chanduv23
04-21 03:11 PM
Gurus,
I went to infopass today. Last time when I went infopass in Oct 08, I was told that my namecheck is pending. I wanted to see whether any progress has been made on that,so took an infopass. When I asked the IO about the status of my namecheck, I was told that one namecheck is clear but the other is pending. I specifically asked her to look by my A # as I thought she might be referring to dependants namecheck status. But she replied back stating that there could be multiple namechecks for an individual and it is not unusual for some individuals to have three, four namechecks. And in my case as one of them is clear, they probably will go with cleared one.
Now I am confused. Can there be multiple namechecks initiated at around the same timeframe? I was told both the namechecks were initiated in 07.
If you think the infopass was not very helpful and need more information - usually you can try going through your congressman's offiice. You can either visit them or call them and write a letter explaining your problem and confusion. Some of these offices will ask you to fill out a form that deals with privacy act. These offices can help give you exact status of your case.
Alternately, if you thhink IO at infopass was not being hepful, you may want to contact the Ombudsman's office, they also try to help in such cases.
I went to infopass today. Last time when I went infopass in Oct 08, I was told that my namecheck is pending. I wanted to see whether any progress has been made on that,so took an infopass. When I asked the IO about the status of my namecheck, I was told that one namecheck is clear but the other is pending. I specifically asked her to look by my A # as I thought she might be referring to dependants namecheck status. But she replied back stating that there could be multiple namechecks for an individual and it is not unusual for some individuals to have three, four namechecks. And in my case as one of them is clear, they probably will go with cleared one.
Now I am confused. Can there be multiple namechecks initiated at around the same timeframe? I was told both the namechecks were initiated in 07.
If you think the infopass was not very helpful and need more information - usually you can try going through your congressman's offiice. You can either visit them or call them and write a letter explaining your problem and confusion. Some of these offices will ask you to fill out a form that deals with privacy act. These offices can help give you exact status of your case.
Alternately, if you thhink IO at infopass was not being hepful, you may want to contact the Ombudsman's office, they also try to help in such cases.
logiclife
04-06 01:28 AM
As of 10:25 PM PST wednesday, here is where the Senate stands:
1. Bill Frist has proposed a 3-tier solution for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Tier 1:
Illegals who have been here 5+ years can apply for guestworker program and GC(later) without returning home. Plus the usual - fines, back-taxes, english learning, apologizing to Uncle Sam (ok, I made the last one up ;))
Tier 2:
Illegals who have been here between 2-5 years have to go to port-of-entry to get guest-worker visa and then re-enter and eventually apply for GC.
Tier 3:
Illegals who have been here for less than 2 years have to go back to home country and apply for guest-worker visa (Back to the end of the line). In other words, deportation.
Bill Frist worked this compromise arrangement for the undocumented. Main players behind the scenes are supposed to be Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this 3-tier approach of compromise bill.
2. Parliamentary Procedures:
Frist:
Bill Frist went to the Senate floor Wednesday night (around 9:30 PM EST) with a parliamentary motion to send the compromise to the Judiciary Committee for ratification, then scheduled a vote for Friday to cut off debate on that motion.
Reid
Harry Reid has filed a motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for 10:30 AM EST on Thursday. If the cloture succeeds then the debate on SJC version of the bill will be over and a final vote will follow. The SJC bill goes pretty much as-is to a final vote where a simple majority(51 votes) will be enough for it to pass the Senate.
3. The analysis:
The whole thing started when Kyl proposed an amendment to exclude illegals who had felonies to gaining permenant residency or citizenship. That would exclude hundred of thousands who had deportation orders pending or who had been deported by again re-entered.
Democrats, afraid that the original intent of SJC version - mainly to bring people out of shadows will fail if republicans keep chipping away at the provisions with amendments like Kyl's amendment.
So Reid, in a high-risk game, filed a motion for cloture. He probably has 38-40 Democrats on his side plus around 18 republicans. However, nothing is guaranteed. Most of media articles say that his motion will fail. In a rare chance that he succeeds, he will have the "Bargaining power" because of 60 senators' support for him and the SJC version and he will have a lot of fun at the expense of Kyl/Cronyn/Sessions etc. This is highly unusual. Cloture is usually filed by the majority party that wants the minority to shut up and force an up-or-down vote. In this case, THE MINORITY leader has filed a motion for cloture. A total reversal of roles.
4. Our Interest
First of all, from view-point of immigration voice, we would ideally want Reid's cloture to fail, Bill Frists' latest compromise to get ratified in SJC, come back to floor for debates and amendments and succeed on Friday. Dems and Republicans "Kiss and make-up" and everyone gets something. Here's why: If the motion of Reid succeeds, the scope of getting it changed for 485 filing and removing hard-cap gets smaller as SJC version will be popular with 60-plus senators and Reid would be unwilling to play with delicate balance. On the other side, if Dems fail, then Frist's bill would be open for debates and amendments, making it possible to get provisions to make OUR lives better.
However, on the flip side, if Reid fails then whatever Frist brings to table will have almost no support of Dems. Then he too risks getting filibustered when HE files for cloture on his 3-tier version. He wont have 60 votes of his own to beat fillibuster because Dems would oppose him for being tough on illegals and Republicans like Cornyn-Kyl-Sessions etc would also oppose him because the 3-tier version would still have traces of Amnesty and its "Loose" on illegals.
5. What's Happening Wednesday night:
Harry Reid has promised he will be up all night in his PJs and review Frist's 3-tier solution. Cookes and milk are on the way from IV to him for some midnight reading. But he makes no promises. Cornyn and Kyl are still unhappy as 3-tier bill still smells of amnesty. McCain is angry at Reid and will support his party's stand and oppose Reid's motion for cloture. (edited)
Harry Reid
http://www.grassrootspa.com/uploaded_images/HarryRedi44333-734905.jpg
Bill Frist
http://skaroff.com/blog/wp-content/photos/images389071_Frist.jpg
1. Bill Frist has proposed a 3-tier solution for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Tier 1:
Illegals who have been here 5+ years can apply for guestworker program and GC(later) without returning home. Plus the usual - fines, back-taxes, english learning, apologizing to Uncle Sam (ok, I made the last one up ;))
Tier 2:
Illegals who have been here between 2-5 years have to go to port-of-entry to get guest-worker visa and then re-enter and eventually apply for GC.
Tier 3:
Illegals who have been here for less than 2 years have to go back to home country and apply for guest-worker visa (Back to the end of the line). In other words, deportation.
Bill Frist worked this compromise arrangement for the undocumented. Main players behind the scenes are supposed to be Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez, John McCain and Lindsey Graham on this 3-tier approach of compromise bill.
2. Parliamentary Procedures:
Frist:
Bill Frist went to the Senate floor Wednesday night (around 9:30 PM EST) with a parliamentary motion to send the compromise to the Judiciary Committee for ratification, then scheduled a vote for Friday to cut off debate on that motion.
Reid
Harry Reid has filed a motion to invoke cloture, scheduled for 10:30 AM EST on Thursday. If the cloture succeeds then the debate on SJC version of the bill will be over and a final vote will follow. The SJC bill goes pretty much as-is to a final vote where a simple majority(51 votes) will be enough for it to pass the Senate.
3. The analysis:
The whole thing started when Kyl proposed an amendment to exclude illegals who had felonies to gaining permenant residency or citizenship. That would exclude hundred of thousands who had deportation orders pending or who had been deported by again re-entered.
Democrats, afraid that the original intent of SJC version - mainly to bring people out of shadows will fail if republicans keep chipping away at the provisions with amendments like Kyl's amendment.
So Reid, in a high-risk game, filed a motion for cloture. He probably has 38-40 Democrats on his side plus around 18 republicans. However, nothing is guaranteed. Most of media articles say that his motion will fail. In a rare chance that he succeeds, he will have the "Bargaining power" because of 60 senators' support for him and the SJC version and he will have a lot of fun at the expense of Kyl/Cronyn/Sessions etc. This is highly unusual. Cloture is usually filed by the majority party that wants the minority to shut up and force an up-or-down vote. In this case, THE MINORITY leader has filed a motion for cloture. A total reversal of roles.
4. Our Interest
First of all, from view-point of immigration voice, we would ideally want Reid's cloture to fail, Bill Frists' latest compromise to get ratified in SJC, come back to floor for debates and amendments and succeed on Friday. Dems and Republicans "Kiss and make-up" and everyone gets something. Here's why: If the motion of Reid succeeds, the scope of getting it changed for 485 filing and removing hard-cap gets smaller as SJC version will be popular with 60-plus senators and Reid would be unwilling to play with delicate balance. On the other side, if Dems fail, then Frist's bill would be open for debates and amendments, making it possible to get provisions to make OUR lives better.
However, on the flip side, if Reid fails then whatever Frist brings to table will have almost no support of Dems. Then he too risks getting filibustered when HE files for cloture on his 3-tier version. He wont have 60 votes of his own to beat fillibuster because Dems would oppose him for being tough on illegals and Republicans like Cornyn-Kyl-Sessions etc would also oppose him because the 3-tier version would still have traces of Amnesty and its "Loose" on illegals.
5. What's Happening Wednesday night:
Harry Reid has promised he will be up all night in his PJs and review Frist's 3-tier solution. Cookes and milk are on the way from IV to him for some midnight reading. But he makes no promises. Cornyn and Kyl are still unhappy as 3-tier bill still smells of amnesty. McCain is angry at Reid and will support his party's stand and oppose Reid's motion for cloture. (edited)
Harry Reid
http://www.grassrootspa.com/uploaded_images/HarryRedi44333-734905.jpg
Bill Frist
http://skaroff.com/blog/wp-content/photos/images389071_Frist.jpg
amsgc
03-31 02:53 PM
I have a somewat similar situation, here goes:
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
seahawks
08-09 09:24 AM
Hello,
I did not see any posts regarding "1 year H1 extension approval when filed for 3 years". If this discussion is already in place, please point me to appropriate thread so that I could close this one.
I applied for 3 years H1 extension on 6/26/2007 with approved I-140. My priority date (EB3 -Sep 2003) was not current on 6/26/2007 when I applied for 3 year extension. I got an approval notice today which is valid for only one year. I want to know if this is an error from USCIS so that I could ask to ammend 2 more years.
Thanks!
unfortunately I missed the bus, we send all document May 29th and it reached USCIS CA on 30th, my pd was current for June bulletin and was approved 1 year extensions. I should have waited until Aug to file extensions, this is my 4th H1/H4 extension:( in 4 years.
I did not see any posts regarding "1 year H1 extension approval when filed for 3 years". If this discussion is already in place, please point me to appropriate thread so that I could close this one.
I applied for 3 years H1 extension on 6/26/2007 with approved I-140. My priority date (EB3 -Sep 2003) was not current on 6/26/2007 when I applied for 3 year extension. I got an approval notice today which is valid for only one year. I want to know if this is an error from USCIS so that I could ask to ammend 2 more years.
Thanks!
unfortunately I missed the bus, we send all document May 29th and it reached USCIS CA on 30th, my pd was current for June bulletin and was approved 1 year extensions. I should have waited until Aug to file extensions, this is my 4th H1/H4 extension:( in 4 years.
more...
.gif "funny quotes on life and love.")
anilsal
06-17 12:09 AM
Start off your infopass with the following question.
I am really desperate....would you help me, pretty please? ........
And then proceed with the other questions you have on your list.
After you are done with all your questions and assuming USCIS hasn't kicked you out of their office, make it clear that you want USCIS to look at your application before others ahead of you in the queue. If they don't, "you will be back" for another infopass.
If you have no intention of answering the questions, then no one is forcing you to do.:p
Making a mockery of a person's anxiety does not really show well on your personality.:cool:
It is his right to take info pass appointments to know more about his case. If it helps him sleep at nights, then that is a good remedy.
Ideally, the fix for this is legislative action that is being driven by IV leadership.
I am really desperate....would you help me, pretty please? ........
And then proceed with the other questions you have on your list.
After you are done with all your questions and assuming USCIS hasn't kicked you out of their office, make it clear that you want USCIS to look at your application before others ahead of you in the queue. If they don't, "you will be back" for another infopass.
If you have no intention of answering the questions, then no one is forcing you to do.:p
Making a mockery of a person's anxiety does not really show well on your personality.:cool:
It is his right to take info pass appointments to know more about his case. If it helps him sleep at nights, then that is a good remedy.
Ideally, the fix for this is legislative action that is being driven by IV leadership.
amitjoey
07-09 04:23 PM
Gave it 5 star, and posted a comment.
more...
bkarnik
07-21 04:34 PM
I had a similar situation at my work place (attorney is Fragomen...what a coincicence). This was in response to recent stepped up H1B site inspections by USCIS. As a reult, Fragomen recommended that "working from home" or "teleworker" status is not allowed under H1B. So, no more working from home for me :(
sanju_dba
01-04 12:12 PM
i would prefer to be a documentary instead of a feature film!
more...
Mayra75
12-31 05:22 PM
In the Comprehensive Bill (Pls. see summary of this bill) to be discussed on the Senate/House floor Feb-06, Page 6 Section 311 provides for exemption on temporary workers with advanced degrees from US universities from numerical limit.
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
With this provision going into effect, it will free up current H1s that have gone towards the count of numerical limit in current financial Yr. USCIS may have to do the count again to differentiate between applicants with advanced degrees from US universities and come up with the number of free H1s. My guestimate is it maybe 30% of the total visa avaliable which is something like 30% of (65K+20K) ~ 25K.
Waldenpond :
Thanks for your reply,I read section 311 , it talks about people with advanced degree from US universities , so what about forgein-trained with noraml degree ? will these H1s visas will only for advanced degree ?
Thanks
http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PolicyWire/Legislation/SpecterChairmanMark.pdf
With this provision going into effect, it will free up current H1s that have gone towards the count of numerical limit in current financial Yr. USCIS may have to do the count again to differentiate between applicants with advanced degrees from US universities and come up with the number of free H1s. My guestimate is it maybe 30% of the total visa avaliable which is something like 30% of (65K+20K) ~ 25K.
Waldenpond :
Thanks for your reply,I read section 311 , it talks about people with advanced degree from US universities , so what about forgein-trained with noraml degree ? will these H1s visas will only for advanced degree ?
Thanks
copsmart
06-16 09:07 AM
bump!
more...
chanduv23
03-14 12:07 PM
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office�s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
This trickling effect was already discussed. It is from murthy.com .
amitjoey
02-12 03:09 PM
Thanks. All we need is 800 people like Hari, who can contribute a little amount of money and a little amount of time by inviting other friends.
Is it not true that it only takes about 10 minutes or so to invite other friends by mail to join IV and a $20/month.
Is it not true that it only takes about 10 minutes or so to invite other friends by mail to join IV and a $20/month.
more...
gcpool
07-08 09:19 AM
My friends lawyer screwed up the application and it was returned. Later on it was filed and got accepted without their help. Now they are billing him and threatening him. What can he do?
GCHope2011
05-15 11:25 PM
Current Status: H1 (visa stamp expires Sept 2011)
Citizen-India
Current: Company A (Has filed for h1 extention on May 1 under normal processing)
Future: Company B (Has filed for Transfer under Premium Processing as of May 6)
Currently employed with A. Company B lawyer has filed a transfer on May 6 Premium Process.(I believe current status is LCA is under process).
I plan to resign on May 21 with A and travel abroad to Dubai On May 22. Will be back on June3 to usa
>Can i travel abroad even if my tranfer is under process
>When i enter, what documents do I need to show at POE?
> Can i enter with Company A visa stamp
>Any issues if current employer informs USCIS about my resignation?
Its a emergency travel i cannot avoid. What needs to be done to make my trip
Please do confirm with a reliable attorney as some interpretations of the rules indicate that leaving the country while an application is pending for adjudication implies abandonement of the application.
Not sure if it applies in the case of H1 transfer pending case or not... so it is best to check with someone reliable.
Citizen-India
Current: Company A (Has filed for h1 extention on May 1 under normal processing)
Future: Company B (Has filed for Transfer under Premium Processing as of May 6)
Currently employed with A. Company B lawyer has filed a transfer on May 6 Premium Process.(I believe current status is LCA is under process).
I plan to resign on May 21 with A and travel abroad to Dubai On May 22. Will be back on June3 to usa
>Can i travel abroad even if my tranfer is under process
>When i enter, what documents do I need to show at POE?
> Can i enter with Company A visa stamp
>Any issues if current employer informs USCIS about my resignation?
Its a emergency travel i cannot avoid. What needs to be done to make my trip
Please do confirm with a reliable attorney as some interpretations of the rules indicate that leaving the country while an application is pending for adjudication implies abandonement of the application.
Not sure if it applies in the case of H1 transfer pending case or not... so it is best to check with someone reliable.
more...
ashkam
11-16 02:08 PM
As has been discussed and responded to a million times on this forum, the answer to this question is, when you enter on an AP, your immigrant status changes to parolee, but your H1B continues to be valid as a work authorization document and you can still use it to work for the same employer.
msyedy
12-13 01:29 PM
I like your thoughts
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
I would want a faster GC for many things
a) Spouse can work in any field. People can be talented in many other skills but cannot work because of EAD factor.
b) I can go out of country any time. There are lot of checks at embassy and I am with them that they need to check all about me or anyone, but it takes months to get clearance and I cannot leave my job. Nor the job would keep me with 4 month vacation .Many of my friends have gone through this.
my two cents
more...
.gif "funny quotes on life and love.")
priti8888
08-16 11:09 AM
Most IO in India are not aware of "AP"...They ask if you have a GC , H1B ,F1 or tourist visa. Here's what we and our friends have done and it works..
Make a copy of AP and highlight the sentence where it mentions that "this person is allowed to travel....blah blah...". Paper clip the original AP along with it . The IO will cautiosly compare the original to the duplicate.And tell them that you are in the Final stage of GC process...
They have only few mins to look over all your docs...(PP, AP,EAD..Etc...so you might as well help them by highlighting what exactly he needs to see.
Make a copy of AP and highlight the sentence where it mentions that "this person is allowed to travel....blah blah...". Paper clip the original AP along with it . The IO will cautiosly compare the original to the duplicate.And tell them that you are in the Final stage of GC process...
They have only few mins to look over all your docs...(PP, AP,EAD..Etc...so you might as well help them by highlighting what exactly he needs to see.
eb3_nepa
11-06 09:25 AM
Any more inputs anyone?
DyersEve
10-03 02:17 AM
Awesome, it worked great....god this forum is great. w00t :)
Lasantha
03-16 02:40 PM
My I-485 receipt notice does not have a PD on it either. Is that normal?
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
Rb_newsletter
09-21 06:31 PM
My previous employer got to know about this and sued me for stupid and fake charges.
What was the fake charges?
In which state you and your employer were then?
What was the fake charges?
In which state you and your employer were then?
No comments:
Post a Comment