walking_dude
09-25 01:27 PM
And while you guys are at it, a clearly visible ( in bold or red) message at the top of every messageboard/forum can improve the situation making it clear in legal terms.
Something like "The opinions expressed by the members are their own personal views. IV neither endorses nor rejects any views expressed by it's members. IV is not responsible for the views expressed by it's members " [ or something to that effect in "legalese"]
Something like "The opinions expressed by the members are their own personal views. IV neither endorses nor rejects any views expressed by it's members. IV is not responsible for the views expressed by it's members " [ or something to that effect in "legalese"]
wallpaper Under the Sea Wallpaper
sameet
09-15 12:20 PM
Lets get statistics on numbers on pending I-485 application for EB2-India by year of PD.
My PD is Aug 06 .. post yours :-)
Can we start one for EB3 - India too?
My PD is Aug 06 .. post yours :-)
Can we start one for EB3 - India too?
roseball
04-04 11:42 PM
3. If new employer gives me the option to move permanently to its subsidiary in another country, what are the available option for me to continue with green card processing?
You can convert your I-485 to Consular Processing (CP) and keep your GC process going. Since GC is for a future job, you can work this out with your employer. Basically, your employer has to support you so that when you are called for the consular interview, you need to be able to show documentary evidence that you will be moving back to the US and joining the same job at or above the advertised wage once your GC is approved.
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
As long as your I-485 is pending, you can use a valid AP to re-enter. To renew your AP, you need to be in the US. If you convert your I-485 to CP, you will lose your EAD/AP privileges and will only be able to enter US on a valid H1 assuming you are coming here to work and have a job offer from an employer.
You can convert your I-485 to Consular Processing (CP) and keep your GC process going. Since GC is for a future job, you can work this out with your employer. Basically, your employer has to support you so that when you are called for the consular interview, you need to be able to show documentary evidence that you will be moving back to the US and joining the same job at or above the advertised wage once your GC is approved.
4. If after going out of the country , I want to come back in future before Green card approval, what will be the available options?
As long as your I-485 is pending, you can use a valid AP to re-enter. To renew your AP, you need to be in the US. If you convert your I-485 to CP, you will lose your EAD/AP privileges and will only be able to enter US on a valid H1 assuming you are coming here to work and have a job offer from an employer.
2011 under the sea wallpaper 5c3ba
GCKaMaara
12-03 02:19 PM
Good news obviously but I would not jump on it. 2 reasons - we need to make sure they don't keep this practice & second, I don't trust the source of information 100% based on past information.
I support ItIsNotFunny, PD_Recapturing, NK2006..... for their efforts on AC21 issue.
This in from Ron Gotcher website....I guess they are reading our letters.....
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
I support ItIsNotFunny, PD_Recapturing, NK2006..... for their efforts on AC21 issue.
This in from Ron Gotcher website....I guess they are reading our letters.....
Good news concerning AOS denials based on I-140 revocations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
more...
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
das0
06-18 11:55 AM
Once on EAD for one employer A, can anyone fall back to H1B for the same employer A?
more...
snathan
02-03 02:20 PM
Dude 'Fairlyangel' may be 'Tunnel rat' now posing as an angel . He is trying real hard to show H1Bs as fraud but he himself is faking his identity on IV and doing fraud.
Common, post your real name and real resume if you have any guts. Stop being annonymous if you really want to change the system.
:D:D:D:D
His resume is available at
http://www.itgrunt.com/
Common, post your real name and real resume if you have any guts. Stop being annonymous if you really want to change the system.
:D:D:D:D
His resume is available at
http://www.itgrunt.com/
2010 Our quot;Magical Under Sea
newuser
03-13 01:57 PM
FBI Arrests DC Official (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/fbi-arrests-dc.html)
Why do you have to open a thread that has no relevance to what we discuss here on IV. Please don't try to sensationalize everything. There were references to this news in other threads already.
Admin - Please delete this thread as this was discussed in other threads.
Why do you have to open a thread that has no relevance to what we discuss here on IV. Please don't try to sensationalize everything. There were references to this news in other threads already.
Admin - Please delete this thread as this was discussed in other threads.
more...
gparr
February 2nd, 2004, 07:17 AM
Thanks to all for your feedback. All very helpful. I should have mentioned that I captured this image during a break at a trade show and, since I'm from Illinois and any flower is appealing at this time of year, I couldn't just let them go.
Russell hit the point I was trying to get to, but apparently didn't explain very well. In this kind of shot there, by default, is not focal point in the scene and, as Russell has demonstrated, you have to create something that isn't there from the human eye perspective. He was able to achieve the necessary composition in PS and it works quite nicely. The dilemma I face with these shots is that the visual impact is the planter full of blooming flowers and attractive foliage. One option is to have the planter be the focal point of a larger scene, but in this case, the larger scene was the grounds of the Anaheim Convention Center. Not a scene I want to capture. So the image becomes what's in the planter and then the problem is, what part of what's in the planter. Obviously, I could have gone for a macro shot of one cluster of flowers, but it was the collection of flowers that was attractive. From what Russell has demonstrated, the solution seems to be a semi-macro shot. To achieve that in the camera requires a narrow DOF and placement of the chosen flower cluster at one of the "rule of thirds" points. I guess, in the final analysis, there's no real good way to get a captivating image that shows a portion of the planter with as many flowers in focus as possible. (Of course, I could carry a small cherub figurine with me on business trips to plop into planters such as this as a focal point. Plus, it would be a good conversation piece at the airport security check in. ;) ) Thanks again to jliechty, lecter, and Russell. Additional comments appreciated.
