gc4me
04-22 03:53 PM
Miss obviously,
either you have a chicken heart or you are a silent partner of a blood s#$king deshi consulting.
kg318, this is your money and you earned it. Don't give these suckers any option to suck your earned money. Charging for GC process in any stage is totally illegal no matter which state you are from. It is DOL and USCIS policy not of a state.
I see some people trying to talk here in favour of employers straight or some times using curves. Remember kg318, there are members here who have consulting company ties and who here talks for them as well. Be judgmental.
kg318... from your initial post you indicated that you "demanded" money back and noted that Company A's practice was "against the law". Now, they are using the same law against you. Not saying it is fair or pretty. Just remember, what you sow, you shall reap.
It is generally poor practice to go for gung-ho activism in a situation where you are unclear about the law (e.g., non compete) and unable to get good counsel (e.g. immigration and business law attorneys).
Just keep this in mind. Long term, your peace of mind is worth more than $4K ... just think if there are other ways in which you could have handled this.... in case such event pop up again.
If I were you, I would have a civil conversation with that company. Tell them that economics took over empathy, that you wish to be in a position where you have less financial loss and would appreciate an amicable parting of ways.
It's a small world out there. Dont pi*s on anyone, lest it come back to wet your backside!
Sabre rattling might get you out of this one, but the world still remains a small place!
either you have a chicken heart or you are a silent partner of a blood s#$king deshi consulting.
kg318, this is your money and you earned it. Don't give these suckers any option to suck your earned money. Charging for GC process in any stage is totally illegal no matter which state you are from. It is DOL and USCIS policy not of a state.
I see some people trying to talk here in favour of employers straight or some times using curves. Remember kg318, there are members here who have consulting company ties and who here talks for them as well. Be judgmental.
kg318... from your initial post you indicated that you "demanded" money back and noted that Company A's practice was "against the law". Now, they are using the same law against you. Not saying it is fair or pretty. Just remember, what you sow, you shall reap.
It is generally poor practice to go for gung-ho activism in a situation where you are unclear about the law (e.g., non compete) and unable to get good counsel (e.g. immigration and business law attorneys).
Just keep this in mind. Long term, your peace of mind is worth more than $4K ... just think if there are other ways in which you could have handled this.... in case such event pop up again.
If I were you, I would have a civil conversation with that company. Tell them that economics took over empathy, that you wish to be in a position where you have less financial loss and would appreciate an amicable parting of ways.
It's a small world out there. Dont pi*s on anyone, lest it come back to wet your backside!
Sabre rattling might get you out of this one, but the world still remains a small place!
wallpaper Call of Cthulhu - Dark Corners
mrajatish
05-04 03:22 PM
So if the kid gets his GC and you do too because he, like many other kids, are removed from the queue, is that a problem or a good thing?
Plus in a lot of fields, having an MS or PhD is absolutely necessary.
Plus in a lot of fields, having an MS or PhD is absolutely necessary.
desi3933
07-10 12:24 AM
@desi3933:
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
1. From tax standpoint, W2 means the company (could be fully/partly owned by you) is paying tax-at-source. On 1099, *you* do the taxes and hence the hourly rate on 1099 is typically more than that on W2. Yes, you can be an owner of a corporation and file taxes as as a C-Corp or an S-Corp on W2, but not as a "Self-employed."
2. Yes, I-140 is for "permanent" (definition needed) and FT job, since the sponsoring company has always an "intent" to hire the petitioner in the future. *But* AC21 provision helps you to change employers after 180 days of filing I-485, if your I-140 is approved. The new job has to be "same or similar" to the occupation your I-140 petition was filed for. The "permanent" intent of the original employer disappears under AC21 because you changed employers (or your original employer withdrew I-140, even though he had genuine "intent" at the time of I-140 filing to hire you in the future). I agree that "any memo (including Yates memo) supplements the existing federal regulations," but the Yates memo gives you the AC21 provision, which was a law signed by Pres. Bush.
3. It is wrong to *infer* that "AC-21 job must be of same type as I-140/labor job, hence must be permanent and full time." As I say in 2. above, the employer who filed your I-140 should have intent, *at I-140 filing time*, to hire you in the future. And that intent is not needed after 180 days of filing I-485 *and* approved I-140, regardless of whether your original employer continues or withdraws your I-140 petition.
4. You're wrong in your example of "A job with 6 year contract is a temporary job." I've often seen the "6-month contracts" getting extended to 1, 2, 3 years or indefinitely. Similarly, a "permanent" job may last a few months (e.g., because of a recession).
