psk79
09-26 12:15 PM
I am Jul2 filer with a notice date of Aug, 31. (NSC to TSC transferred) I got the receipts in early september however as of today no FP notices. I called uscis and hte guy told me to wait 30 days until oct 2. I dont know if there are any other guys in this case.....
transpass
09-28 01:06 PM
My 485 app was received on July 18 at NSC, no checks cashed yet. EAD/ AP recieved on Aug 10 at NSC, got RN for EAD and AP. Is there a possibility of getting EAD card, even if 485 was not filed? One of my freinds was under the same situation, and she and her spouse got the EAD from TSC, without 485 filing.
As far as I know, it should not happen. This is bizzare...May be it was a mistake in ur friend's case...
As far as I know, it should not happen. This is bizzare...May be it was a mistake in ur friend's case...
Venkat_175
04-08 11:40 AM
It looks my ex-employer us not going to take any action as they are getting some business from the client. Thank you very much for helping me.
Regards,
Venkat.
Regards,
Venkat.
sanjay02
05-17 01:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress
WASHINGTON - Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
ADVERTISEMENT
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Bush hailed completion of the deal as a "historic moment," and said he looked forward to signing it into law, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who said he called the president to inform him of it.
"Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement that we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.
Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities. The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and � after paying fees and a $5,000 fine � ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card � except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
WASHINGTON - Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
ADVERTISEMENT
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Bush hailed completion of the deal as a "historic moment," and said he looked forward to signing it into law, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who said he called the president to inform him of it.
"Politics is the art of the possible, and the agreement that we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.
Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities. The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and � after paying fees and a $5,000 fine � ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card � except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
more...
gg_ny
02-16 10:06 AM
Sorry I was busy doing my work and hence could not immediately answer your questions on hypothetical situations and some wrong conclusions.
FBI check for visa (H1 and L1) is different from what you get when you apply for GC (consular or AOS). While you are patiently (!) waiting for more from the other 257 people to answer you, please check some USCIS documents.
One has to be thankful that these two screenigns are different because there are people stuck for years in this step when they apply for GC.
Like somebody said, good luck!
I've been thinking about this for a while. Typically, it takes more time in average to obtain a green card through adjustment of status (I-485) than going through consular processing. Here's the part I don't understand! Both applicabts have to pass FBI name check. Those who use I-485 are already in the U.S. and that means they have gone through FBI name check once they applied for a visa at an American consulate/embassy to enter the U.S. under any visa category. Therefore, their background has been checked once and should be less questionable than those who go through consular processing and it's the first time FBI is conducting a name check on them. Now, how is it possible that I-485 applicants have to go through hell to get their green cards while consular processing applicants feel the heat of a green card in their hands much sooner?
FBI check for visa (H1 and L1) is different from what you get when you apply for GC (consular or AOS). While you are patiently (!) waiting for more from the other 257 people to answer you, please check some USCIS documents.
One has to be thankful that these two screenigns are different because there are people stuck for years in this step when they apply for GC.
Like somebody said, good luck!
I've been thinking about this for a while. Typically, it takes more time in average to obtain a green card through adjustment of status (I-485) than going through consular processing. Here's the part I don't understand! Both applicabts have to pass FBI name check. Those who use I-485 are already in the U.S. and that means they have gone through FBI name check once they applied for a visa at an American consulate/embassy to enter the U.S. under any visa category. Therefore, their background has been checked once and should be less questionable than those who go through consular processing and it's the first time FBI is conducting a name check on them. Now, how is it possible that I-485 applicants have to go through hell to get their green cards while consular processing applicants feel the heat of a green card in their hands much sooner?
bugmenot
11-11 03:54 PM
both the parties have decided not to touch immigration at all this year (till elections) they have decided against any increase in any numbers (h1b's, GC's) etc, so much so that the senate are requesting chertoff (homeland security secretary) to increase the OPT time for international student to 2.5 years so they can temp overide the h1b jam.
more...
pappu
02-02 02:54 PM
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Naturalization
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
alucard666
08-28 03:11 PM
Something like this would have been in their news section but I just logged on and there is nothing there.
more...
hpandey
04-07 10:39 AM
Just got it. Right now.Thanks guys.
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On April 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
and enjoy the freedom that you have now :-) Patience always pays !!
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
On April 7, 2008, we mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
and enjoy the freedom that you have now :-) Patience always pays !!
ramana_akp
12-17 10:00 PM
thanks for the inputs guys..
This is the first time i have applied for my I-485 and i am on H1b befor this and my record is very very clean...
Coming to the address on my I-485 i called up USCIS and also went fr an INFOPASS appointmentt and i was told that the address i told matched with theirs on the file...when i asked for a second copy to be sent they said that it will take 30-45 days for me to receive it...i am really worried..
Since the USCIS case status said "We mailed you a decision on 29'th NOV " and it is not 30 days wil it still be considered abandenonment denial??
Does any of you know whether my dependents need to sign the Appeal/motion to reopen or my attorney can file on their behalf??
thanks again for your inputs..can you share some of your experinces.
This is the first time i have applied for my I-485 and i am on H1b befor this and my record is very very clean...
Coming to the address on my I-485 i called up USCIS and also went fr an INFOPASS appointmentt and i was told that the address i told matched with theirs on the file...when i asked for a second copy to be sent they said that it will take 30-45 days for me to receive it...i am really worried..
Since the USCIS case status said "We mailed you a decision on 29'th NOV " and it is not 30 days wil it still be considered abandenonment denial??
Does any of you know whether my dependents need to sign the Appeal/motion to reopen or my attorney can file on their behalf??
thanks again for your inputs..can you share some of your experinces.
more...
aat0995
09-23 01:24 PM
Soft LUD for me. It was so soft that it didnt even update the date.
New term: Very Soft LUD. No visible change to the naked eye, but something is cooking behind the scenes regarding your case
And how to you differentiate between soft lud and very soft lud?:o
New term: Very Soft LUD. No visible change to the naked eye, but something is cooking behind the scenes regarding your case
And how to you differentiate between soft lud and very soft lud?:o
rajuseattle
04-28 04:03 PM
gc_check:
Very good advice to young EB-3 folks.
Very good advice to young EB-3 folks.
more...
crystal
09-17 01:38 PM
What is wrong if you look like grandfather , if that is the truth.
Lets accept it and move on :D
I saw those guys in the situation room. I will look like their grandfather.:mad:
Lets accept it and move on :D
I saw those guys in the situation room. I will look like their grandfather.:mad:
Ann Ruben
01-20 11:17 AM
Abhay,
The USCIS online case status system has never been 100% accurate. New data is "dumped" into the system on a nightly basis, and sometimes there is a technical glitch that randomly prevents some data from being transferred. USCIS claims that it is impossible to correct this problem and update case status info. in individual cases. So, it is unlikely that you will be able to get the online status changed.
However, what you can and should do is to get written confirmation from USCIS that your RFE response was timely filed. If your lawyer is a member of AILA, he can use the AILA/TSC liaison process to obtain this written confirmation from USCIS. If your lawyer cannot or will not do this, you should consider finding another immigration lawyer. Remember that the I-485 is your application, and not your employer's. You are entitled to legal representation of your choice.
Ann
The USCIS online case status system has never been 100% accurate. New data is "dumped" into the system on a nightly basis, and sometimes there is a technical glitch that randomly prevents some data from being transferred. USCIS claims that it is impossible to correct this problem and update case status info. in individual cases. So, it is unlikely that you will be able to get the online status changed.
However, what you can and should do is to get written confirmation from USCIS that your RFE response was timely filed. If your lawyer is a member of AILA, he can use the AILA/TSC liaison process to obtain this written confirmation from USCIS. If your lawyer cannot or will not do this, you should consider finding another immigration lawyer. Remember that the I-485 is your application, and not your employer's. You are entitled to legal representation of your choice.
Ann
more...
glus
09-28 07:31 AM
Hi Everyone
I got an RFE for my I140 filed in September 2006. They asked me to show my W2 for 2006 and also show that the employer had the ability to pay the offered wage in case my W2 is less than the offered wage.
My W2 has 8k less than the offered wage. My company has not yet filed 2006 Taxes. Can you tell me whats the best thing to do? My employer has good revenue, but I guess he has been showing a net loss every year.
Please help me out. Tell me if any of you have gone through similar issues.
Thanks!
The fact that the company paid you less than the labor stated does NOT matter. Remember that I140 is for a future employment offer. I140 checks if you have the qualifications for the offered job and if the company can pay you the prevailing wage WHEN you get that job; and when your GC is approved. However, you company must show that at the time of filing it was ABLE to pay you the prevailing wage or more. This is easily done by supporting documents such as taxes and other financial statements.
The company does not need to pay you the prevailing wage when you file I140, but it needs to show that it could pay you such a wage if that was needed.
Any qualified immigration attorney will be easily able to overcome this RFE if the company's financial position was strong at the time you filed for labor.
You can show your W2s even with lower salary. But you must also show that the company had the resources to pay you the prevailing wage at the time labor was filed. Your attorney will write up a nice cover letter when sending out the response to your RFE. Even if the company showed net losses, but has reasonable assets that are more than the missing 8k, it can still be shown the company was able to pay you the wage.
I got an RFE for my I140 filed in September 2006. They asked me to show my W2 for 2006 and also show that the employer had the ability to pay the offered wage in case my W2 is less than the offered wage.
My W2 has 8k less than the offered wage. My company has not yet filed 2006 Taxes. Can you tell me whats the best thing to do? My employer has good revenue, but I guess he has been showing a net loss every year.
Please help me out. Tell me if any of you have gone through similar issues.
Thanks!
The fact that the company paid you less than the labor stated does NOT matter. Remember that I140 is for a future employment offer. I140 checks if you have the qualifications for the offered job and if the company can pay you the prevailing wage WHEN you get that job; and when your GC is approved. However, you company must show that at the time of filing it was ABLE to pay you the prevailing wage or more. This is easily done by supporting documents such as taxes and other financial statements.
The company does not need to pay you the prevailing wage when you file I140, but it needs to show that it could pay you such a wage if that was needed.
Any qualified immigration attorney will be easily able to overcome this RFE if the company's financial position was strong at the time you filed for labor.
You can show your W2s even with lower salary. But you must also show that the company had the resources to pay you the prevailing wage at the time labor was filed. Your attorney will write up a nice cover letter when sending out the response to your RFE. Even if the company showed net losses, but has reasonable assets that are more than the missing 8k, it can still be shown the company was able to pay you the wage.
english_august
07-09 08:18 PM
Guys - you can surely spend a couple of hours. And as a bonus, you might even see yourself on the evening news :D.
It's not often that we get to talk to so many media organizations at the same place - this is really a golden opportunity, please don't let it go by.
It's not often that we get to talk to so many media organizations at the same place - this is really a golden opportunity, please don't let it go by.
more...
sri@180
02-08 07:53 AM
Hi,
I am waiting for replys.
But with in one month of my h1 approval of nov2007 i came to India.
I did one certification(one paper) in one language in november2007.
I have only one paystub.Do i need my employer 3 yrs tax papers.I am the 1st employee to my employer.Is any other documents needed other than pictures of my employers office,tax papers.Did i have to submit my indian experience or any other documents from indian company.Right now Can i change years of experience in india(Actually i submitted in h1 process 2 +yrs of experience in india,Can i change that to 1 yr exp in india now.Because i missed few documents of india experience).
In which location is easy for me to stamp delhi|mumbai|chennai.
Pls post experiences and needed docs.
I am waiting for replys.
But with in one month of my h1 approval of nov2007 i came to India.
I did one certification(one paper) in one language in november2007.
I have only one paystub.Do i need my employer 3 yrs tax papers.I am the 1st employee to my employer.Is any other documents needed other than pictures of my employers office,tax papers.Did i have to submit my indian experience or any other documents from indian company.Right now Can i change years of experience in india(Actually i submitted in h1 process 2 +yrs of experience in india,Can i change that to 1 yr exp in india now.Because i missed few documents of india experience).
In which location is easy for me to stamp delhi|mumbai|chennai.
Pls post experiences and needed docs.
meridiani.planum
11-12 02:22 PM
My PD is Dec 2005 (EB2) and I'm on EAD. I dont know when I'll get the GC but hoping that I'll get it in the next year. I already got an RFE so I'm not expecting another one. The question is, if I get laid off now, can I buy a business (say a convenience store or a subway) and run it (while on EAD)? and would it cause any problems now or in the future when applying for citizenship? I know you have to work in same or similar industry, but my industry is hard hit with recession and I don't think I can find a similar job. So how will they enforce this? Or do they even care?
not a problem as long as you are also working full time on a job that meets the requirements spelled out in your Labor Certification. Technically having only a job offer is enough, but if USCIS sees you running a convenience store, while holding a "job offer" for fulltime employment, it will most certaintly result in an interview and you will have to convince hte IO you intend to take up the job.
If you are already working full time, then USCIS does not care what else you do in parallel (own a convenience store, run your own company)
not a problem as long as you are also working full time on a job that meets the requirements spelled out in your Labor Certification. Technically having only a job offer is enough, but if USCIS sees you running a convenience store, while holding a "job offer" for fulltime employment, it will most certaintly result in an interview and you will have to convince hte IO you intend to take up the job.
If you are already working full time, then USCIS does not care what else you do in parallel (own a convenience store, run your own company)
yibornindia
11-19 06:02 PM
Co-sufferers,
Due to our enemy#1 - Mr.Retrogression :eek: and the current state of economy, so many of us have used or will be using (willingly or not) AC-21 provision soon. I am wondering if you have seen cases denied solely due to AC-21?
There are other threads for wrong denials due to employer invoking an approved I-140 after 180 days of filling 485. However this is to discuss the ultimate outcome of the case, as the above CIS mistake can be revoked using an MTR. What could be the other reasons? Historically? Statistics?
I have personally met some people who used AC-21 and all of them have their 485 approved.:rolleyes: So please share more details if you have gone through this pain, or know someone. Knowing what went wrong can help all of us others to watch out for such mistakes.:confused:
Thanks all for sharing.:)
Due to our enemy#1 - Mr.Retrogression :eek: and the current state of economy, so many of us have used or will be using (willingly or not) AC-21 provision soon. I am wondering if you have seen cases denied solely due to AC-21?
There are other threads for wrong denials due to employer invoking an approved I-140 after 180 days of filling 485. However this is to discuss the ultimate outcome of the case, as the above CIS mistake can be revoked using an MTR. What could be the other reasons? Historically? Statistics?
I have personally met some people who used AC-21 and all of them have their 485 approved.:rolleyes: So please share more details if you have gone through this pain, or know someone. Knowing what went wrong can help all of us others to watch out for such mistakes.:confused:
Thanks all for sharing.:)
pthoko
08-10 11:10 PM
Thank you, your response is clear.
piperwarrior
08-14 05:18 PM
Most personal finance books will tell you that cash life policies (such as Universal Life) are financially bad investments. They are laced with all sorts of fees, which is why salespeople recommend them.
Yes, rates may be different if you are H-1B Vs GC holder. I had taken insurance through an agent recently and he suggested to go for a combination (Universal Life + Term). ULI works differently, its like a savings account, meaning you can always take the premium you paid after 10 or 20 or whatever period you choose (with interest rate). Their interest rates are same as ING or HSBC. Ever wonder how much money we are wasting with Term over a period of 20 or 30 years?
Yes, rates may be different if you are H-1B Vs GC holder. I had taken insurance through an agent recently and he suggested to go for a combination (Universal Life + Term). ULI works differently, its like a savings account, meaning you can always take the premium you paid after 10 or 20 or whatever period you choose (with interest rate). Their interest rates are same as ING or HSBC. Ever wonder how much money we are wasting with Term over a period of 20 or 30 years?
No comments:
Post a Comment