Jerrome
10-18 01:29 PM
Is it possible to track 140 without the receipt notices.
Vic
10-11 12:54 PM
My labor cert priority date is Aug 21, 2006 and my 140 EB2 was filed in Dec 20, 2006 and I received the RFE last week from NSC.
I did complete the masters program but did not have the official certificate in hand. On my certificate and official transcripts - the date of graduation is the day the certificate was issued - which is Jan 2007 - which is the graduation date according to the verbage.
I did complete the masters program but did not have the official certificate in hand. On my certificate and official transcripts - the date of graduation is the day the certificate was issued - which is Jan 2007 - which is the graduation date according to the verbage.
zCool
04-02 11:26 AM
You are kidding!
USCIS can't keep track of applications they receive..:)
Every document they want they "REQUEST" from you.
W2, paystubs this is basic stuff dude..
If you don't have them, there's less certainity.. but this is funny process, people have gone thro' easier on lesser evidence.. !So nothing is a dead-ender if you are lucky..
In normal cases though.. I think IF (and that's a big IF) you get an RFE, you will have hard time proving A2P but then again maybe your employer is big and has enough profits etc to prove A2P .. so don't loose heart.. but I would advise to just change to a good employer instead of working in this messy situation to get 1 or 2 yrs advantage on PD
USCIS can't keep track of applications they receive..:)
Every document they want they "REQUEST" from you.
W2, paystubs this is basic stuff dude..
If you don't have them, there's less certainity.. but this is funny process, people have gone thro' easier on lesser evidence.. !So nothing is a dead-ender if you are lucky..
In normal cases though.. I think IF (and that's a big IF) you get an RFE, you will have hard time proving A2P but then again maybe your employer is big and has enough profits etc to prove A2P .. so don't loose heart.. but I would advise to just change to a good employer instead of working in this messy situation to get 1 or 2 yrs advantage on PD
yagw
06-04 01:17 AM
http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12514065?nclick_check=1
FTA:
"...
The law would also increase numerical caps on the number of visas for countries such as Mexico, the Philippines, China and India. People from those countries hoping to immigrate to the U.S. routinely face waits of more than a decade in a system with a backlog of 5.8 million people.
..."
FTA:
"...
The law would also increase numerical caps on the number of visas for countries such as Mexico, the Philippines, China and India. People from those countries hoping to immigrate to the U.S. routinely face waits of more than a decade in a system with a backlog of 5.8 million people.
..."
more...
gcman2005
10-17 06:45 PM
My wifes AP also approved today. The case had a LUD on 15th but the case was not approved on that day. I had sent a fax to 402-219-6171 with my travel Itinerary on 16th and there was a LUD on 16th. And on 17 they approved the application.
I had a infopass appointment on 16th and the immigration officer gave me the fax number. He was telling me that another person had came to expedite the application and he got approval after sending the fax.
I had a infopass appointment on 16th and the immigration officer gave me the fax number. He was telling me that another person had came to expedite the application and he got approval after sending the fax.
gc_kaavaali
06-03 03:28 PM
Should i fill AR11 form for my wife too? i entered my wife's application receipt number when i am updating my pending cases and gave my wife name and her details...is it sufficient?
more...
poorslumdog
10-12 12:40 PM
Thanks for the good words. My patience is wearing thin as this has been going on for since the start of the year and I have seen PERM applications filed later than mine getting approved. My concern has to do more with the employer keeping me in the dark about the outcome and at the time H1 expires just lets me GO citing rejection or audit!! You can call me paranoid as the filing hasnt materialized and me in the 7th year just adds to the distress.
Just get the receipt number from your employer and check the status yourself.
Just get the receipt number from your employer and check the status yourself.
sunny1000
04-07 03:56 PM
Hi,
I submitted my 485 in julyEven i applied for my wife too.....we both got EAD, AP...She left to India...we have problems and we may seperate each other...So not sure when we get divorce because of outdated Indian marriage laws...Are there going to be any problems when they are adjudicating my 485 application? Her FP done and she got AP until Sep 2008...Now what will happen if USCIS sends out an FP notice for my wife...She won't be doing finger printing...Is it going effect my GC in anyway?
It will not affect your GC in anyway. They will send RFE for your wife when it comes for adjudication. You can reply thru your lawyer, based on your marital status at that time, the appropriate answer.
AFAIK, if she does not come back before the date mentioned in the AP (sept 2008), she will abandon the GC application unless she has a valid dual intent visa.
Hope things work out between you and your wife.
I submitted my 485 in julyEven i applied for my wife too.....we both got EAD, AP...She left to India...we have problems and we may seperate each other...So not sure when we get divorce because of outdated Indian marriage laws...Are there going to be any problems when they are adjudicating my 485 application? Her FP done and she got AP until Sep 2008...Now what will happen if USCIS sends out an FP notice for my wife...She won't be doing finger printing...Is it going effect my GC in anyway?
It will not affect your GC in anyway. They will send RFE for your wife when it comes for adjudication. You can reply thru your lawyer, based on your marital status at that time, the appropriate answer.
AFAIK, if she does not come back before the date mentioned in the AP (sept 2008), she will abandon the GC application unless she has a valid dual intent visa.
Hope things work out between you and your wife.
more...
ramus
09-07 09:22 AM
Please take a part in DC rally...
Time to wake up..
Time to wake up..
chapper
07-23 06:59 PM
Others can correct me, if I'm interpreting it wrong. A try...
An individual is eligible for AC21 only if he/she has approved I-140 but is not granted GC because of per country cap.
It means that when a petitioner applies for H1B extension - they (beneficiary and petitioner) must at the time of filing H1B establish/prove that the alien is not eligible for GC at the time of filing of H1B due to per country visa cap (not many visas available for the country the individual belongs or is claiming GC under).
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations
An individual is eligible for AC21 only if he/she has approved I-140 but is not granted GC because of per country cap.
It means that when a petitioner applies for H1B extension - they (beneficiary and petitioner) must at the time of filing H1B establish/prove that the alien is not eligible for GC at the time of filing of H1B due to per country visa cap (not many visas available for the country the individual belongs or is claiming GC under).
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations
more...
ramus
07-04 03:47 PM
Good finding...
Please post this on http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5994&page=21
Please post this on http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5994&page=21
shahrooz
02-15 10:28 PM
260 views and not even one single opinion?
more...
sunny1000
03-26 03:13 PM
I agree with PCS. We should keep this as a volunteer organisation and send email newsletter,word of the mouth etc, for fundraising. I am not sure if we should impose a membership fee as this is a volunteer org and also people who want to donate money would do it anyways. Just my thought:D
.jpg "Rihanna hot scene pictures")
TexDBoy
02-06 03:32 PM
Hi All,
I got promoted to Manager but my GC is applied for a Consultant 2 position (Developer Job Description). My Lawyers do not think it is an issue since it has been more than 6 months of my 485 application.
Is this really true?
Thanks,
Kaushik
Hi Kaushik,
Are you filing an H1B Amendment to reflect your new position
I got promoted to Manager but my GC is applied for a Consultant 2 position (Developer Job Description). My Lawyers do not think it is an issue since it has been more than 6 months of my 485 application.
Is this really true?
Thanks,
Kaushik
Hi Kaushik,
Are you filing an H1B Amendment to reflect your new position
more...
gr8dain
June 14th, 2005, 07:51 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but would you be able to use the extension tubes mentioned above with a third party lens like the Sigma Gary mentioned? Obviously the Sigma lens would have to be a Nikon mount since the tubes mentioned above are Nikon, but assuming the mounts were the same would that work?
Dain
Dain
godbless
05-31 07:46 PM
I'm surprised that with a November 2001 PD that you are getting an interview already, since EB-3 is still retrogressed--EB3 world is only at July 1 2001 for June 2006
The PD fot EB3 is April 07 2001 I think. Anyway.... there should not be a cause for concern. The reason you got an AOS interview is that USCIS is adjudicating cases pending Visa availability. If there had been a concern then there would have been another RFE on it. You should be happy that some progress has taken place.
Cheers!!!!!!
The PD fot EB3 is April 07 2001 I think. Anyway.... there should not be a cause for concern. The reason you got an AOS interview is that USCIS is adjudicating cases pending Visa availability. If there had been a concern then there would have been another RFE on it. You should be happy that some progress has taken place.
Cheers!!!!!!
more...
tonyHK12
01-06 12:35 PM
Good to hear there is a serious attempt being made. However, in light of what is happening with comprehensive healthcare reform, is it advisable to try comprehensive immigration reform especially with the congressional make of of the 2 chambers?
The 2010 CIR already had strict border protection clauses and it mandated a secure border first. It looks like the republicans want to split it from the 'illegals path to legalization' and concentrate on bills that have enforcement first, reading Graham's statement. He was even opposed to the moderate DREAM act.
The 2010 CIR already had strict border protection clauses and it mandated a secure border first. It looks like the republicans want to split it from the 'illegals path to legalization' and concentrate on bills that have enforcement first, reading Graham's statement. He was even opposed to the moderate DREAM act.
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.
kshitijnt
06-03 06:47 PM
For how long AOS primary applicant can be job-less?
until you get an RFE on 485 or 180 days whichever is less.
until you get an RFE on 485 or 180 days whichever is less.
vallabhu
02-20 10:11 PM
I live in ATL, Count me in.
willigetgc?
09-24 10:21 AM
my problem with these hearings is that they play soccer with the interests of immigrants. There are pro and anti immigrant views in discussion.
Enforcement is all about closing the borders and deporting immigrants. But why do we not see hearings to discuss and introduce bills that fine the employers and put them in jail if they hire an undocumented? But nobody, not even the anti-immigrant groups are pushing for such a bill. A lot of undocumented problem will be solved if employers cannot hire undocumented. We call immigrants as illegal, but why can't we use the same standard for employers who illegally hire undocumented?
Secondly when they talk about legalization, there is no country limits for them. But as soon as we talk about removing country limits in front of the same people, we hear talks about diversity etc.
Overall immigration is more about politics, votes than actually solving a problem. If these folks are serious about fixing a problem, a lt could have been done till now. We need to hear more action than just talk.
hypocrisy at its best!
Enforcement is all about closing the borders and deporting immigrants. But why do we not see hearings to discuss and introduce bills that fine the employers and put them in jail if they hire an undocumented? But nobody, not even the anti-immigrant groups are pushing for such a bill. A lot of undocumented problem will be solved if employers cannot hire undocumented. We call immigrants as illegal, but why can't we use the same standard for employers who illegally hire undocumented?
Secondly when they talk about legalization, there is no country limits for them. But as soon as we talk about removing country limits in front of the same people, we hear talks about diversity etc.
Overall immigration is more about politics, votes than actually solving a problem. If these folks are serious about fixing a problem, a lt could have been done till now. We need to hear more action than just talk.
hypocrisy at its best!
0 comments:
Post a Comment