saimrathi
08-02 01:41 PM
Yes, copies should be fine..IMHO only, you can check with a lawyer though.
Gemini,
Isn't it enough to send a copy of the Affidavits of Birth and not the original. I think USCIS requires only copies of all documents. Correct me if I am wrong.
Gemini,
Isn't it enough to send a copy of the Affidavits of Birth and not the original. I think USCIS requires only copies of all documents. Correct me if I am wrong.
wallpaper happy birthday quotes for est
thescadaman
12-16 10:43 AM
If EAD and License have same expiry then what happens for license renewal during that last 6 months. It appears, I am going to get in a similar situation. My conern is about the remote possibility - What if my license gets damaged or lost during those last 6 months. As per their current law they will not issue a replacement license since the EAD is not valid for more than 6 months. EAD can be renewed 120 days before and for license to be renewed the EAD has to be valid for more than 6 months.
The last 6 months of "no-license replacement" is making me very anxious.
The last 6 months of "no-license replacement" is making me very anxious.
rb_248
11-14 08:24 PM
I totally agree that we must channelize all our frustration into positive energy. But, sometimes I get a feeling that I don't belong in the US anymore and why should I fight for something that is never going to happen. :(
2011 happy birthday quotes for est
phigi
11-19 11:13 AM
you should ask the SSA office to accept the application and send it to DC for verification (manual process). They have that option available.
i think you should do that, since there would be no point in waiting if you have to do this after Dec 31 due to some technical error.
Also, the person can work without an SSN. it's not mandatory to have SSN to get paid.
i think you should do that, since there would be no point in waiting if you have to do this after Dec 31 due to some technical error.
Also, the person can work without an SSN. it's not mandatory to have SSN to get paid.
more...
immigrationvoice1
03-06 03:44 PM
I say EB3 India will move to Jan 1st 2002.
Please provide some more estimates for EB3 India....
Please provide some more estimates for EB3 India....
tabletpc
07-29 10:59 PM
If the applicant has US degree its good to goto canand for stamping as it will be easy for them to varify degree documents.
Even i was scared...2 years back when i went to calgary for stamping. But having a US degree did help me. Later many of my frinds who din't had US degree had problems from cananda.
If u r going to canada its better to go with a approved h1B(I797) rather than directly asking them for extension.
Yes if it gets rejected...u need to take an appointment in india and return to US.
Even i was scared...2 years back when i went to calgary for stamping. But having a US degree did help me. Later many of my frinds who din't had US degree had problems from cananda.
If u r going to canada its better to go with a approved h1B(I797) rather than directly asking them for extension.
Yes if it gets rejected...u need to take an appointment in india and return to US.
more...
sandy_anand
06-04 09:54 AM
Thats the Senate and House for you...they get up very late since they party late into the night!...:)
2010 happy birthday quotes for est
sreenivas11
06-17 07:36 AM
^^^^
more...
thomachan72
01-10 06:15 AM
Hello All
Similar experience at Mumbai Consulate. Being a full time employee, and after showing all paystubs, employment letter , VO was not satisfied. 1/2 of the time , he was under impression that I was still working for a company, whose visa was stamped in 2008. :)
Another reason of frustration is they did not check all the documents I sent , which were mentioned in the green slip. Inspite of sending Research Document, I had got the reply saying that I did not send the Past, Current and Future Research Statement. So I resubmitted all the documents again on Dec 23rd,2010 . also added I am not working on any research topic presently or in near future . After that I did not hear back from consulate. So that means my case has been under processing?
Did anyone get the receipt of documents submission in response to Green Slip?
Please let me know
Thanks and Good LUCK
DResearch statement? Have never heard about that one! Are you a postdoctoral research fellow?
Similar experience at Mumbai Consulate. Being a full time employee, and after showing all paystubs, employment letter , VO was not satisfied. 1/2 of the time , he was under impression that I was still working for a company, whose visa was stamped in 2008. :)
Another reason of frustration is they did not check all the documents I sent , which were mentioned in the green slip. Inspite of sending Research Document, I had got the reply saying that I did not send the Past, Current and Future Research Statement. So I resubmitted all the documents again on Dec 23rd,2010 . also added I am not working on any research topic presently or in near future . After that I did not hear back from consulate. So that means my case has been under processing?
