the momentum and not loose focus.
This event is unprecedented, as some member pointed out because it will be this first protest by legal immigrants on such a scale in San Jose, home of the silicon valley.
We sent flowers now we need help with the San Jose peaceful protest. Let us keep the momentum and not loose focus.
This event is unprecedented, as some member pointed out because it will be this first protest by legal immigrants on such a scale in San Jose, home of the silicon valley.
QuickGreenCard
02-17 04:24 PM
I have H1 approval I-797 with me (received in last year quota) and H4 approval (which was applied before applying H1). Now I have a family emergency back home. I have to travel asap. My current H4 stamp in the passport is expired. So I have to go for stamping, either it be using H1 or using H4. Since I am unemployed at present I can't use H1 for stamping. If I come back on H4, what will happen to my H1 status? Will it be still valid to accept an employment or becomes void.
Please share your thoughts...
Thanks
Please share your thoughts...
Thanks
more...
gk_2000
08-05 01:51 PM
Doesn't it say: "for certain long-term conditional residents"
I think he is talking about TPS etc status. Nothing for us :(
Edit: Just found this in USCIS
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=36c5136d2035f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1 RCRD
I think he is talking about TPS etc status. Nothing for us :(
Edit: Just found this in USCIS
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=36c5136d2035f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1 RCRD
2010 rihanna
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDdossFfHDFBkj7Y0oUeJE3cWoVB1cQV5D86EloBdedKFh2IZ5nmd1KpMVsNq7mWWAuuCtt02GDjqT9MBxzl_B1XeBzxGGjesBJ3Tkd2SXENf1RAtIE6MJMbN-rBvZUGsI1k_hY90Wr-I/s200/uscisLogo.gif (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCDdossFfHDFBkj7Y0oUeJE3cWoVB1cQV5D86EloBdedKFh2IZ5nmd1KpMVsNq7mWWAuuCtt02GDjqT9MBxzl_B1XeBzxGGjesBJ3Tkd2SXENf1RAtIE6MJMbN-rBvZUGsI1k_hY90Wr-I/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
more...
willwin
05-14 11:03 AM
Is there anyone out there pursuing CP and already working in the USA?
In today's economy/job market, it is a nightmare not to have the protection of EAD.
Is there anyway we can get EAD for people in CP queue? Issuing EAD for those CP filers who are already in the US on work (H1B) VISA - is that even a possibility?
Any thoughts?
In today's economy/job market, it is a nightmare not to have the protection of EAD.
Is there anyway we can get EAD for people in CP queue? Issuing EAD for those CP filers who are already in the US on work (H1B) VISA - is that even a possibility?
Any thoughts?
hair rihanna vs beyonce dress up. d
50cent
05-02 06:12 PM
Lou Dobbs is nothing more than fear-peddler with a TV show to rant a about anything that he does'nt agree with.
Other TV "news" magazine anchors like Bill O'Rielly, Shaun Hannity or even Micheal Savage (on Radio) have helped to create an atmosphere of hatred even against legal immigrants.
What a shame...we (legal immigrants) have no friends...:( :confused:
Other TV "news" magazine anchors like Bill O'Rielly, Shaun Hannity or even Micheal Savage (on Radio) have helped to create an atmosphere of hatred even against legal immigrants.
What a shame...we (legal immigrants) have no friends...:( :confused:
more...
viper673
06-15 09:31 PM
Renew the passport through expedited processing if available, then take an infopass appointment and tell the officer that you had an interview and that he didn't get the stamp because his passport had expired, but now it's renewed.
I think they'll do it on the spot.
I think they'll do it on the spot.
hot Rihanna was spotted wearing
wandmaker
12-06 11:30 PM
My lawyer replied today saying that we cannot get an H1 extension as my 485 is filed and 140 cleared.
Your attorney's opinion is incorrect. You can request for 3 years extension as your 140 has been approved and PD is not current. If you PD is current, you will get only 1 year extension.
Your attorney's opinion is incorrect. You can request for 3 years extension as your 140 has been approved and PD is not current. If you PD is current, you will get only 1 year extension.
more...
house Covering up: Rihanna
arnet
09-08 05:27 PM
i think it should be ok because some apply with non-availability certificate instead of birth certificate since they cant get one. Usually it depends on the immigration officer who reviews your petition at that time and what decision he takes. disclaimer: But check with your immigration attroney as I'm nt an attroney.
if possible get one with first/last name, i think it is easier to show the existing one and get new one because existing one has parents details too. dont take chances in I-485, because if anyone get RFE (query) then it will delay your case atleast a month or two, because you have to resend one again.
How about birth certificate stating initial and First name (not first name and last name). Any sugestions?
if possible get one with first/last name, i think it is easier to show the existing one and get new one because existing one has parents details too. dont take chances in I-485, because if anyone get RFE (query) then it will delay your case atleast a month or two, because you have to resend one again.
How about birth certificate stating initial and First name (not first name and last name). Any sugestions?
tattoo rihanna vs beyonce dress up.
permfiling
08-09 09:59 PM
If he is done with FP, I don't see any issue. Typically USCIS allows grace period as long as you are within the 180 period but since this case is > 180 days, then consult a lawyer to file 245k
NOT True.. they will give and come after you just to deny/revoke it.
