pjalan
04-01 03:08 PM
I spoke to one lawyer and he said I can respond to I-140 RFE myself if I know wht it is about.
If USCIS allows one to port I-1485 and approvable I-140 I am not sure what is all this mess about?
Can't I myself respond to the RFE?
If USCIS allows one to port I-1485 and approvable I-140 I am not sure what is all this mess about?
Can't I myself respond to the RFE?
wallpaper Birthday boy Justin Bieber and
Jimi_Hendrix
12-16 05:46 PM
To make any educated guess there has to be a basis. You need to have some data or some other relevant information. Unfortunately there is no data available that can help one make an educated guess about the future movement of EB3 India.
In the absence of any data being available you cannot make a guess about the movement of visa numbers. However we do have visa bulletins each month and if you notice the movement in Priority dates in the last 6-9 month period, that movement has been very minimal. Also the advisory given by the Department of State has been very negative about the future movement of priority dates. Therefore it is quite safe to conclude that unless legislative action is taken, you can reasonably expect priority dates to move very slowly or even stop moving.
In the absence of any data being available you cannot make a guess about the movement of visa numbers. However we do have visa bulletins each month and if you notice the movement in Priority dates in the last 6-9 month period, that movement has been very minimal. Also the advisory given by the Department of State has been very negative about the future movement of priority dates. Therefore it is quite safe to conclude that unless legislative action is taken, you can reasonably expect priority dates to move very slowly or even stop moving.
jnraajan
03-27 01:14 PM
Hey Dont Thank me. Thank IV, which is you and me and everyone else.
Everyone, Please start contributing now. Let us work hard to get every line item from the Campaign accomplished.
Everyone, Please start contributing now. Let us work hard to get every line item from the Campaign accomplished.
2011 /artist/selena-gomez/1011432
lvinaykumar
05-21 09:00 AM
Filed at : Nebraska Service Center
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
Was it current for you on March 1st
For Wife
Filed 485 on March 10, Finger printing May 6th, GC Approved May 9th, GC received May 13th
My Wife was on EAD/OPT based on her student visa (and not on H4)
Was it current for you on March 1st
more...
rghrdr777
08-15 08:57 PM
485 RD - 06/25/2007 (Filed at NSC)
485 ND - 08/01/2007 (Came from TSC)
FP ND - 08/09/2007
FP Notice Received by mail on - 08/15/2007
FP Appointment - 09/06/2007
485 ND - 08/01/2007 (Came from TSC)
FP ND - 08/09/2007
FP Notice Received by mail on - 08/15/2007
FP Appointment - 09/06/2007
vina92
04-30 11:02 AM
PD Jan2005
I 140 applied Nov 2006
Approved Mar 6th 2007
I 140 applied Nov 2006
Approved Mar 6th 2007
more...
gk_2000
08-18 02:40 PM
Nope they don't have any US local channels....i didn't get any signal at my place (North facing patio)..so for Indian channels thats the best option for me...earlier i had cablevision and they offer 4 channels (actually can only count 2 sony and zee the other 2 are ok) for $20 so 44.99 for 8 channels is a better deal there are no fees or taxes in NJ so 44.99 is final bill...also i am planning to buy Indoor Antenna (Terk HDTVa) for Local channels which will suffice my TV needs....i think :-)
Indoor antenna: I have tried them all. And returned them. They're no good
Indoor antenna: I have tried them all. And returned them. They're no good
2010 pictures justin bieber selena
kshitijnt
04-18 06:55 PM
Today my wifes attorney informed her that her H1 was selected, non masters, non premium process. He also provided her a WAC number
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hair Selena Gomez + Justin Bieber
![new selena gomez and justin bieber. [New] Justin Bieber Wore](http://www-hollywoodlife-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/011710_couples_bieber_gomez_ring_split_544_XXXX.jpg "[New] Justin Bieber Wore")
asterix
02-23 10:00 AM
a large number of thsoe "extra" GC were schedule A recaptures and did not affect most applicants. so really it was by profession not by country.
Here is e.g. for 2002 again this excludes schedule A here is the breakdown for india
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
Here is e.g. for 2002 again this excludes schedule A here is the breakdown for india
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
more...
belmontboy
10-27 05:01 PM
Guys, things may not be great, but you know what - "what does not kill me only makes me stronger" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Hope this diwali bring great things for us.
Hope this diwali bring great things for us.
hot new selena gomez and justin
pcs
07-30 04:11 PM
I like many others got a PERM labor & got 140 based on PERM labor.
Recenty , I applied 485 (based on this 140 )in this mad rush
Meanwhile, I have also received Labor approval ( from the same employer) from backlog center with an EARLIER PD .
The question is ..... Can I change the PD based on EARLIER PD after I have filed 485 ?????
I am sure many of us double PDs & might need to find an answer to this ?
can someone help ??
Thanks
Recenty , I applied 485 (based on this 140 )in this mad rush
Meanwhile, I have also received Labor approval ( from the same employer) from backlog center with an EARLIER PD .
