immi_grant
06-25 02:10 PM
Thanks for the response !!
This client is a direct client to my company and there are no middle layers or vendors. So like you said if I can get an email from the client that they can't give me the letter via their corporate email would work ? Would this suffice to open a MTR ?
Thanks in advance.
This client is a direct client to my company and there are no middle layers or vendors. So like you said if I can get an email from the client that they can't give me the letter via their corporate email would work ? Would this suffice to open a MTR ?
Thanks in advance.
wallpaper hair candice swanepoel 2011.
pappu
12-06 10:25 PM
In order to get EB1 visa via L1 visa route I believe you need to be on L1 at present and also hold a senior manager level position in your multinational company and command good salary. If you want to try for EB1 proving yourself to be extraordinary, then you need to satisfy at least 3 criterias mentioned in another post on this thread. This kind of EB1 catagory is very tough and unless you can really prove that you are a genious and extraordinary, its not worth spending money.
dagabaaj
02-11 12:08 PM
My online I-140 status shows the case cannot be found. The receipt date for my i-140 is current. What should I do? Anybody seen this issue.
2011 adorable Candice Swanepoel
fide_champ
03-22 08:17 AM
don't know where I should put my request. My husband is on H1B visa ...and I was on H4 .I went India but my H4 was rejected. I don't know what to do...is USCIS also going to reject my husband H1B .. please help
what's the reason for rejection?
what's the reason for rejection?
more...
babu123
06-15 02:00 PM
You can also get a letter from your collegue that worked with that company with all ur job duties mentioned. That serves your purpose I guess.
ssnd03
03-04 04:59 PM
What about the thousands who lost 2-4 years because they were stuck in namecheck, now the name check is cleared but the dates will not move..frigging idiots..too little too late
Before giving the blue/green/red dots, think about this. they created a traffic jam and now they are suddenly releasing it. There were about 150-300k stuck in name check, now all of them are waiting for their PD to be current. (i am one of them too). Think how this will affect the overall queue.
Priority dates were current before early 2005 due to FBI namecheck delays and other processing delays. Hence, EB visa numbers were always underused (and lost). If these processing delays were not so much back then, retrogression would have happened earlier, because there is always more demand than supply for EB visa numbers.
Retrogression can only be resolved by increasing visa numbers and/or recapture of lost visa numbers. Retrogression has nothing to do with FBI namecheck delays. In fact FBI namecheck delays masked the retrogression for one or two years.
We should be happy that namecheck delays are over for now and will restore some degree of FIFO.
Before giving the blue/green/red dots, think about this. they created a traffic jam and now they are suddenly releasing it. There were about 150-300k stuck in name check, now all of them are waiting for their PD to be current. (i am one of them too). Think how this will affect the overall queue.
Priority dates were current before early 2005 due to FBI namecheck delays and other processing delays. Hence, EB visa numbers were always underused (and lost). If these processing delays were not so much back then, retrogression would have happened earlier, because there is always more demand than supply for EB visa numbers.
Retrogression can only be resolved by increasing visa numbers and/or recapture of lost visa numbers. Retrogression has nothing to do with FBI namecheck delays. In fact FBI namecheck delays masked the retrogression for one or two years.
We should be happy that namecheck delays are over for now and will restore some degree of FIFO.
more...
Ramkumar
04-20 04:34 PM
Just I want to share I got my H1B approval another 2 years. As per my current company B's policy they only apply two years extention.
Thanks a lot
Ramkumar
Thanks a lot
Ramkumar
2010 Candice Swanepoel
Euclid
02-11 06:24 PM
Hi Prashanthi,
Thank you for your reply.
The receipt is not for an "initial or renewal" (OPT) EAD. It is for the "replacement for a lost (OPT) EAD".
I do have the approval notice in hand. It the actual OPT EAD that is lost.