Did anyone get the receipt of documents submission in response to Green Slip?
Please let me know
Thanks and Good LUCK
DResearch statement? Have never heard about that one! Are you a postdoctoral research fellow?
hair happy birthday quotes to est
capriol
01-26 07:19 PM
Folks,
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
I am not getting my hopes too high about the EB-485 processing dates--either for the TSC or the NSC. Correct me if I am wrong...but I think that this huge progress in the EB 485 processing dates can be attributed to the fact that EB2 (India) is retrogressed and even unavailable (currently) and EB 3 (India) is also regtrogressed, and of course, not to mention China. So, perhaps both the service centers are processing EB 485's for ROW--and thus this quite impressive forward move.
If at some point India's EB2 and 3 priority dates move by a great leap beyond what it is now (ie., if the centers start processing the July 2007 VB submissions of EB2 and 3) , then should not we expect that the processing dates of the two centers be back-logged again and thus retrogressed?
What so you folks think? Thanks.
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hot happy birthday quotes to est
peer123
04-17 10:05 AM
How did you find what job code your labor was applied for?
it is on the approved labor certificate, that my lawyer gave me
it is on the approved labor certificate, that my lawyer gave me
more...
house quotes on est friends. happy
bob2007
07-18 12:11 AM
Anybody knows how USCIS will process un signed I-140 Petition? I filed for Labor substituion and I-140. I forgot to sign the I-140 petition.
May I know the implications of this? What all are the possibilities ? Will they reject the application?
May I know the implications of this? What all are the possibilities ? Will they reject the application?
tattoo irthday wishes for friends.
ameryki
10-17 08:29 PM
Boss once you get an ead after applying for 485 one must consider taking the risks after 180 days because the chances of getting that 485 denied are slim to none unless your application has opportunities if you know what i mean.:)
more...
pictures tattoo happy birthday quotes
jsb
10-29 10:20 PM
I have same question......if for example as above someone changes to SAP....what should be done in terms of notification to USCIS..?
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
One should ask experts, or may try to find answer in USCIS FAQs. But as I learnt from various sources, you do nothing, unless asked, i.e. there is nothing to send or tell to USCIS.
Do we just go ahead and join the new job / consulting firm and get a letter from them to match the O*NET code or description as above...?
One should ask experts, or may try to find answer in USCIS FAQs. But as I learnt from various sources, you do nothing, unless asked, i.e. there is nothing to send or tell to USCIS.
dresses happy birthday quotes funny
GCMD0203
09-17 01:18 PM
Gurus please help
Hi,
I'm in the same boat as you (I140/I485/I131/I765 - filed concurrently). I'm trying to self file for my H1 extension. I was not sure about one question on form I-129 part 4.7 the question is
Have you ever filed an immigrant petition for any person in this petition?
Last year when I filed for H1 extension I had checked 'NO'
But now that I-140 is pending, I'm not sure if I should check 'YES' or 'NO'
I will appreciate if you can help me with this.
Thanks,
Hi,
I'm in the same boat as you (I140/I485/I131/I765 - filed concurrently). I'm trying to self file for my H1 extension. I was not sure about one question on form I-129 part 4.7 the question is
Have you ever filed an immigrant petition for any person in this petition?
Last year when I filed for H1 extension I had checked 'NO'
But now that I-140 is pending, I'm not sure if I should check 'YES' or 'NO'
I will appreciate if you can help me with this.
Thanks,
more...
makeup happy birthday quotes to est friend. happy birthday quotes for est
sbdol
07-21 09:51 PM
I have the same question. I've just filed my I-485, and am waiting for the receipt number. Is it advisable to continue on H1b rather than switching to EAD? My company lawyer is advising against applying for EAD.
Would there be any problem to my I485 petition if I switch to a new employer using H1B transfer? Is there any drawback if I switch to EAD/AP apart from the annual renewal expense? :confused:.
The advantage of H1-B is that if for some reason for example I-140 is denied you can continue on H1-B and refile.
Would there be any problem to my I485 petition if I switch to a new employer using H1B transfer? Is there any drawback if I switch to EAD/AP apart from the annual renewal expense? :confused:.
