snathan
08-26 12:13 PM
Hi Vikramy - Do you know of any particular reasons for these transfer denials? Also what could have been the reason in your case? Please explain if you have examples for the company starting with cognXXXXX, I just put my transfer papers in to join them.... :confused:
God Bless you...dont join them till you get the approval.
God Bless you...dont join them till you get the approval.
wallpaper taylor swift eyes color.
gc_check
11-05 02:45 PM
Just try to be optimistic and move on. Something is better then nothing. Atleast now you know, you are good after 180 days, if you are not that happy with your current job. But untill then take is easy and keep going with your day to day works. Most folks are much better than they were prior to July. Anyway, the last quarter is typically slow when it comes to job market and use this time to refresh your skills and wait for the right time to make the right move.
Also having EAD/AP etc.. is better compared to being on H1/L1, but remember it is not as good as having GC. Atlest untill you get you GC, you have to be very careful. Also AC21, make sure you know the rule and take the right steps when invoking AC21.
Also having EAD/AP etc.. is better compared to being on H1/L1, but remember it is not as good as having GC. Atlest untill you get you GC, you have to be very careful. Also AC21, make sure you know the rule and take the right steps when invoking AC21.
JazzByTheBay
08-21 11:35 AM
1) Are there any issues traveling on AP under the following circumstances??
- there's no current H1 stamp, although H1 extension for 3 years has been approved
- AP is expiring within 2-3 days of planned return?
- New AP is filed/pending, Receipt Notice received
- Employer is a Fortune 500
2) I've read previously that they ask you if you've changed employers since filing I-485. Anybody familiar with scenarios where employers have changed??
3) Docs I need to carry, besides... :
- H1 Approval notices?? (All of them since day 1?)
- I-485 Receipt Notice
- I-140 Approval Notice (do i need this?)
- Current AP Approval Notice
- Pending AP Receipt Notice
- Paystub??
- Letter from employer??? (do I need this?)
- there's no current H1 stamp, although H1 extension for 3 years has been approved
- AP is expiring within 2-3 days of planned return?
- New AP is filed/pending, Receipt Notice received
- Employer is a Fortune 500
2) I've read previously that they ask you if you've changed employers since filing I-485. Anybody familiar with scenarios where employers have changed??
3) Docs I need to carry, besides... :
- H1 Approval notices?? (All of them since day 1?)
- I-485 Receipt Notice
- I-140 Approval Notice (do i need this?)
- Current AP Approval Notice
- Pending AP Receipt Notice
- Paystub??
- Letter from employer??? (do I need this?)
2011 taylor swift eyes color.
nozerd
11-11 11:03 AM
Priority Date Current: Curse or Boon ?
I am EB3 India applicant with PD of August 2001 (own not substitution). Have I 140 approved since November 2005 but was only able to file I 485 in June 2007. With same employer for 10 yrs and on 9th yr of H1.
Earlier this year my PD was correct for 2 months but didnt hear anything from USCIS. My PD is current again this Nov and Dec and havent heard anything yet. Called USCIS customer svc and they said cant do anything as processing date is not current (Yes and they are going by Notice date and not Received date for service request). Lawyer says just stay cool and wait. So USCIS has no logic and no order and all we can do is wait for our stars to be aligned and case getting picked up in a sweep. Other than that being current is a curse rather than a boon because
You can not get 3 yr H1 extension if PD is current (only 1 yr).
You can not get 2 yrs EAD if PD is current.
So those dying for PD to be current think again. Its no use having PD current if USCIS is going to be so random and haphazard. It may turn out to be a curse.
I am EB3 India applicant with PD of August 2001 (own not substitution). Have I 140 approved since November 2005 but was only able to file I 485 in June 2007. With same employer for 10 yrs and on 9th yr of H1.
Earlier this year my PD was correct for 2 months but didnt hear anything from USCIS. My PD is current again this Nov and Dec and havent heard anything yet. Called USCIS customer svc and they said cant do anything as processing date is not current (Yes and they are going by Notice date and not Received date for service request). Lawyer says just stay cool and wait. So USCIS has no logic and no order and all we can do is wait for our stars to be aligned and case getting picked up in a sweep. Other than that being current is a curse rather than a boon because
You can not get 3 yr H1 extension if PD is current (only 1 yr).
You can not get 2 yrs EAD if PD is current.
So those dying for PD to be current think again. Its no use having PD current if USCIS is going to be so random and haphazard. It may turn out to be a curse.
more...
prashant1j
02-26 01:51 PM
There is no question like a dumb question. You definitely are dumb for questioning her.
Marphad
02-12 10:51 AM
I support this fully. Where is all time Gandhigiri supporter "ItIsNotFunny"?
more...
bkarnik
08-28 05:00 PM
Totally agree with boreal. Also, the category that you qualify for depends upon the requirements of the job and not your qualifications. For example if the minimum requirements of the job is BS with little or no experience, you would be in an EB3 category, irrespective of whether you have a MS or a PhD.
2010 taylor swift ugly eyes.
desperatlyinwaiting
06-15 10:19 PM
Thank you for the quick response and advise.
Do they stamp the I-551 on a current passport, when he gets it renewed, even if we have not receive the approval letter? How do they verify this?
I do not have experience with this, so I greatly appreciate your patience.
Do they stamp the I-551 on a current passport, when he gets it renewed, even if we have not receive the approval letter? How do they verify this?
I do not have experience with this, so I greatly appreciate your patience.
more...
forgerator
02-12 11:25 AM
if your employer is ok with the arrangement , why not?
hair Taylor Swift Blows me away!
