apb
08-17 03:25 PM
My friend 485 has been filed on 12th - to nebraska service center, but he mistakenly sent his ead & ap on 15th to Texus Service Center in Dullas.(Did not receive the receipt notice for 485)
Please let me know his options!
1) Do they reject his applications in TSC?.
2) If he file another set in Nebraska Service Center is ok?
?
EAD/AP would be rejected if the receipting in TEXAS was attempted before 485 data is in the system.
If NEB has entered the data for 485 by the time Texas gets to his EAD/AP there could be a chance where his EAD/AP might be accepted.
But you can always apply again though with new fees.
Of course from seeing your postings above I know that your friend has spoken to lawyer and you also did a great thing by trying to help your friend however possible.
In this forum people who come here have their own problems with GC process. No body is here except for Aman and maybe priti..something. who I know has GC in this forum and are actively discussing issues.
If I were to repeatedly BUMP my friends concern in this forum, particularly when people are trying to info on rally, RN, FP notices I am sure you would irritated too. But at the same time if I had BUMPED with a personal request that affects directly myself I might get some good response, from people who empathize my situation.
Though I am relatively new here I know there were no postings where people had requested on problems which they were personally facing and they got no response.
I am sure you would be joining for the rally and now that your friend knows that this forum exists it would be great if you could also motivate him to come. Of course there would be challenges and that is life.. but what is life without challenges. Once you help him to make a decision to come to rally everything will fall in place.
There is also a posting from abhijitp partnering with other members to join the rally. Please go through it.
And finally if your friend joins here personally he can also contribute to other peoples concern, he can see first hand what IV is and maybe if willing he can contribute financially also which would help all of us.
Isn't that you want to happen to IV and your friend who would be a future IV-ite (us) and get impacted in a good way.
Please let me know his options!
1) Do they reject his applications in TSC?.
2) If he file another set in Nebraska Service Center is ok?
?
EAD/AP would be rejected if the receipting in TEXAS was attempted before 485 data is in the system.
If NEB has entered the data for 485 by the time Texas gets to his EAD/AP there could be a chance where his EAD/AP might be accepted.
But you can always apply again though with new fees.
Of course from seeing your postings above I know that your friend has spoken to lawyer and you also did a great thing by trying to help your friend however possible.
In this forum people who come here have their own problems with GC process. No body is here except for Aman and maybe priti..something. who I know has GC in this forum and are actively discussing issues.
If I were to repeatedly BUMP my friends concern in this forum, particularly when people are trying to info on rally, RN, FP notices I am sure you would irritated too. But at the same time if I had BUMPED with a personal request that affects directly myself I might get some good response, from people who empathize my situation.
Though I am relatively new here I know there were no postings where people had requested on problems which they were personally facing and they got no response.
I am sure you would be joining for the rally and now that your friend knows that this forum exists it would be great if you could also motivate him to come. Of course there would be challenges and that is life.. but what is life without challenges. Once you help him to make a decision to come to rally everything will fall in place.
There is also a posting from abhijitp partnering with other members to join the rally. Please go through it.
And finally if your friend joins here personally he can also contribute to other peoples concern, he can see first hand what IV is and maybe if willing he can contribute financially also which would help all of us.
Isn't that you want to happen to IV and your friend who would be a future IV-ite (us) and get impacted in a good way.
maxy
04-28 09:53 AM
when you say new fees, i assuem it is $340 . Correct ??
correct.
but i am not sure renewal will be for 1 yr or 3 yrs ?
anyone here knows..?
correct.
but i am not sure renewal will be for 1 yr or 3 yrs ?
anyone here knows..?
kondur_007
03-28 10:16 PM
Was the extension with current employer applied before the expiry of your current I 94? Then only 240 days rule apply. Otherwise your are accumulating illegal presence.
You need help from a good competent attorney instead of advise from forum; your case is quite complicated. If not handled properly, you may be subject to 3/10 bar. In any case, you need a very good legal advise even before you leave US.
You need help from a good competent attorney instead of advise from forum; your case is quite complicated. If not handled properly, you may be subject to 3/10 bar. In any case, you need a very good legal advise even before you leave US.
andycool
01-06 04:54 PM
Thanks so much for taking time to respond. I have e-filed my application and am sending all supporting documents today. It appears that the processing time is about 90 days, so I might not be able to leave in Feb afterall. But at least I will have my Travel document ready for any future travel plans.