Gary
Russell hit the point I was trying to get to, but apparently didn't explain very well. In this kind of shot there, by default, is not focal point in the scene and, as Russell has demonstrated, you have to create something that isn't there from the human eye perspective. He was able to achieve the necessary composition in PS and it works quite nicely. The dilemma I face with these shots is that the visual impact is the planter full of blooming flowers and attractive foliage. One option is to have the planter be the focal point of a larger scene, but in this case, the larger scene was the grounds of the Anaheim Convention Center. Not a scene I want to capture. So the image becomes what's in the planter and then the problem is, what part of what's in the planter. Obviously, I could have gone for a macro shot of one cluster of flowers, but it was the collection of flowers that was attractive. From what Russell has demonstrated, the solution seems to be a semi-macro shot. To achieve that in the camera requires a narrow DOF and placement of the chosen flower cluster at one of the "rule of thirds" points. I guess, in the final analysis, there's no real good way to get a captivating image that shows a portion of the planter with as many flowers in focus as possible. (Of course, I could carry a small cherub figurine with me on business trips to plop into planters such as this as a focal point. Plus, it would be a good conversation piece at the airport security check in. ;) ) Thanks again to jliechty, lecter, and Russell. Additional comments appreciated.
Gary
hair Undersea Animal Wallpaper
njdude26
04-07 04:43 PM
Thanks. This sure is helpful. btw i have a Canadian PR card. one less headache in step 3 :) But of course I love it here so im stuck here doing all kinds of circus for 8 years to continue staying.
new H1 and H1 visa renewal are done in all US embassies in Canada.
1. Look out for dates, after registering and paying fees. USD 9.50 for one appointment of one, two, three .... members.
2. Dates are not available, but are released around 20th in bult; also, check out each hour.
3. Allow 30 days for Canadian TRV (temporay visitors visa) to come in mail
4. Go for visa interview.
I did all the above, but had to cancel Vancouver appointment for lack of leave from a very good and generous employer ( I am in operations). Any other questions, please feel free to PM me.
new H1 and H1 visa renewal are done in all US embassies in Canada.
1. Look out for dates, after registering and paying fees. USD 9.50 for one appointment of one, two, three .... members.
2. Dates are not available, but are released around 20th in bult; also, check out each hour.
3. Allow 30 days for Canadian TRV (temporay visitors visa) to come in mail
4. Go for visa interview.
I did all the above, but had to cancel Vancouver appointment for lack of leave from a very good and generous employer ( I am in operations). Any other questions, please feel free to PM me.
more...
malibuguy007
07-21 11:31 PM
Take advice of another lawyer. I have a friend who did something similar and he is simply sitting tight (on advice of his lawyer). So I would not simply start the whole process from scratch before consulting a couple of other lawyers.
hot by Cesar R. Download free
surabhi
05-21 09:29 AM
(a) I am currently in L1 and have a priority date of May 2004 and I am in EB3 category
(b) I have an approved I-140
(c) My 485 has not been filed yet
(d) I just got my H1 approved and it would be effective from Oct 1 2008
So, if I change my current job from Employer A to Employer B and if Employer B agrees to take over my Green Card Process,
1) Should I re-file my I-140? (I presume the answer is Yes, but don't want to be a smart a**, wanted to get it clarified to the maximum extent possible)
2) Will my current Priority Date be carried over? That is, can I re-file my I-140 with my new Employer B with the same priority date of May 2004?
3) If I can move from Employer A to Employer B and file my new I-140, should this be done asap and before Employer A revokes my current approved I-140?
4) How much time does it take when I file I-140 with premium processing? (I can probably find this from USCIS website, but wanted to know real-time experiences)
5) Within how many days of joining my new Employer B should I file my new I-140?
6) I understand that the Employer A can revoke my I-140 and use my approved labor for any other viable applicant, but I also know that the Labor Substitution concept ceased to exist from July 2007. What is the benefit for my Employer A to revoke the I-140?
7) Last, but not the least - Should I file for a new labor where I will get a new Priority date and go back to that (god forsaken) square 1?
Thanks in advance for your time and I am finding it difficult to assimilate the answers from various posts.
1. yes, you should refile your I-140 . In fact you should start from labor ( to your Q# 7)
2. You cannot directly file I-140 . you should start from labor, but you can port your eariler PD
3. Revoking earlier I-140 has noo bearing on new labor / I-140 app, since you are not in I-1485 yet.
4.there is no premium processing yet for I-140
5.It has no bearing. Its upto you.
6. Even if it cannot be used for another person, one genuine reason why employers would want to revoke is to avoid RFEs regarding "Ability to Pay" for other employees they are still sponsoring. By not revoking your I-140, their ability to pay will be reduced by that much amount.
7. See above
this is all based on my knowledge of a friend who has gone thru similar process. Please validate with an attorney.
(b) I have an approved I-140
(c) My 485 has not been filed yet
(d) I just got my H1 approved and it would be effective from Oct 1 2008
So, if I change my current job from Employer A to Employer B and if Employer B agrees to take over my Green Card Process,
1) Should I re-file my I-140? (I presume the answer is Yes, but don't want to be a smart a**, wanted to get it clarified to the maximum extent possible)
2) Will my current Priority Date be carried over? That is, can I re-file my I-140 with my new Employer B with the same priority date of May 2004?
3) If I can move from Employer A to Employer B and file my new I-140, should this be done asap and before Employer A revokes my current approved I-140?
4) How much time does it take when I file I-140 with premium processing? (I can probably find this from USCIS website, but wanted to know real-time experiences)
5) Within how many days of joining my new Employer B should I file my new I-140?
6) I understand that the Employer A can revoke my I-140 and use my approved labor for any other viable applicant, but I also know that the Labor Substitution concept ceased to exist from July 2007. What is the benefit for my Employer A to revoke the I-140?
7) Last, but not the least - Should I file for a new labor where I will get a new Priority date and go back to that (god forsaken) square 1?
Thanks in advance for your time and I am finding it difficult to assimilate the answers from various posts.
1. yes, you should refile your I-140 . In fact you should start from labor ( to your Q# 7)
2. You cannot directly file I-140 . you should start from labor, but you can port your eariler PD
3. Revoking earlier I-140 has noo bearing on new labor / I-140 app, since you are not in I-1485 yet.
4.there is no premium processing yet for I-140
5.It has no bearing. Its upto you.
6. Even if it cannot be used for another person, one genuine reason why employers would want to revoke is to avoid RFEs regarding "Ability to Pay" for other employees they are still sponsoring. By not revoking your I-140, their ability to pay will be reduced by that much amount.
7. See above
this is all based on my knowledge of a friend who has gone thru similar process. Please validate with an attorney.
more...
house Sea in Okinawa Wallpaper -
need_EAD
03-17 11:44 AM
Good News. Great Job Jay.
tattoo under sea wallpaper. Under the Sea Wallpapers
MerciesOfInjustices
03-17 01:23 AM
Thanks yourself, & all Core Group! And my true appreciation for everybody! Our cause is bound to succeed!
We shall overcome...soon!
We shall overcome...soon!
more...
pictures Undersea Fish Group Wallpaper
telekinesis
10-14 07:22 PM
Thanks again! You should get a www.deviantart.com account, I am sure you would get some nice feedback!
dresses beauty under the sea.
GCBoy786
09-11 03:44 PM
As there is high probability that our cases might be in the same batch and might be processed on same day, please update in this thread if you hear anything. I will also do the same.
more...
makeup Dolphin couple under sea
waitingGC
03-09 08:50 AM
The OVERFLOW from EB1 and EB2 is directly going to EB3!
Yes, however, i think the overflow from EB1 and EB2 goes to EB3 from other countries than Indian or China.
Yes, however, i think the overflow from EB1 and EB2 goes to EB3 from other countries than Indian or China.
girlfriend Free Undersea Animal Desktop
optimystic
09-11 01:40 PM
....the other F - the way they have been treating us ;)
so the letter should end with:
"PS: and pls dont F?%@ us up "
...just kidding, good thinking & good idea
:D :D
so the letter should end with:
"PS: and pls dont F?%@ us up "
...just kidding, good thinking & good idea
:D :D
hairstyles Orca Killer Whale Under Sea
desi485
10-11 01:52 PM
fortunately I haven't used EAD. In fact neither my spouse has. But we were about to use spouse EAD when we sniffed this possibilty. This is the reason I am asking if any one has any insight to share. Title of the thread is little misleading but unble to change it now. this is a IF THEN condition as if now. aplogise for the same. However I am sure so many families getting EAD, so many ppl will be concerned about this. This might be real for some one of us.
dh010447
03-24 10:11 AM
Lucky you!! Mine was filed on Jan 5th and still waiting!!
I think the labor certification is slowing going back to 2 years approval time including PWD. 3-6 months for PWD and 1 year to 2.5 years for Labor.
My lawyer ('s assistant) told me yesterday that the PWD's are taking 6 to 8 weeks to come back. 8 weeks have past now, didnt really want to force the issue though as it's not just me that's waiting.
i have until July 1012... Hopefully enough time for my PERM approval...
I think the labor certification is slowing going back to 2 years approval time including PWD. 3-6 months for PWD and 1 year to 2.5 years for Labor.
My lawyer ('s assistant) told me yesterday that the PWD's are taking 6 to 8 weeks to come back. 8 weeks have past now, didnt really want to force the issue though as it's not just me that's waiting.
i have until July 1012... Hopefully enough time for my PERM approval...
mzdial
March 20th, 2004, 11:43 PM
Thanks for reminding me of the loss. I was sitting about ten rows up screaming. I saw you there, you must not of heard me yelling. Hehehe..
-- Matt
-- Matt
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий