Ann Ruben
06-22 12:10 PM
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
wallpaper world map with countries and
Redeye
12-19 05:02 PM
During the July fiasco, lawyer applied first set on July 2nd and since we were n't sure if the application reached USCIS we put a yello cover sheet which said refiling because earlier 485 could be misplaced. Even after that, both first and second were accepted and I got EAD, FP and AP on the first one and EAD, FP on the second one. Attorney suggested to follow up with FP second time also and said we will be asked by USCIS which application to keep. Is this true?
Or will both my applications be rejected since we did not get back to them?
I know some other folks on IV are also in same boat. I am planning to use EAD so I am kind of worried otherwise it is clean case with I 140 approved.
Or will both my applications be rejected since we did not get back to them?
I know some other folks on IV are also in same boat. I am planning to use EAD so I am kind of worried otherwise it is clean case with I 140 approved.
mytrix76
01-11 07:54 AM
You Can work for the same Employer On H1 even after entering US on AP.
It is NOT clear Yet if we can file for H1 Transfer with another employer after entering US on Advance Parole.
Please let us know if anybody has done this successfully.
Thanks for the response. Can you please tell me how you were able to confirm that one can continue on H1 with same employer. Did you do this personally or did you hear from an attorney. The reason I am asking is that I want to be completely sure about it before I implemented it
Thanks again.
It is NOT clear Yet if we can file for H1 Transfer with another employer after entering US on Advance Parole.
Please let us know if anybody has done this successfully.
Thanks for the response. Can you please tell me how you were able to confirm that one can continue on H1 with same employer. Did you do this personally or did you hear from an attorney. The reason I am asking is that I want to be completely sure about it before I implemented it
Thanks again.
2011 countries capitals flags quiz
amitjoey
05-31 12:19 PM
Recently joined.
Contributed $200.
Thanks Jitamitra
Contributed $200.
Thanks Jitamitra
more...
malibuguy007
07-25 07:05 PM
www.ralphehrenpreis.com
He is not cheap, but since my company was paying I didn't bother about the pricing. However the guy is very capable.
He is not cheap, but since my company was paying I didn't bother about the pricing. However the guy is very capable.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
TeddyKoochu
01-24 10:14 AM
TeddyKoochu, based on the 2010 report, can we estimate what the total EB quota would be for 2011?
We are back to 140K, refer to demand data. This year both EB1 and EB2 are showing much lower consumption the dates will definitely move into 2007.
We are back to 140K, refer to demand data. This year both EB1 and EB2 are showing much lower consumption the dates will definitely move into 2007.
2010 world map with countries and
kartikiran
07-31 02:12 PM
u guyz r funny.
:)
Six flags can make lot of money by basing a dangerous and wild ride based on VB dates Graph. :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
They will have to put just one warning.
"Beware: Once you start the ride....
Only luckiest of you will be able to get out safely.
Most of you will be on this ride which has an endless loop.
Only real option for people who would like to end the ride would be to jump from the ride. We are certain there will damages but we are not responsible for them.
And yes we intentionally put this warning after the start of ride. Otherwise you wouldn't have decided to ride on it.
"
:)
Six flags can make lot of money by basing a dangerous and wild ride based on VB dates Graph. :)
http://immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Past_Visa_Bulletin_Data
They will have to put just one warning.
"Beware: Once you start the ride....
Only luckiest of you will be able to get out safely.
Most of you will be on this ride which has an endless loop.
Only real option for people who would like to end the ride would be to jump from the ride. We are certain there will damages but we are not responsible for them.
And yes we intentionally put this warning after the start of ride. Otherwise you wouldn't have decided to ride on it.
"
more...
REEF�
06-06 06:10 PM
Oh I see it :). Evil is over it and too much grass covers it up.
hair map countries, capitals
RLNY122004
06-15 04:25 PM
I won't .
Congrats RLNY122004! Dont forget IV!
Congrats RLNY122004! Dont forget IV!
more...
lskreddy
06-10 11:37 PM
The worst hit 140's are EB3 (and that too mostly in NSC and some in TSC). Not a single NSC EB3-140 is coming at < 400 days.
EB2 is coming still okay and EB1/EB2-NIW are pretty quick. So i dont see a good quantity of benefit by allowing Premium Processing only on a thin section of applications ?? It make a difference of few days, not even months.
Where they need to re-instate Premium 140 to give actual relief - they wont do anything.
I agree, it is extremely narrow. Not too many employers wait until the 60 days window and if you had H1 approved, you would not qualify. I do believe this may be just to test waters and they will broaden it further..
EB2 is coming still okay and EB1/EB2-NIW are pretty quick. So i dont see a good quantity of benefit by allowing Premium Processing only on a thin section of applications ?? It make a difference of few days, not even months.
Where they need to re-instate Premium 140 to give actual relief - they wont do anything.
I agree, it is extremely narrow. Not too many employers wait until the 60 days window and if you had H1 approved, you would not qualify. I do believe this may be just to test waters and they will broaden it further..
hot world map with countries and
bhasky25
10-11 01:39 PM
I received and RFE for medical and 325a in June 2009 and nothing after that. I replied to the RFE along with my AC21 from the current employer.
My current employer will not file an EB2 petition. Period. Not sure if it is an good idea to file an EB3 through them as it will not take me anywhere. I would rather switch to EAD and look for an employer who would do EB2 for me. But that would be my last option, I still want to work for this employer under H1b. But wanted to know if there will be any problem in getting my H1B renewed as my 140 is revoked. I am past my 6 yrs in H1B (got the previous one approved using my 140 approval).
My current employer will not file an EB2 petition. Period. Not sure if it is an good idea to file an EB3 through them as it will not take me anywhere. I would rather switch to EAD and look for an employer who would do EB2 for me. But that would be my last option, I still want to work for this employer under H1b. But wanted to know if there will be any problem in getting my H1B renewed as my 140 is revoked. I am past my 6 yrs in H1B (got the previous one approved using my 140 approval).
more...
house world map with countries and
Desertfox
06-01 08:39 PM
Your current salary has nothing to do with your Labor Certification. LC is for a future job offer and you are supposed to get that salary only after your I-485 approval. Hence there is nothing to worry about it.
As your current salary is per H1 LCA, you are absolutely ok and there is nothing illegal in your nonimmigrant status as well. There might have been issues during your I-485 adjudicatiion if you were not being paid per your H1 LCA, since that is considered as abuse to your nonimmigrant status.
As your current salary is per H1 LCA, you are absolutely ok and there is nothing illegal in your nonimmigrant status as well. There might have been issues during your I-485 adjudicatiion if you were not being paid per your H1 LCA, since that is considered as abuse to your nonimmigrant status.
tattoo world map with countries and
gcseeker2002
08-17 02:35 PM
Think, deside and do and don't think again! But Review it.
..Maybe he thought he heard you say..
"Don't think, decide and do and don't think again! And don't review it. :)
Don't worry too much..worst case is to re-file ead & ap w/ newer fees.
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dallus, Texus ;).
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dullas, Texus with his roomtae and queep quite ;)
..Maybe he thought he heard you say..
"Don't think, decide and do and don't think again! And don't review it. :)
Don't worry too much..worst case is to re-file ead & ap w/ newer fees.
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dallus, Texus ;).
He'll eventually get GC & will be driving a Lexas in Dullas, Texus with his roomtae and queep quite ;)
more...
pictures world map with countries and
amitkhare77
11-16 12:19 PM
you have to options -
1. your employer files change of status H1 to H4 (form I-539)
2. you go out of country and come back on previously stamped H4. you need not to apply H4 again as long as previous H4 is valid. remember - if you decide to work in future, your employer has to file change of status application from H4 to H1 again.
please double check before you make any decision.
Thank you for your reply.
Even though we get a new I-94, it is still with my consulting company as the company does not give me my I797.