Best,
Pria
Pria
send 2 photos too, even though the application tells do not send photos ( e filed ) , I suggest you to send photos.
thanks
Best,
Pria
Pria
send 2 photos too, even though the application tells do not send photos ( e filed ) , I suggest you to send photos.
thanks
more...
gcisadawg
04-07 03:41 PM
jnraajan,
Thanks for your reply! We surely dont want to jeopardize the ability of her to visit us again! We may have to stick to the original expiry date then!
Would taking an Infopass appointment help?
Other Folks,
Pls. let me know if there are other feedback.
rgds,
gcisadawg
Thanks for your reply! We surely dont want to jeopardize the ability of her to visit us again! We may have to stick to the original expiry date then!
Would taking an Infopass appointment help?
Other Folks,
Pls. let me know if there are other feedback.
rgds,
gcisadawg
sathyaraj
10-09 05:45 PM
Yes. This is really useful. So when they say same are similar occupation. It does not really matter whether you are business analysts, systems analyst, configuration analyst, web-developer, architect, PM so long as it is in computer field as all these occupation codes start with 15-?????.
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/15-1051.00
I think there is lots of flexibility in changing jobs. I dont know why ppl talk about not taking promotions and stuck in the same job. AC21 clearly says that it should be in the same or similar occupation classification.
Any thougts?
http://www.onetcodeconnector.org/ccreport/15-1051.00
I think there is lots of flexibility in changing jobs. I dont know why ppl talk about not taking promotions and stuck in the same job. AC21 clearly says that it should be in the same or similar occupation classification.
Any thougts?
more...
meetpravee
04-20 06:06 AM
Thanks for your responses.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
One last question.
After printing the application form, I see that the photograph size is 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms that the consulate requires. But when I check for the passport size photo in walgreens it is 2 inches * 2 inches. Is it fine if I send 2 inches * 2 inches photo or should I cut exactly 3.5 cms * 3.5 cms and paste one in the form and send the other 2 ?
Thanks.
lskreddy
06-10 11:37 PM
The worst hit 140's are EB3 (and that too mostly in NSC and some in TSC). Not a single NSC EB3-140 is coming at < 400 days.
EB2 is coming still okay and EB1/EB2-NIW are pretty quick. So i dont see a good quantity of benefit by allowing Premium Processing only on a thin section of applications ?? It make a difference of few days, not even months.
Where they need to re-instate Premium 140 to give actual relief - they wont do anything.
I agree, it is extremely narrow. Not too many employers wait until the 60 days window and if you had H1 approved, you would not qualify. I do believe this may be just to test waters and they will broaden it further..
EB2 is coming still okay and EB1/EB2-NIW are pretty quick. So i dont see a good quantity of benefit by allowing Premium Processing only on a thin section of applications ?? It make a difference of few days, not even months.
Where they need to re-instate Premium 140 to give actual relief - they wont do anything.
I agree, it is extremely narrow. Not too many employers wait until the 60 days window and if you had H1 approved, you would not qualify. I do believe this may be just to test waters and they will broaden it further..
more...