5. It is true that "all H-1B jobs are temporary in nature and called guest workers," but H-1B (compared with, say TN-1) is a dual intent visa. Once you file I-140, your intent (whether on H1 or EAD) becomes not that of a temporary visitor but as the one seeking a permanent stay in this country.
6. Again, it's wrong to assume that "most of full time exempt jobs in this country are permanent in nature." And even if they were permanent, in what sense?
I think we're running into into two issues here. The first one is related to semantics--i.e., what constitutes a "permanent" job? The second one is the *inference/assumption* that, because because I-140 requires you to be on a permanent, FT job (=sponsoring employer has "intent" to hire you in the future), your employment under AC21 provision should be "permanent".
1. You can be self employed on c-corp as well. Please go to bank of your choice and you will get the answer. I do have business accounts and speaking from my own experience.
2. Here is one RFE issued by USCIS. This should answer that AC-21 job must be permanent and match your labor/I-140
If you will no longer be employed by the original Form I-140 petitioner, you may still be eligible to adjust your status under the visa portability provisions of section 106� of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (AC21), Public Law 106-313. This legislation permits certain adjustment applications to change employers without filing a new immigrant visa petition, provided they are:
The beneficiary of an immigrant petition approved under section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Act (previously 204(a)(1)(D)), AND The application for adjustment has been pending for more than 180 days, AND the new permanent position is in the same or similar occupational classification as the original employment.
If you now claim such eligibility, submit a letter from your new employer, describing your present job duties and position in the organization, your proffered position (if different from your current one), the date you began employment and the offered salary or wage. This letter must be in the original and signed by an executive or officer of the organization who is authorized to make or confirm an offer of permanent employment. The letter should also indicate whether the terms and conditions of your employment-based visa petition (or labor certification) continue to exist.
3. See point 2.
4. Contract extension does not mean job is permanent. And, yes, 6 year contract job is temporary in nature. Permanent job can not have end date. Period.
5. Dual intent visa means that it can be issued even if I-140 or I-130 has been filed on your behalf. Nothing more than that. GC job is independent of H-1B job.
6. Again, Permanent job is a job that is expected to last unknown term and is not defined for a period. H-1B job is not permanent since they have end date specified by LCA and H-1B visa petition.
7. Here is a case for I-140 that was denied, since offered I-140 job was not permanent full-time job. Read for yourself
Link to case (http://www.uscis.gov/err/B6%20-%20Skilled%20Workers,%20Professionals,%20and%20Oth er%20Workers/Decisions_Issued_in_2009/Jan022009_06B6203.pdf)
____________________
Not a legal advice.
2011 Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners
delta313
02-16 04:42 PM
Transaction id: 0875-4353-9232-5569
more...
bebar
06-06 09:00 PM
No reciept yet..
EB2 PD 05/2003
EB2 PD 05/2003
zeta7
03-23 11:54 AM
I would advise not to go for your landing. At this point you need to make a decision whether you want to pursue canadian GC or US GC. If you have applied for 485 then it best that you not do the canadian landing. You may have issues when you come back to US. They may ask you why you went to canada and you cannot lie and have to tell them the truth. This may raise questions on your intent to pursue US GC. It all depends on your luck as to who you get the IO. I have heard of a case where a person got RFE on 485 after completing the landing.
If you still want to do the landing then you should be prepared for RFE or NOID on your 485.
Thanks dingudi. If you know of a solid case where someone was RFE'd because of landing while on 485, then it looks like I might seriously consider abandoning it as well.
One last question: Let's hypothetically say that I do decide to land and somehow manage to get back into the US without any issues using my AP. However, every subsequent time I leave the U.S. and return, I run the risk of getting "caught" at the POE with regards to the 485/Canadian residency conflict. Am I correct in this assessment?
Again, I appreciate your input immensely. Thanks!
If you still want to do the landing then you should be prepared for RFE or NOID on your 485.
Thanks dingudi. If you know of a solid case where someone was RFE'd because of landing while on 485, then it looks like I might seriously consider abandoning it as well.
One last question: Let's hypothetically say that I do decide to land and somehow manage to get back into the US without any issues using my AP. However, every subsequent time I leave the U.S. and return, I run the risk of getting "caught" at the POE with regards to the 485/Canadian residency conflict. Am I correct in this assessment?
Again, I appreciate your input immensely. Thanks!
more...
Macaca
12-10 10:06 AM
I am doing the following even if there are 0 takers.
Educate lawmakers about retorgression.
Prioritize interim options based on controversial factor. Some forum posts have good ideas.
Start right now. I don't know how to enjoy holidays without any hope.