The advantage of H1-B is that if for some reason for example I-140 is denied you can continue on H1-B and refile.
girlfriend 2010 happy birthday wishes
snathan
06-05 02:08 PM
My labour got approved on May 23rd .
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
If only Labour is approved and you change employer, you will lose it and have to start from the scrach. Only if your I-140 is approved and its more than six months, you can use the PD.
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
If only Labour is approved and you change employer, you will lose it and have to start from the scrach. Only if your I-140 is approved and its more than six months, you can use the PD.
hairstyles happy birthday quotes for est
ssbaruah@yahoo.com
03-01 08:26 PM
Hi,
Unfortunately, I have recently been laid off by my employer on Jan 09. Still I could not transfer my H1B, but I am in process to doing that. One of friend told me told me that I need to transfer my H1B with 2 months. My H1B visa is valid till 2011.
I already requested my ex-employer not to revoke my H1B.
My questions are �
1. How much time I will get to transfer my H1B ?
2. What about my families H4 visa status ?
3. If it is out of status issue , then what should me my immediate action ?
Thanks in advance!
Unfortunately, I have recently been laid off by my employer on Jan 09. Still I could not transfer my H1B, but I am in process to doing that. One of friend told me told me that I need to transfer my H1B with 2 months. My H1B visa is valid till 2011.
I already requested my ex-employer not to revoke my H1B.
My questions are �
1. How much time I will get to transfer my H1B ?
2. What about my families H4 visa status ?
3. If it is out of status issue , then what should me my immediate action ?
Thanks in advance!
kaisersose
08-04 02:41 PM
Hi,
My employer is filing my I-140 and I-485/131/765 concurrently. My lawyer/representative send a list which says G-28 signed by lawyer and my employer. I understand for I-140, G-28 is signed by lawyer and employer(petitioner). When filed concurrently is one G-28 is enough for whole forms?
I read we need to have G-28 form for each form and for 485/131/765 forms G-28 should be signed by the actual applicant and the lawyer instead of the petitioner(my employer). Right now in my case there is only G-28 form they were sending that was signed by my employer(petitioner) and the lawyer...is one G-28 is fine for whole application packet when filed concurrently...
USCIS website clearly says without G-28 form they will reject the application right away...but it didn't mentioned for each form though...but all my colleagues says they signed three G-28 forms one each 485/765/131...i am little confused and concerend..please suggest..
thanks in advance..
G-28 is optional and each form has to have its own G-28.
The single G-28 in your case is for the I140. The rest of the applications are signed by you and are your own. if a signed G-28 is attached to each of these forms, then you will not receive receipts, etc. But without the G-28, all the communication will come to you directly, which is actually beneficial.
So everything is alright in your case.
My employer is filing my I-140 and I-485/131/765 concurrently. My lawyer/representative send a list which says G-28 signed by lawyer and my employer. I understand for I-140, G-28 is signed by lawyer and employer(petitioner). When filed concurrently is one G-28 is enough for whole forms?
I read we need to have G-28 form for each form and for 485/131/765 forms G-28 should be signed by the actual applicant and the lawyer instead of the petitioner(my employer). Right now in my case there is only G-28 form they were sending that was signed by my employer(petitioner) and the lawyer...is one G-28 is fine for whole application packet when filed concurrently...
USCIS website clearly says without G-28 form they will reject the application right away...but it didn't mentioned for each form though...but all my colleagues says they signed three G-28 forms one each 485/765/131...i am little confused and concerend..please suggest..
thanks in advance..
G-28 is optional and each form has to have its own G-28.
The single G-28 in your case is for the I140. The rest of the applications are signed by you and are your own. if a signed G-28 is attached to each of these forms, then you will not receive receipts, etc. But without the G-28, all the communication will come to you directly, which is actually beneficial.
So everything is alright in your case.
njboy
02-12 02:29 PM
first of all, your question is irrelevant..if you are going to canada, you are not required to submit your i-94. your new i-94 is the one attached to your h1b approval..so ..it doesnt matter how long they stamp your visa..you can stay in US till the date of the i-94 you got attached to your h1b approval notice
0 comments:
Post a Comment