Blog Feeds
02-25 07:20 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8w8Er59YBw7LYQ_UFr7iEVpot970FR9aipGOqDbH5GsYHgdl8Ejf5ak0lOHpbP0fRs7ftSykFO3ZeZTdrL_sAm39N5MQUzjW0ZrOKzmGqkGQSaR2wRjZ0Y7hEEvfd3NNsU91qhIxQzG0/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8w8Er59YBw7LYQ_UFr7iEVpot970FR9aipGOqDbH5GsYHgdl8Ejf5ak0lOHpbP0fRs7ftSykFO3ZeZTdrL_sAm39N5MQUzjW0ZrOKzmGqkGQSaR2wRjZ0Y7hEEvfd3NNsU91qhIxQzG0/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8w8Er59YBw7LYQ_UFr7iEVpot970FR9aipGOqDbH5GsYHgdl8Ejf5ak0lOHpbP0fRs7ftSykFO3ZeZTdrL_sAm39N5MQUzjW0ZrOKzmGqkGQSaR2wRjZ0Y7hEEvfd3NNsU91qhIxQzG0/s320/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8w8Er59YBw7LYQ_UFr7iEVpot970FR9aipGOqDbH5GsYHgdl8Ejf5ak0lOHpbP0fRs7ftSykFO3ZeZTdrL_sAm39N5MQUzjW0ZrOKzmGqkGQSaR2wRjZ0Y7hEEvfd3NNsU91qhIxQzG0/s1600-h/2010-02-23+Magnifying+Glass.jpg)
By Eleanor Pelta, AILA First Vice President
The latest salvo in the war against H-1B workers and their employers (and this time, they�ve thrown L-1�s in just for fun,) is the Economic Policy Institute�s briefing paper by Ron Hira, released last week, which concludes that the practice of using H-1B and L-1 workers and then sending them back to their home countries is bad for the economy. While Hira�s findings are certainly headline-grabbing, the road that Hira takes to get there is filled with twists, turns and manipulations and simply lacks real data.
Hira starts with the premise that some employers use H-1B�s and L visas as a bridge to permanent residence, and some employers use those categories for temporary worker mobility. (His particular political bent is belied by his constant usage of the term �guest-worker status��a term that brings with it the politically charged connotations of the European guest worker programs for unskilled workers�for the practice of bringing H-1B�s and L�s in to the U.S. on a temporary basis.) After examining his �data,� he divides the world of employers into two broad categories:
� Bad guys (generally foreign employers, no surprise, or U.S. employers with off-shore companies in India) that bring in H-1B and L workers for temporary periods, exploit them, underpay them and send them home after they get training from the American workers whose jobs they will outsource when they return home
� Good guys (U.S. corporations �Hira uses the more genteel label, �firms with traditional business models�) that bring H-1B and L workers to the U.S., pay them adequate wages, and sponsor them for permanent residence, thereby effecting a knowledge transfer to American colleagues that is good for the economy
Hira�s tool, a statistic he calls �immigration yield,� is simply a comparison of H-1B and L usage and the number of PERM applications filed by the highest users of those visas. He essentially concludes that because the highest users of H-1B�s and L�s are Indian consulting companies, and these companies have only a minimal number of PERM�s certified, they are using H�s and L�s as cheap temporary labor. He is unable to explain away the high number PERM filings of one of the IT consulting companies, and so he addresses this anomaly by saying �part of the explanation might be that it is headquartered in the United States.�
There are too many things wrong with this analysis to list in this blog, but here are a just a few ways in which Hira�s study is problematic:
Hira�s clear implication is that companies that don�t sponsor H-1B�s and L�s for PERM are using these workers instead of more expensive American labor. He ignores that fact the H-1B program has rules in place requiring payment of the prevailing wage to these workers. But even worse, he has not presented any data whatsoever on the average wages paid to these workers. He also doesn�t address the expense of obtaining such visas. He simply concludes that because they are here temporarily, they are underpaid.
Hira makes the argument that companies who use H-1B and L workers as temporary workers generally use their U.S. operations as a training ground for these workers and then send then back to their home countries to do the job that was once located here. Again, this assertion is not supported by any real statistical data about, or serious review of, the U.S. activities of such workers, but rather by anecdotal evidence and quotes from news stories taken out of context.
With respect to the fact that the L-1B visa requires specialized knowledge and so would normally preclude entry to the U.S. for the purpose of gaining training, Hira cites and outdated OIG report that alleges that adjudicators will approve any L-1B petition, because the standards are so broad. Those of use in the field struggling with the 10 page RFE�s typically issued automatically on any specialized knowledge petition would certainly beg to differ with that point.
Hira clearly implies that American jobs are lost because of H-1B and L �guest workers,� but has no direct statistical evidence of such job loss.
The fact is that usage of H-1B and L visas varies with the needs of the employer. Some employers use these programs to rotate experienced, professional workers into the United States and then send the workers abroad to continue their careers. Some employers bring H-1B�s and L�s into the U.S. to rely on their skills on a permanent basis. Judging from the fraud statistics as well as DOL enforcement actions, the majority of employers who use H-1B workers pay these workers adequate wages and comply with all of the DOL rules regarding use of these workers, whether the employers bring them in for temporary purposes or not. By the same token, the minority of employers who seek to abuse H and L workers may well do so, whether they intend to sponsor them for permanent residence or not. Indeed, arguably, the potential for long-term abuse is much worse in the situation in which a real �bad guy� employer is sponsoring an employee for a green card, because of the inordinate length of time it takes for many H-1B and L workers to obtain permanent residency due to backlogs.
Hira does make that last point, and it is just about the only one we agree on. Congress needs to create a streamlined way for employers to access and retain in the U.S. foreign expertise and talent, without at 10-15 year wait for permanent residence. But our economy still needs the ability for business to nimbly move talent to the U.S. on a temporary basis when needed, or to rotate key personnel internationally. In a world where global mobility means increased competitiveness, Hira�s �statistics� simply don�t support elimination of these crucial capability.https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-6000198492670312275?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2010/02/epis-latest-study-of-h-1b-and-l-usage.html)
chanduv23
09-14 12:23 PM
All the more reason to come, by now, alomst every employer knows about IV and what we do.
Everyone knows that you browse IV anonymously with the fear of getting noticed by employer.
There is nothing to hide. Be proud of whatever you are doing.
IV comprises of people like you and me.
Yes, follow your heart, nothing wrong will happen, only good will happen.
Shed off all your ill thoughts and negative feelings, come join us to the hsitoric event
Everyone knows that you browse IV anonymously with the fear of getting noticed by employer.
There is nothing to hide. Be proud of whatever you are doing.
IV comprises of people like you and me.
Yes, follow your heart, nothing wrong will happen, only good will happen.
Shed off all your ill thoughts and negative feelings, come join us to the hsitoric event
more...
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 01:23 PM
I would suggest Jonty, not to waste your time. I posted the question in general. It wasn't specific to you. If anybody is free and feels like, they can answer.:rolleyes::cool::cool::cool:
frostrated
08-10 10:09 AM
frostrated & smuggymba
Thanks for ur replies....
As I am EB3 - MAY 2009....No question of I 485 soon....
thats the reason for the F1....
U said to show the intent that we leave US back....but my I 140 is approved which makes the letter of intent very contradictory (unless they dont see my papers when processing my wife's F1).
And also, see the pattern She was on B1 - H4 - F1 (all COS), this is the main concern.
Whether is the letter of intent makes them believable!!!
Regarding funds availability, We have funds equivalent to 80% of 1st year fee (which shown on I 20), AND ALSO I AM SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT THAT I AM SPONSORING MY WIFE.
Frostrated: College is only giving I 20 rest of the things we have to do ourselves.
140 is on your name and not your wife's. You do not have to show that you are trying to apply for GC. Your sponsorship for your wife is coming from your status as a H1B. IT does not matter how many times you do COS. What matters is the last status you hold, which is H4. B1 to F1 might be an issue, but you dont have to worry about it as your are H4 to F1.
If college is only providing I-20, no problem. Once you get the I-20, you can apply for COS yourself. You will need to provide a copy of the I-20, ability to pay for at least the first year's of study (bank statements and a letter from the bank, your salary slips as the sponsor, a letter from your employer that you are employed by them and the pay that you are getting - dont need to have skill set like in an employment verification letter), a letter from your wife requesting transfer of status to F1 and the letter should also state that she intends to return to her country of residence (India in your case) at the completion of her studies. Make sure you do not mention about any GC related info. The moment you mention that, it raises a flag and might involve the issuance of a 221(g) - intention to immigrate to the US. A student visa is a non-immigrant intent visa and not a dual-intent visa like a H1B.
If you have any questions, send me a PM and we can discuss.
Thanks for ur replies....
As I am EB3 - MAY 2009....No question of I 485 soon....
thats the reason for the F1....
U said to show the intent that we leave US back....but my I 140 is approved which makes the letter of intent very contradictory (unless they dont see my papers when processing my wife's F1).
And also, see the pattern She was on B1 - H4 - F1 (all COS), this is the main concern.
Whether is the letter of intent makes them believable!!!
Regarding funds availability, We have funds equivalent to 80% of 1st year fee (which shown on I 20), AND ALSO I AM SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT THAT I AM SPONSORING MY WIFE.