Note: A receipt for an application for an initial or renewal USCIS
Employment Authorization Document (EAD) filed on a Form I-765,
Application for Employment Authorization, is not acceptable for Form
I-9 verification purposes.
Also for immigration purposes you cannot start working until you have the approval in-hand.
Thank you for your reply.
The receipt is not for an "initial or renewal" (OPT) EAD. It is for the "replacement for a lost (OPT) EAD".
I do have the approval notice in hand. It the actual OPT EAD that is lost.
Note: A receipt for an application for an initial or renewal USCIS
Employment Authorization Document (EAD) filed on a Form I-765,
Application for Employment Authorization, is not acceptable for Form
I-9 verification purposes.
Also for immigration purposes you cannot start working until you have the approval in-hand.
more...
vivekm1309
05-03 07:22 PM
You have written a good letter, Can i use your letter to write to senators of my state ? this will save me time :)
Regards
Vivek
Regards
Vivek
hair candice swanepoel hair color. Candice Swanepoel World#39;s Most
Ψ
06-12 01:31 PM
well here is my last volley not at all great and am not completely satisfied.
wouldve spent a little more time. but its just dat i have exams and gotta study.
well heres my last serve hope u like ithttp://img62.photobucket.com/albums/v188/_azzy_/last.jpg
wouldve spent a little more time. but its just dat i have exams and gotta study.
well heres my last serve hope u like ithttp://img62.photobucket.com/albums/v188/_azzy_/last.jpg
more...
gchopefull
10-02 04:04 PM
what do u mean by
"There also could be a difference in impact of appeal vs MTR on your I-485 application (which will be denied soon)".
does this means that if company files for appeal the 485/ead will be denied and revoked?
or if company files for mtr the 485/ead will be denied and revoked respectively?
thanks
"There also could be a difference in impact of appeal vs MTR on your I-485 application (which will be denied soon)".
does this means that if company files for appeal the 485/ead will be denied and revoked?
or if company files for mtr the 485/ead will be denied and revoked respectively?
thanks
hot candice swanepoel hair.
Mohit_Malkani
10-08 11:13 AM
Sorry to hear about your situation.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
Take a look at www.immigtation-law.com. Go to the nreaking news swction. They have a great piece on I140/I485 portability.
I have also pasted it here in case you dont get to the website
All the best.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer�s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physically location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensure. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
house candice swanepoel
![candice swanepoel hair. candice swanepoel hair. [candice swanepoel] [model]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ufWX_h-M6MG2QNra1x01wQDgWmZWPPgOuoKoBHcPM6guJhSKa4uOxZKejo69YqrQwaD6qh2-KDTZFUAd33brJBQK_7DioRjeDhU_ifJMsx3_CkhyZde60XCrndtSS6DQ=s0-d "candice swanepoel hair. [candice swanepoel] [model]")
hsm2007
09-21 07:41 AM
Yes this is my 1st RFE. My PD has been current since september. She applied with me in back in 2007.
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
I am sorry i cannot answer ur question because i m not an expert in this broken immigration process but i have a question.
Can you tell if this is ur 1st RFE on I485 or did u receive any prior RFE's also?
Did ur wife also applied for the I485 with you or u applied alone?
thanks
tattoo hot model Candice Swanepoel in candice swanepoel hair. candice swanepoel
clockwork
02-02 06:51 PM
I do not know anyone personal. My company uses fragomen and the lawyer assigned for my case sounds knowledgeable.
more...
pictures Candice Has They Hair Why
singhsa3
11-15 10:47 AM
What a shame and Ignorant people we are trying to motivate...
dresses Candice Swanepoel Hair
s416504
11-17 10:40 AM
Your reply looks OK except your lawyer's suggestion to inform employer about parole status. I don't mind informing employer but the Question is "Is that mandatory to inform employer ?" I think Lawyer's intention could be we need to inform employer (as well as lawyer ) about AP during applying next H1B extention.
Thanks...