I don't understand all the issues (like EAD). In order to proceed, I am trying to understand (= validate + document) the
process and platform (senate/congress) on which retrogression will be addressed.
process and platform on which interim measure can be introduced.
effect of each interim measure.
Educate lawmakers about retorgression.
Prioritize interim options based on controversial factor. Some forum posts have good ideas.
Start right now. I don't know how to enjoy holidays without any hope.
I don't understand all the issues (like EAD). In order to proceed, I am trying to understand (= validate + document) the
process and platform (senate/congress) on which retrogression will be addressed.
process and platform on which interim measure can be introduced.
effect of each interim measure.
2010 Call of Cthulhu dice Q
hindu_king
03-06 04:12 PM
Country Cap for employment based GCs is discrimination by National Origin. It must be removed. This kind of practice would be illegal if practiced by any corporate entity. So it might be illegal even for USCIS to have a country cap for employment based visas. We might want to think about having some lawyers check into this and maybe sue USCIS so that they remove this discriminatory rule. This one small change in rule could make a huge difference to Indian community, more than any other legislative changes. Skilled workers from different countries come to USA because they all want to work in USA, not because they come from a certain country. USA should have only one queue for this reason. Having separate queues for each country is downright racist and discrimination by national origin.
more...
kumar4875
02-08 10:54 AM
6RU77737WF387820X.
contributed $100.
contributed $100.
hair The original Call of Cthulhu
bkarnik
05-10 08:21 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2691:
more...
mashu
08-15 03:47 PM
I am on the same boat as well.
I think that LUD recent changes with no receipts/no checks cahsed might reflect transfer to TSC.
Suggestion: for people who filed I140 in TSC and I485 in NSC- to register to USCIS website and keep track of LUD (as a transfer indication):confused:
BTW, talked to my lawyer, he does not think so but he does not any other opinion also:mad:
---------------
EB3
I140 approved by TSC on 6/15/2007
I4585 received by NSC on July 2, 11:34am
Last Update Date on I140 - 8/12/2007
No receipt, no check cashed
I think that LUD recent changes with no receipts/no checks cahsed might reflect transfer to TSC.
Suggestion: for people who filed I140 in TSC and I485 in NSC- to register to USCIS website and keep track of LUD (as a transfer indication):confused:
BTW, talked to my lawyer, he does not think so but he does not any other opinion also:mad:
---------------
EB3
I140 approved by TSC on 6/15/2007
I4585 received by NSC on July 2, 11:34am
Last Update Date on I140 - 8/12/2007
No receipt, no check cashed
hot Fans of the Cthulhu series
desi3933
06-28 10:11 PM
Employers can (at least they do) discriminate EAD holders. Here is an example and related link:
Fog Creek Software - Intern in Software Development (http://www.fogcreek.com/Jobs/SummerIntern.html)
"Permanent legal right to work in the United States. Because student visas (J1, F1, etc) are time-limited, we regret that we can't consider interns on student visas."
They key word here is "Permanent legal right to work in the United States". EADs (485 based EAD as well as F1 based EADs) have a limit of 1 year/2 year/29 months etc. Based on this Fog Creek Software will not hire an EAD holder. Can we do some thing about this blatant violation of the law?
As per I-9 form
The refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination.
Any person wrongly discriminated due to EAD expiration date has the option of seeking claims for damages caused by the other party in court of law. I am not aware of any case involving such facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice
Fog Creek Software - Intern in Software Development (http://www.fogcreek.com/Jobs/SummerIntern.html)
"Permanent legal right to work in the United States. Because student visas (J1, F1, etc) are time-limited, we regret that we can't consider interns on student visas."
They key word here is "Permanent legal right to work in the United States". EADs (485 based EAD as well as F1 based EADs) have a limit of 1 year/2 year/29 months etc. Based on this Fog Creek Software will not hire an EAD holder. Can we do some thing about this blatant violation of the law?
As per I-9 form
The refusal to hire an individual because the documents presented have a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination.
Any person wrongly discriminated due to EAD expiration date has the option of seeking claims for damages caused by the other party in court of law. I am not aware of any case involving such facts.
___________________
Not a legal advice
more...
house Call of Cthulhu: Dark
thakkarbhav
02-01 09:01 AM
I just visited last month. I stayed there for 6 weeks...
Agree that economy is booking but....
(1) too much pollution.
(2) No infrastructure to handle cars and two wheeleers.
(3) too much mosquito even in winter/summer. I do not know what will happen in rainy days.
(4) prices for every item have gone up by 3X..Most of the item I am not able to justify the rise. The quality of the product has not gone up.