NOT True.. they will give and come after you just to deny/revoke it.
more...
pictures How to dress like Rihanna:
god_bless_you
04-27 12:53 PM
With the following conditions:
Approved 140( already 6 months over)
8th Year H1B extension
485 not filed(Regression!!)
it is necessary that previous Employer has to keep I140 open Right??
Approved 140( already 6 months over)
8th Year H1B extension
485 not filed(Regression!!)
it is necessary that previous Employer has to keep I140 open Right??
dresses Rihanna wore it in July while
skynet2500
10-19 01:00 PM
Hello,
My EAD (based on I-485 for EB-3; PD - July 2003) expires in the first week of Nov and I applied for my renewal in August and got a notice stating that my application has been received and it will be processed.
I have not received the new EAD yet (status on the website says 'Initial review') and chances are that I may not get one before the current EAD expires.
Am I dead in the water? Both my wife and I need EAD as our H1 has expired and we have changed jobs.
Obviously I am worried sick,
Any help, pointers, suggestions are much appreciated.
Thanks,
Few Suggestions..
Contact USCIS to expedite the case. Usually they do it 90 days after they received the case. After this do the following..
- Contact ombudsman office
- Contact local senator office.
- Contact local congressman office
Good Luck.
My EAD (based on I-485 for EB-3; PD - July 2003) expires in the first week of Nov and I applied for my renewal in August and got a notice stating that my application has been received and it will be processed.
I have not received the new EAD yet (status on the website says 'Initial review') and chances are that I may not get one before the current EAD expires.
Am I dead in the water? Both my wife and I need EAD as our H1 has expired and we have changed jobs.
Obviously I am worried sick,
Any help, pointers, suggestions are much appreciated.
Thanks,
Few Suggestions..
Contact USCIS to expedite the case. Usually they do it 90 days after they received the case. After this do the following..
- Contact ombudsman office
- Contact local senator office.
- Contact local congressman office
Good Luck.
more...
makeup live for playing dress up.
VSS2007
05-28 06:48 AM
Hi
Hi Can anyone tell me if we can mail mine and my spouses EAD and AP applications all in one package?
Thanks,
Yes, you can mail them in one package. But make sure Individual applications are clipped seperately with all supporting docs, photos and cheques and also have a cover letter for each application mentioning I-485 receipt number A# etc
Thanks
Hi Can anyone tell me if we can mail mine and my spouses EAD and AP applications all in one package?
Thanks,
Yes, you can mail them in one package. But make sure Individual applications are clipped seperately with all supporting docs, photos and cheques and also have a cover letter for each application mentioning I-485 receipt number A# etc
Thanks
girlfriend rihanna vs beyonce dress up.
Fightwithfate
03-15 12:42 PM
Hi Thank you all,
Today (03/15/2010) my employer got Receipt No mail from VSC. It says that VSC Received date is 03/12/2010 and the count of 15 days will start from 03/12/2010.But FedEx Delivery date is 03/04/2010.
Does they process premium processing like this?
Hi attorneys/seniors,
Getting confused about the online status.
Today morning my employer got mail from VSC saying that their received date is 03/12/2010
Status check online by 10:30 AM(03/15/2010)
Status:Initial Review
Date received shown:03/12/2010
Status check online by 1:00 PM(03/15/2010)
Status:Acceptance
Date received shown:03/15/2010
Status went back from Inital review to Acceptance and date also changed from 03/12/2010 to 03/15/2010.
Got confused.
How it works normally?
Today (03/15/2010) my employer got Receipt No mail from VSC. It says that VSC Received date is 03/12/2010 and the count of 15 days will start from 03/12/2010.But FedEx Delivery date is 03/04/2010.
Does they process premium processing like this?
Hi attorneys/seniors,
Getting confused about the online status.
Today morning my employer got mail from VSC saying that their received date is 03/12/2010
Status check online by 10:30 AM(03/15/2010)
Status:Initial Review
Date received shown:03/12/2010
Status check online by 1:00 PM(03/15/2010)
Status:Acceptance
Date received shown:03/15/2010
Status went back from Inital review to Acceptance and date also changed from 03/12/2010 to 03/15/2010.
Got confused.
How it works normally?
hairstyles Rihanna#39;s New Breasts Rihanna
dilvahabilyeha
07-26 12:33 PM
Your Lawyer should advice what he is supposed to do. Don't take the ownership of doing something afterwhich lawyer would on your back. So be on his/her back and they should handle it. They can send a letter and the correct copy of your MC with the reciept #. How did you know that the MC was different, did your coworker shout at you ;)
rameshvaid
04-09 07:32 PM
Thanks Bytes4lunch for your input. I do not have AP also and am at their mercy now.
Lets hope for the best.
Thanks anyway
Ramesh
Lets hope for the best.
Thanks anyway
Ramesh
BMS1
09-25 12:39 PM
I had a similar issue for my son (I attached the check and it appeared that they lost the check) and it can be re-submitted again as long as the receipt date stamped on the rejected application is before retrogression which must be the case for you. But you need to wait for the rejected App.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario