ch_murthy
06-08 01:52 PM
My Labor was filed in Aug, 2004 under EB3 (Traditional); pending at Phil BEC. Again filed in Dec, 2005 under EB2 (PERM); I-140 Approved. Can I change my EB3 PD to EB2? If so, please let me know my options. I am in 7th year now. I will talk to my lawyer, without me knowing all the things; this attorney is not ready to talk to me. Thanks for your help.
wallpaper agree with lack tongue at
sledge_hammer
06-01 04:55 PM
New members please take this pole
monkeyman
09-27 10:45 AM
Is there anyway we can help the family featured in this thread? Like helping them with funds to hire a good lawyer or something on those lines? Reading all the threads, I am somehow thinking of going for the Indian dream now (Yes, I have the Indian citizenship)!!! 6 years and my wife still does not know if she can live in this country or not!!!
2011 Black Hair Blue Eyes Anime Guy
mbartosik
11-09 05:42 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7087846.stm
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
Actually there were two issues.
1) UK gov changed qualifying period for "indefinite leave to stay" from 4 years to 5 years. Without a grand father clause. UK gov won this.
2) NHS (state heath system) discriminated against those with UK work visa without "indefinite leave to say". That is called a Highly Skilled Migrant Programme.
For comparison with US system
indefinite leave to say == green card. Much easier to get in UK, wait time fixed at 5 years (up from 4).
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme == H1B H4 and L1 L2 but I think like having an EAD also.
I wonder given this ruling if those affected can now sue the NHS (National Health Service) over this for compensatory damages.
more...
fatjoe
09-02 10:57 PM
Is it possible to let us know their RD and ND too? Just wanted to find the pattern on how TSC is approving the case. That would be much helpful for those who are waiting.
virginia_desi
05-15 12:15 PM
Thanks for your reply.
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
There can only one AOS as the main beneficiary. You can have another AOS where you are a dependent or may be a family based AOS.
Once AOS is filed under EB3, it can't be simply upgraded to EB2.
However, what happens if one gets a RFE on I-140 and there is a pending I-485. Are you allowed to refile using EB3 approved petition if the dates are still current for EB3?
My understanding is there can be only one AOS at any time.
- So if the AOS is applied based on the EB3 140, can another AOS be filed based on EB2?
- If a AOS has been applied based on EB3, can it be "upgraded" to EB2 ??
Thanks.
There can only one AOS as the main beneficiary. You can have another AOS where you are a dependent or may be a family based AOS.
Once AOS is filed under EB3, it can't be simply upgraded to EB2.
However, what happens if one gets a RFE on I-140 and there is a pending I-485. Are you allowed to refile using EB3 approved petition if the dates are still current for EB3?
more...
waitin_toolong
07-30 03:41 PM
some 15-25 yrs back this used to be possible. I know of someone whos mom was air-hostess, and delivered the baby here and all of the family members got GC based on that baby.
But they closed this loophole sometime back.
But they closed this loophole sometime back.
2010 Brown Hair To Black Hair.
franklin
06-15 02:52 AM
H1 B extension under current laws (if on H1B for 6 years)
3 years extension if I140 approved and PD NOT current
1 year extension if LC approved and PD IS CURRENT
EAD or H1B - both RIGHT NOW are only 1 year extensions...
As I understand it, as long as you don't travel using your EAD, you can maintain H1B status. If you use EAD, you lose H1B
btw - as a side note, having multiple questions in 1 thread is almost impossible to track and answer. Ever heard of thread hijacking?!
3 years extension if I140 approved and PD NOT current
1 year extension if LC approved and PD IS CURRENT
EAD or H1B - both RIGHT NOW are only 1 year extensions...
As I understand it, as long as you don't travel using your EAD, you can maintain H1B status. If you use EAD, you lose H1B
btw - as a side note, having multiple questions in 1 thread is almost impossible to track and answer. Ever heard of thread hijacking?!
more...
rb_248
09-08 09:17 PM
Cograts!! rb_248..
Did you notice any LUD's on your case in September?..i got an RFE for my Spouse in August and responded on September 2nd after that there is Soft LUD almost every day but no status change..on my case no LUD's or what so ever last LUD was on 08/19 the day when i did my FP that's it..Guys i am frustated and feeling some how that i will miss this bus... called USCIS IO told me that both the cases are with officer not sure how reliable inof that is..Opened SR on September 3rd..guys please suggest me what else i can do:confused::confused::mad::mad::mad:
Thanks. No LUDs. Just got it in the mail straight. Try contacting your senator or congressperson.
Did you notice any LUD's on your case in September?..i got an RFE for my Spouse in August and responded on September 2nd after that there is Soft LUD almost every day but no status change..on my case no LUD's or what so ever last LUD was on 08/19 the day when i did my FP that's it..Guys i am frustated and feeling some how that i will miss this bus... called USCIS IO told me that both the cases are with officer not sure how reliable inof that is..Opened SR on September 3rd..guys please suggest me what else i can do:confused::confused::mad::mad::mad:
Thanks. No LUDs. Just got it in the mail straight. Try contacting your senator or congressperson.
hair dresses anime oy with lack
tabletpc
11-30 01:27 PM
Nissan1,
thanks for the reply...
6 month wait time is much better than 5+ years...
thanks for the reply...
6 month wait time is much better than 5+ years...
more...
chinna2003
03-12 01:14 AM
but i asked this question to find the legality of this issue before reporting someone to the USCIS that i know is doing this.I just used I instead of someone in my thread to start the discussion.
Who do i complain to in this case?