Prashant
01-22 07:30 PM
Thank you IV,
I really appreciate u folks whatever be the outcome ....
Thank you once again.
I really appreciate u folks whatever be the outcome ....
Thank you once again.
more...
vicks_don
01-05 03:14 PM
Today morning I posted in greatandhra.com which is frequently visited by people from Andhra Pradesh in INDIA. I am expecting some more members to join over the weekend.
hot Taylor Swift Lilac Eye Makeup
xu1
04-10 11:06 AM
I will send an email after work with details.. Can't use webbased mail right now at work.
more...
house Taylor Swift 322x383
NKR
11-11 11:24 AM
I would love to trade places with you if I could buddy, so just relax� on the other hand I sympathize with you, a 2001 PD seems so old to me. Being current is the boon, for you to have to stick with the same employer is the curse.
tattoo taylor swift eyes color.
gg_ny
09-20 05:24 PM
Or try emailing or calling them from here. It helped me a bit.
now days there is 'Returning Workers quota' in VFS and US embassy. visit VFS in person and take advantage of that process.
cheers
now days there is 'Returning Workers quota' in VFS and US embassy. visit VFS in person and take advantage of that process.
cheers
more...
pictures Taylor Swift uses Sharpie for
Anders �stberg
October 7th, 2005, 02:14 AM
My experience is that even with the "1/focal length" rule (or maybe it should be "1/(focal length x crop factor)") is a bit optimistic with these long tele shots. Maybe it can work if you have really good technique and a sturdy tripod but I like to use a much shorter shutter time if possible.
dresses Where do the asian eyes come
common1
01-25 06:47 PM
dummgelauft:
I am not completely new to this :)...USCIS was pretty quick to post the bulletin even before the month of February even started, so I assumed that they are working overtime...
Hope that they show the same efficiency to clear thousands of pending applications :mad:
I am not completely new to this :)...USCIS was pretty quick to post the bulletin even before the month of February even started, so I assumed that they are working overtime...
Hope that they show the same efficiency to clear thousands of pending applications :mad:
more...
makeup Taylor Swift Gets Some Serious
bkarnik
10-24 03:38 PM
Yahoo has a program to basically field questions to various congressmen and senators (most of them are prominent).
On Oct 26th, Rep. Tom Davis is going to answer questions.
I have comment #170 at:
http://news.yahoo.com/b/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff11183?rf=166#comments
In the future, there will be more law makers.
Good work janilsal. A correction though, your question number is 169. I read 170 and was initially horrified at the hate in that question. Thankfully, I looked at the author information and was thankful that it was not an IV member who posted #170. Just a small correction. You may want to go and edit your original post accordingly.
Also, let us know if you get a reply.
On Oct 26th, Rep. Tom Davis is going to answer questions.
I have comment #170 at:
http://news.yahoo.com/b/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff11183?rf=166#comments
In the future, there will be more law makers.
Good work janilsal. A correction though, your question number is 169. I read 170 and was initially horrified at the hate in that question. Thankfully, I looked at the author information and was thankful that it was not an IV member who posted #170. Just a small correction. You may want to go and edit your original post accordingly.
Also, let us know if you get a reply.
girlfriend taylor-swift-25.jpg
nozerd
12-17 09:33 PM
My labor was approved in October 2005 and the dates were in 1998 then so couldnt apply for 485. I applied for I 140 and that was approved in December 2005. Couldnt apply for I 485 until June 2007 just 1 month before the "free for all" where my dear friends with PD in 2007 could also apply.
Just makes you smile doesnt it :)
Just makes you smile doesnt it :)
hairstyles Get Taylor Swift#39;s American
nlssubbu
07-24 06:54 PM
This is FAQ from USCIS website:
Q1: Will USCIS reject a concurrently filed EB I-140/I-485 case if it is lacking a required Labor Certification?
A1. USCIS will not accept an I-140 based on a required labor certification application if the approved labor certification application is not submitted in connection with the filing. USCIS will not accept a concurrently filed Form I-485 if the required Form I-140 is rejected for lack of an approved labor certification application.
-----------------------------------------------
Anyone knows what that means? I have filed 140/485 concurrently on July 2nd 2007. However, I never received original LC document and my lawyer said it is okay to file 140 without original LC document, USCIS will collect it from DOL. Do you think this will affect me?
Thanks
In the past for my case, we do filed I-140 without the original labor certificate. They sent us an RFE for original labor, which then sent back along with approved original. I do not know whether USCIS are going to take a different stand now.
Thanks
Q1: Will USCIS reject a concurrently filed EB I-140/I-485 case if it is lacking a required Labor Certification?
A1. USCIS will not accept an I-140 based on a required labor certification application if the approved labor certification application is not submitted in connection with the filing. USCIS will not accept a concurrently filed Form I-485 if the required Form I-140 is rejected for lack of an approved labor certification application.
-----------------------------------------------
Anyone knows what that means? I have filed 140/485 concurrently on July 2nd 2007. However, I never received original LC document and my lawyer said it is okay to file 140 without original LC document, USCIS will collect it from DOL. Do you think this will affect me?
Thanks
In the past for my case, we do filed I-140 without the original labor certificate. They sent us an RFE for original labor, which then sent back along with approved original. I do not know whether USCIS are going to take a different stand now.
Thanks
pappu
02-02 02:54 PM
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Naturalization
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
smari
09-08 04:43 PM
How about birth certificate stating initial and First name (not first name and last name). Any sugestions?
No comments:
Post a Comment