(5) easy to set up business..get house...get car but tough to drive peacefully...need to pray god every morning so that we come back home with 2 hands and 2 legs and unbroken body parts.
(6) Club culture is booming too...so if you have daughter who is teen then need to check by that angle too.
Just my two cents....
Agree that economy is booking but....
(1) too much pollution.
(2) No infrastructure to handle cars and two wheeleers.
(3) too much mosquito even in winter/summer. I do not know what will happen in rainy days.
(4) prices for every item have gone up by 3X..Most of the item I am not able to justify the rise. The quality of the product has not gone up.
(5) easy to set up business..get house...get car but tough to drive peacefully...need to pray god every morning so that we come back home with 2 hands and 2 legs and unbroken body parts.
(6) Club culture is booming too...so if you have daughter who is teen then need to check by that angle too.
Just my two cents....
tattoo post Call of Cthulhu game
dixie
12-11 04:27 PM
Totally agreed that quota increase is controversial and an alternative approach must be agreed upon - 1932, CIR and now SKIL has taught us that bitter lesson. I am not by any means questioning the wisdom of going after the low-hanging fruits like 485 filing etc. All I am saying is - we cannot assume everything else remains the same. Things like 485 filing etc are our niche goals - no corporate interest is served by that and in a brutally capitalistic country thats a huge disadvantage.The fact is ANY relief, whether it includes quota increase or not, still takes a lot of lobbying and money to introduce all on its own strength.Yours and mine promotion/career prospects are the least of the lawmakers' worries, however non-controversial it may be and however deserving we may be. The need of the hour is to increase our membership base and contributions - lets face it, 200k in funds is not going to get us too far on our own steam. If 6000 of us could achieve so much in an year, imagine what 100k will do. That way we will be a credible enough force to be heard and respected. It still beats me how we have only 6000 odd members despite the dire situation that the majority of EB applicants find themselves in since 2001.
Most of the time we have to search for bills to attach our provisions anyways. The only problem is that right now all our provisions are either being labeled as "quota increase" or are being attached to "Quota Increase" bills. Try and remember S-1932, CIR and SKIL. AILA will always be after H1 Increase and so will Big Corps. Only this time instead of seperating ourselves as "EB only" we try to piggyback on either "Quota increase" bills OR we try and piggyback on just about ANY bill we can piggyback onto. Most of the times weird bills get combined (S1932 for example).
If 2006 has taught us anything it should be "Do NOT try and increase quotas and numbers". For starters it takes TOO long to do and there is MUCH more opposition from even the average American. Remember the IV Core telling us how the Anti-immigrant calls far outnumbered our calls during the Recent SKIL bill? Guys even the biggest Corps have been unsuccessful in getting Visa number increases. Do we honestly believe that with 6,000 members who are NOT a voting base (and may never be) + the lack of funds, we are going to do what these big guns have not been able to accomplish? Am I saying we should give up? HELL NO!! All I am saying is, it is time to review our strategy. Over and above all this, if we think that our current course will bring us victory then let the majority prevail.
Most of the time we have to search for bills to attach our provisions anyways. The only problem is that right now all our provisions are either being labeled as "quota increase" or are being attached to "Quota Increase" bills. Try and remember S-1932, CIR and SKIL. AILA will always be after H1 Increase and so will Big Corps. Only this time instead of seperating ourselves as "EB only" we try to piggyback on either "Quota increase" bills OR we try and piggyback on just about ANY bill we can piggyback onto. Most of the times weird bills get combined (S1932 for example).
If 2006 has taught us anything it should be "Do NOT try and increase quotas and numbers". For starters it takes TOO long to do and there is MUCH more opposition from even the average American. Remember the IV Core telling us how the Anti-immigrant calls far outnumbered our calls during the Recent SKIL bill? Guys even the biggest Corps have been unsuccessful in getting Visa number increases. Do we honestly believe that with 6,000 members who are NOT a voting base (and may never be) + the lack of funds, we are going to do what these big guns have not been able to accomplish? Am I saying we should give up? HELL NO!! All I am saying is, it is time to review our strategy. Over and above all this, if we think that our current course will bring us victory then let the majority prevail.
more...
pictures Call of Cthulhu Developer
makemygc
08-01 05:11 PM
If anyone's I140 is pending at NSC, they thinks otherwise. You will feel other lanes are fast except one which you are. :D it's humane nature and It's ok to vent. you will feel better.;)
But the whole process of sending to NSC and then transferring it to TSC is ridiculous..just waste of resources and time. Althought, they have realized the mistake and now allowing for direct filing.