If I go to India and apply for H4 again, then wont the officer ask me on why I am trying to get the H4 stamping again since it already has a previous valid H4 stamping on it? since there is no H1 stamping on my passport.
Or can I go out of USA and get back on the same revious H4 stamping?
Thanks,
Arpu
1. your employer files change of status H1 to H4 (form I-539)
2. you go out of country and come back on previously stamped H4. you need not to apply H4 again as long as previous H4 is valid. remember - if you decide to work in future, your employer has to file change of status application from H4 to H1 again.
please double check before you make any decision.
Thank you for your reply.
Even though we get a new I-94, it is still with my consulting company as the company does not give me my I797.
If I go to India and apply for H4 again, then wont the officer ask me on why I am trying to get the H4 stamping again since it already has a previous valid H4 stamping on it? since there is no H1 stamping on my passport.
Or can I go out of USA and get back on the same revious H4 stamping?
Thanks,
Arpu
dresses world map with countries and
b072707
10-29 10:20 AM
Got the receipts by calling USCIS. good luck to all.
more...
makeup world map with countries and
meragcdedobhai
10-27 12:39 PM
to Motivated...
It seems like sheep when we are in touble to we are running helter skelter.
It seems like sheep when we are in touble to we are running helter skelter.
girlfriend world map with countries and
mrshah
09-19 12:25 PM
We sent our I 485 on July 4th.......got receipt of it yesterday. My husband is on H1 and I am on F1. Husband's receipt says "Adjustment as direct beneficiary of immigrant petetion" and mine says " Derivative adjustments"........
Also what does receipt notice means????
I don't know what "UNKNOWN" means. My wife is on her F1 (OPT). Same is the case with my friend. Both of our's says unknown.
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
Also what does receipt notice means????
I don't know what "UNKNOWN" means. My wife is on her F1 (OPT). Same is the case with my friend. Both of our's says unknown.
TUnlimited: is your wife also on F1? I am about to call USCIS customer service on Monday.
Guys, please update if you know any more details about this.
hairstyles world map with countries and
meridiani.planum
11-25 10:20 AM
I would suggest just sending the G-28 forms with the new attorney information. Once this is submitted, call USCIS customer service a week or two later to confirm that the correct attorney information is on file. Later, if you wish, you can send the AC21 documentation. As always, any documents to USCIS should be sent by certified mail or something similar to show the proof if you need it later.
As far as I know G-28 won't trigger an RFE but don't know about AC-21 documents. If you search the forums, you will find that almost always the AC-21 papers don't reach your file.
I second this advise. Just send the G28 and confirm in a couple of weeks to see if the attorney address has been updated.
on a related note for other AC-21 filers: see if you can hang on to your older attorney. You might be able to retain them independent of your old employer (by paying fees on your own). Keeps the USCIS file clean, and also you stick with someone who presumably knows your case a bit better having worked on it from the start.
As far as I know G-28 won't trigger an RFE but don't know about AC-21 documents. If you search the forums, you will find that almost always the AC-21 papers don't reach your file.
I second this advise. Just send the G28 and confirm in a couple of weeks to see if the attorney address has been updated.
on a related note for other AC-21 filers: see if you can hang on to your older attorney. You might be able to retain them independent of your old employer (by paying fees on your own). Keeps the USCIS file clean, and also you stick with someone who presumably knows your case a bit better having worked on it from the start.
rraina
05-21 02:56 AM
When your second I-140 under EB2 gets approved do you have to apply for a new I-485 ??
vivache
10-06 12:59 PM
What if we take a more reasonable example that McD's.
Assume a person is a pre-sales engineer and moves to customer support or development or even product management, he will have paystubs that have a reasonable amount on them. Does this solve the paystub problem or are there other issues?
Assume a person is a pre-sales engineer and moves to customer support or development or even product management, he will have paystubs that have a reasonable amount on them. Does this solve the paystub problem or are there other issues?
No comments:
Post a Comment