Buddy,
Are you the same person as the one who posted this? Has someone hijacked your id or your brain?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=129163#post129163
Who do i complain to in this case?
Buddy,
Are you the same person as the one who posted this? Has someone hijacked your id or your brain?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=129163#post129163
hot lack hair blue quot; /gt; lack
sanjeev_2004
10-02 09:54 AM
Me-:(
I am on eb2 and the application is in Nebreska service center...3 weeks back or so they got a RFE, do not know what the RFE is about yet ....!!
Are you also waiting for 140 approval ?
I think h my filing (or was it receipt date) was oct 24, 2006.
Hi,
what is your online status after RFE. Does online status change to "RFE" from "Received and pending" once we get RFE. My employer dont tell me much about my I140 status or RFE but I have receipt number. I can check online
Thanks.
I am on eb2 and the application is in Nebreska service center...3 weeks back or so they got a RFE, do not know what the RFE is about yet ....!!
Are you also waiting for 140 approval ?
I think h my filing (or was it receipt date) was oct 24, 2006.
Hi,
what is your online status after RFE. Does online status change to "RFE" from "Received and pending" once we get RFE. My employer dont tell me much about my I140 status or RFE but I have receipt number. I can check online
Thanks.
more...
house Birth 5: oy, blonde hair,
Sheetal_MA
06-09 10:52 AM
If you have w-2's you just need to fill 1040NR-EZ and send it back to the requesting officer. I don't understand what is the problem in fill a form and signing it and sending in the copies of it... what difference does it make if it was filled in 1999 or 2008 as it will be the same thing.... if they have a problem ask them to verify it with IRS which I am sure they will not able to do as there is no way so they have to accept what you submit... just my $0.02.. ask your attorney about this...
Hmm...isn't this illegal?
Hmm...isn't this illegal?
tattoo scene, scene girl, lue eyes,
Blog Feeds
01-27 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
more...
pictures Black Hair Blue Eyes Anime Boy
vroapp
08-07 08:05 AM
I'm afraid I can't help you with your application but Congrats! on getting married, i.e... :-)
dresses Black Hair Blue Eyes Anime Guy
GCNirvana007
04-08 04:11 PM
Come on my friend, Admins are like you and me. They are not having any magic wands. You may want to post your concerns in the public forum or the best thing is to contact your State chapter representative who will conduit you to the Admins.
These are tough times, so hang in there. IV is committed for our cause.
All i am asking is the media they know and number of users. I dont know what you talking about.
Ok, how do we contact the state representative. Through the county representative, then the city, then street?
These are tough times, so hang in there. IV is committed for our cause.
All i am asking is the media they know and number of users. I dont know what you talking about.
Ok, how do we contact the state representative. Through the county representative, then the city, then street?
more...
makeup anime oy with brown hair and
Cheran
04-06 10:28 AM
This is talking about I-140 and not I-485.....
My I-140 filed with TSC is still pending since August 2007. I hope I get a decision ( hopefully positive) by Sep 2009!
Could you elaborate why you say this is about I140? I couldn't derive that from the posting. Anyhow this whole this is utter nonsense from the immigration department. I don't think there will be any action, period.
The whole thing is written as if June 2007 happened by mistake, I don't buy that.
My I-140 filed with TSC is still pending since August 2007. I hope I get a decision ( hopefully positive) by Sep 2009!
Could you elaborate why you say this is about I140? I couldn't derive that from the posting. Anyhow this whole this is utter nonsense from the immigration department. I don't think there will be any action, period.
The whole thing is written as if June 2007 happened by mistake, I don't buy that.
girlfriend description:: lue eyes, lack
GCapplicant
10-12 04:04 PM
I am also from NJ-I have to get FP from HAckensack-NJ thats my nearest .
When we called USCIS she said its delay because of traffic in ASC in our location.So they have to correspond with them,when ever they get a reminder in their system.
So as of now they havnt mailed...waiting for FP.
I hope the process does not delay further beacuse of this FP...I wish they do fast.
I just wonder NJ is a populated area and they have only two ASC...one in newark and another in Hackensack.I hope it doesnt take months for this FP.
Does name check start after FP?
My ND is Sep/11.
When we called USCIS she said its delay because of traffic in ASC in our location.So they have to correspond with them,when ever they get a reminder in their system.
So as of now they havnt mailed...waiting for FP.
I hope the process does not delay further beacuse of this FP...I wish they do fast.
I just wonder NJ is a populated area and they have only two ASC...one in newark and another in Hackensack.I hope it doesnt take months for this FP.
Does name check start after FP?
My ND is Sep/11.
hairstyles Black hair amp; Blue Eyes
nousername
04-07 01:12 PM
What the hell.. Can someone please explain this in plain English?
AAO Decision on Substituted Labor Certifications (http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2010/04/03/aao-decision-on-substituted-labor-certifications/)
AAO Decision on Substituted Labor Certifications (http://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2010/04/03/aao-decision-on-substituted-labor-certifications/)
cvk90
12-08 01:40 AM
Not sure where this is going...Respond with caution folks...posting seems fishy !!
valysivec27
10-01 09:59 AM
Hello, I have a question for you guys. Can you point me to some documents I can read about GC adjudication?. I'd like to know if the "priority date" has any importance after you apply I485. Are they proceesing the I485 applications based on country quota, employment caterogory? Thank you for the clarification in this matter.
My impression is that the "priority date" it's not important after you file the I485, but I might be wrong....
Any idea?
Thanks,
ValySivec
My impression is that the "priority date" it's not important after you file the I485, but I might be wrong....
Any idea?
Thanks,
ValySivec
No comments:
Post a Comment