But the whole process of sending to NSC and then transferring it to TSC is ridiculous..just waste of resources and time. Althought, they have realized the mistake and now allowing for direct filing.
dresses Call of Cthulhu CCG Booster
mirage
03-06 03:10 PM
Just a little update, Called up my Senator's office this morning..Started talking about country Cap issue, the guy knew everything about it, he took notes & promised he will pass it on to the Senator. Here's what I suggested him
1) Lift the Country Cap for Temporary period of time, may be just for 2 years.
2) Limit the Maximum waiting time, say if one applicant is waiting for 5 years than country cap should be exempted and he should be given a preference over a person who�s PD is just 1 year old.
He specifically told me 'your second point is very good, I'll certainly share these with the Senator'...
I urge you guys to contact your senators & Congressmen/Congresswomen
We have a group which is focusing on this issue, if you want to join us here's the link
1) Lift the Country Cap for Temporary period of time, may be just for 2 years.
2) Limit the Maximum waiting time, say if one applicant is waiting for 5 years than country cap should be exempted and he should be given a preference over a person who�s PD is just 1 year old.
He specifically told me 'your second point is very good, I'll certainly share these with the Senator'...
I urge you guys to contact your senators & Congressmen/Congresswomen
We have a group which is focusing on this issue, if you want to join us here's the link
more...
makeup of the Call of Cthulhu
nehas
01-29 05:03 PM
Hi
I came to us on H4 in 2007 and the got my H1B in 2008. I am not getting a job on H1 yet so i want to know that till when the H1B be valid as I am not genarating any salery and my consultant is not running my pay roll ?
And if the H1 goes dorment then what can be done next?
I came to us on H4 in 2007 and the got my H1B in 2008. I am not getting a job on H1 yet so i want to know that till when the H1B be valid as I am not genarating any salery and my consultant is not running my pay roll ?
And if the H1 goes dorment then what can be done next?
girlfriend Call of Cthulhu - Chapter 5
greensignal
09-18 09:30 AM
:) Current Status: Card production ordered.
On September 8, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you.
ND: 07/30/08
I got my EAD but My wife's EAD is not yet approved though we applied on the same date. Just waiting.
On September 8, 2008, we ordered production of your new card. Please allow 30 days for your card to be mailed to you.
ND: 07/30/08
I got my EAD but My wife's EAD is not yet approved though we applied on the same date. Just waiting.
hairstyles #14: Call of Cthulhu: Dark
h1techSlave
05-01 02:40 PM
Didn't Logfren ask that question to USCIS during last July?
actually the other question is why doesnt Murthy or IV asks the USCIS (whenever they get a chance to meet) ..to give a breakdown of the 485 pending by category by country. one would hope that atleast someone in uscis has access to such reports .. any idea, thoughts ??
actually the other question is why doesnt Murthy or IV asks the USCIS (whenever they get a chance to meet) ..to give a breakdown of the 485 pending by category by country. one would hope that atleast someone in uscis has access to such reports .. any idea, thoughts ??
lazycis
11-30 09:03 PM
My prayers are with you, man. Do not lose hope and fight for your life! You condition fits a reason for expedite processing. Fax expedited request to the service center where your I-485s are pending. Attach supporting documents. Call the USCIS customer service, they will tell you all the details, including fax number for this.
vadapav
12-02 03:46 PM
Friends,
Please give your opinion on my plan.
Current Status:EB3 PD 08/2004, I140 Approved, Got EAD, Good relations with current employer
I have no realistic hopes by getting GC by end of next year.
New employment: Have an offer to start a new job around middle of next year by which 180 days will be complete. New job is very different than current one. Here is my plan:
1. Don't file AC21, hope that I won't receive RFE since my PD wont be current for a long time.
2. Change address, but give friend's address in the same city as mentioned on application
3. Convince current employer to respond to RFE (in case any) positively
4. May be have an arrangement with current employer to work part time when I start new job. So that way, I'll remain on previous employer's payroll and he can respond to RFE
Does this sound far fetched?
thnx
Please give your opinion on my plan.
Current Status:EB3 PD 08/2004, I140 Approved, Got EAD, Good relations with current employer
I have no realistic hopes by getting GC by end of next year.
New employment: Have an offer to start a new job around middle of next year by which 180 days will be complete. New job is very different than current one. Here is my plan:
1. Don't file AC21, hope that I won't receive RFE since my PD wont be current for a long time.
2. Change address, but give friend's address in the same city as mentioned on application
3. Convince current employer to respond to RFE (in case any) positively
4. May be have an arrangement with current employer to work part time when I start new job. So that way, I'll remain on previous employer's payroll and he can respond to RFE
Does this sound far fetched?
thnx
No comments:
Post a Comment