Frostrated: College is only giving I 20 rest of the things we have to do ourselves.
140 is on your name and not your wife's. You do not have to show that you are trying to apply for GC. Your sponsorship for your wife is coming from your status as a H1B. IT does not matter how many times you do COS. What matters is the last status you hold, which is H4. B1 to F1 might be an issue, but you dont have to worry about it as your are H4 to F1.
If college is only providing I-20, no problem. Once you get the I-20, you can apply for COS yourself. You will need to provide a copy of the I-20, ability to pay for at least the first year's of study (bank statements and a letter from the bank, your salary slips as the sponsor, a letter from your employer that you are employed by them and the pay that you are getting - dont need to have skill set like in an employment verification letter), a letter from your wife requesting transfer of status to F1 and the letter should also state that she intends to return to her country of residence (India in your case) at the completion of her studies. Make sure you do not mention about any GC related info. The moment you mention that, it raises a flag and might involve the issuance of a 221(g) - intention to immigrate to the US. A student visa is a non-immigrant intent visa and not a dual-intent visa like a H1B.
If you have any questions, send me a PM and we can discuss.
more...
sreedhar
09-07 09:01 AM
Yes… It’s me Sreedhar. According to the conversation with my cousin, what ever I posted here is true. I am not sure what IO said is going to be happen or not. My cousin and myself working in the same office. I will keep update what ever happen to his case.
-Sree
This one was posted by one of the IV members, sreedhar in other section of the forum. Don't know how much truth to it...:rolleyes:
If anyone has seen this already, my apologies...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=285637#post285637
Hello All,
I am giving this information after my cousin complete the interview with USCIS on 09/03/2008. Please take a look at the detail conversation bellow.
IO: Immigration Officer
MC: My Cousin
MCL: My Cousin Lawyer
-Sree
-Sree
This one was posted by one of the IV members, sreedhar in other section of the forum. Don't know how much truth to it...:rolleyes:
If anyone has seen this already, my apologies...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=285637#post285637
Hello All,
I am giving this information after my cousin complete the interview with USCIS on 09/03/2008. Please take a look at the detail conversation bellow.
IO: Immigration Officer
MC: My Cousin
MCL: My Cousin Lawyer
-Sree
adi787
12-11 08:15 PM
hi,
sorry to hear the denial.
Was this beyond 6th yr extn based on approved 140?
Or due to small company?
sorry to hear the denial.
Was this beyond 6th yr extn based on approved 140?
Or due to small company?
more...
arunkotte
08-10 03:48 PM
21. The Department Of Homeland Security And The Department Of Labor Will Study And Report On Potential
Administrative Reforms To Visa Programs For Highly Skilled Workers.
Administrative Reforms To Visa Programs For Highly Skilled Workers.
willigetagc
08-19 09:27 AM
Folks,
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
relax until the new biometrics notice comes. Chances are it never will. The CSR you spoke to probably did'nt read/know the new rules.
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
relax until the new biometrics notice comes. Chances are it never will. The CSR you spoke to probably did'nt read/know the new rules.
more...
on_h1b_since_1998
02-08 12:51 PM
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
sapota
12-12 06:19 PM
How there could be demand for visa numbers for EB2 India between the years 2000 & 2002. The possible sources of such visa number demand would be from BEC or LC substitution. Both require filing a new I-140 recently, which most likely would not have been approved yet. Are visa numbers alloted even before I-140 is approved??
Unless there were some real unlucky ones with PD earlier than 2002 that got through 'namecheck' just recently.
Unless there were some real unlucky ones with PD earlier than 2002 that got through 'namecheck' just recently.
life99f
06-18 11:25 PM
Part 2 application type
I use EB3 , which one should I check? a ?
my wife file with me, which one should she check? b?
part 3 processing information
were you inspected by a US immigration officer? yes or no
what does the "inspected" mean?
I use EB3 , which one should I check? a ?
my wife file with me, which one should she check? b?
part 3 processing information
were you inspected by a US immigration officer? yes or no
what does the "inspected" mean?
FredG
April 17th, 2004, 08:15 PM
Sounds like a soap opera to me. :rolleyes:
Fred
Fred
Better_Days
10-14 07:30 PM
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".