Here you go:
If you use AP to reenter, you will no long in H1B status, and you will be a "parolee", but you may still work under the authorization of the original H1B term for the same employer; at the end of the period, you may apply to extend the H1B and then you will get your H1B status back....Sounds not logical, but this is current the CIS interpretation of the regulation.
If you lose H1B, your dependent may no longer on H4; you may keep working for same firm without using EAD until the end of current H1B but you need let employer know that you enter with AP.
Please consult a immigration lawyer and get clarification, above is the reply I got from my lawyer when I told him about using AP while re-entering US.
Thanks...
Here you go:
If you use AP to reenter, you will no long in H1B status, and you will be a "parolee", but you may still work under the authorization of the original H1B term for the same employer; at the end of the period, you may apply to extend the H1B and then you will get your H1B status back....Sounds not logical, but this is current the CIS interpretation of the regulation.
If you lose H1B, your dependent may no longer on H4; you may keep working for same firm without using EAD until the end of current H1B but you need let employer know that you enter with AP.
Please consult a immigration lawyer and get clarification, above is the reply I got from my lawyer when I told him about using AP while re-entering US.
more...
makeup candice swanepoel hair color.
bathuzp
11-11 02:30 PM
where can i find this free attorney on net and do u have a number that i could call at.
girlfriend candice swanepoel hair color. candice swanepoel victoria.
sam_hoosier
03-26 10:18 AM
I am hoping to travel via emirates to bangalore..I have avoided other airlines due to transit visa issues...any experince using Emirates??.
I have traveled on Emirates to Chennai a couple of times but that was via London. Emirates is definitely among the top 5 airlines in the world in terms of customer service. Nice & comfirtable seats, great food, transit at Dubai was a breeze. Would definitely recommend :)
I have traveled on Emirates to Chennai a couple of times but that was via London. Emirates is definitely among the top 5 airlines in the world in terms of customer service. Nice & comfirtable seats, great food, transit at Dubai was a breeze. Would definitely recommend :)
hairstyles candice swanepoel hair. Candice Swanepoel-bangs
GCNaseeb
08-08 04:47 PM
Employer not revoking your I-140 itself proves "employer intention" to hire him back on adjudication. You may have intention to work for sponsoring employer but if you are laid off its not in your control, right? Adjudicator always looks by law and there is no law which says if you are laid off within 180 days your I-485 can not be approved.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
It sounds a cake walk from your response, What if there is an RFE after 180 days on your sponsor/employer? You missed the point that GC is for future employment with the sponsor. There are certain situations where employee can invoke AC21 and get the protection against employer initiated termination etc. If you do not work for extended period.. no matter whether it is with in 180 or not.. USCIS may anytime during adjudication, question your intention for GC.
txh1b
08-25 02:25 PM
The USCIS accepted that response and my case has resumed processing. So if I were you, I would have no problem taking the Engineering Manager title.
This doesn't mean much. The case is still being processed and is not a sign to rejoice or consider that your AC21 request has been accepted. The title isn't a big deal but the job description on labor and new job has to be same or similar.
I would be wary of your switch from a developer to a Manager and that qualifying for a AC21 under same/similar.
Where I work, what a developer does is significantly different than what an Architect or a manager does.
This doesn't mean much. The case is still being processed and is not a sign to rejoice or consider that your AC21 request has been accepted. The title isn't a big deal but the job description on labor and new job has to be same or similar.
I would be wary of your switch from a developer to a Manager and that qualifying for a AC21 under same/similar.
Where I work, what a developer does is significantly different than what an Architect or a manager does.
valuablehurdle
02-23 04:14 PM
Can anyone tell me which are the states that have in-state tuition fees for the H4 visa holder? It maynot be an exhaustive list but atleast need to start somewhere... Pennsylvania does not allow it... and this is the reason it is becoming increasingly difficult for my wife to keep on studying on my salary.
Answers greatly appreciated...
Answers greatly appreciated...
No comments:
Post a Comment