The question is ..... Can I change the PD based on EARLIER PD after I have filed 485 ?????
I am sure many of us double PDs & might need to find an answer to this ?
can someone help ??
Thanks
more...
house Justin Bieber Winning Top New
trueguy
08-11 02:46 PM
Guys please vote
tattoo new justin bieber and selena
aachoo
09-17 01:17 AM
Dude,
I am planning to travel on AP first time. Can you pls reply:-
1. What all documents are required apart from AP to re-enter US?
2. Do you get I-94 if you enter with AP and if yes How long that I-94 is valid for? I am bit confused as my AP is going to expire in Jan 2008, so the USCIS should not give me i-94 till Jan only? If yes, then what after that?
If you can, pls reply..
Thanks
K
Passport and AP is all they asked me for both times I traveled. The first time I had both originals of my AP. However- I also had my 485 receipt, EAD, my H1B extension I-797, employment letter, paystubs- you name it in case. No one asked me a thing- but I was being cautious.
If you use AP- the I-94 expires 1 year from the date you enter. However- this is only the date they put on the I-94. It does not mean you are illegal after that. As long as you are an AOS applicant, your status is valid.
I am sure there is a Murthy article on this.
-a
I am planning to travel on AP first time. Can you pls reply:-
1. What all documents are required apart from AP to re-enter US?
2. Do you get I-94 if you enter with AP and if yes How long that I-94 is valid for? I am bit confused as my AP is going to expire in Jan 2008, so the USCIS should not give me i-94 till Jan only? If yes, then what after that?
If you can, pls reply..
Thanks
K
Passport and AP is all they asked me for both times I traveled. The first time I had both originals of my AP. However- I also had my 485 receipt, EAD, my H1B extension I-797, employment letter, paystubs- you name it in case. No one asked me a thing- but I was being cautious.
If you use AP- the I-94 expires 1 year from the date you enter. However- this is only the date they put on the I-94. It does not mean you are illegal after that. As long as you are an AOS applicant, your status is valid.
I am sure there is a Murthy article on this.
-a
more...
pictures girlfriend new selena gomez
dish
09-25 09:56 AM
The Immigration Nationality Act does not say specifically that h4 time is added towards h1 time. It is the way laws interpreted by uscis that states h4 time counted towards H1. USCIS can change their interpretation by merely issuing a memo.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=454&page=3
see this thread.
Maybe it is a good idea to contact the Ombudsman about this issue.
dresses Justin Bieber Celebrates His
dcrtrv27
11-13 02:56 PM
Is tehre is any way for PREMIUM PROCESSING for I485 pending case?
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
In my case PD is current since years the I140 is approved. Backbround check etc is over. Confirmed by various sources that my case JUST needs to be picked up by IO.
I have somebusiness trips coming up. My employer want me to find out the way to get the GC faster that way there wont be any hassle for every year renewal od AP and also EADs. and then appplying VISAs which will expire along with teh AP last date.
Along with me my employer is also fed up now:p.
Our lawyer being stupid; the employer wants me to find out the way to expedite I485. Since it is in last stages I think theer could be quicker way.
I know there is the way WOM but is there any other way?:rolleyes:
more...
makeup new selena gomez and justin
lghtslpr
02-08 12:26 PM
Someone over at immigrationportal.com is organizing a letter-writing campaign to demand transparency at the Philadelphia Backlog Processing Center. I think it's a great idea. Please participate. See details here:
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1352681&postcount=10560
http://www.immigrationportal.com/showpost.php?p=1352681&postcount=10560
girlfriend Justin Bieber,Selena Gomez
Lasantha
07-31 07:28 AM
For evaluations try Sheila Danzig at http://www.thedegreepeople.com/
From personal experience I know she is well qulaified for this kind of evaluations. She gives you a very comprehensive evaluation. I can honestly say that I have my GC now because of her. I have been recommending her ever since.
Hello,
I just received RFE for I-140.
I-140 Details:
I have applied I-140 under EB2 India.
I have BS(3 years) with computer science & MCA(MS 3 years) in computer science. So total 6 years of education in computer science(3 yrs BS + 3 yrs MS).
Also I have 1.5 years(18 months) of experience after completing my MS. I have submitted my experience letter at the time of filling labor But USCIS didn't ask anything regarding experience.
In labor(PERM) we mentioned Masters required
& Major field of study is Computers.
Do I qualify for EB2?? Plz let me know.
RFE details:
1) Degree evaluation(what's the procedure?)
&
2) They want most recent W2 for 2007.
In 2007(W2) I got paid $59K(gross) & in LCA(H1B) prevailing wage mentioned is $55k.
In labor(PERM) prevailing wage mentioned is $63K & offered wage mentioned is $65K.
Difference between W2 & Prevailing wage in labor(PERM) is $4000($63K - $59K).
Difference between W2 & Offered wage in labor(PERM) is $6000($65K - $59K).
Is this a serious problem???
My labor already got approved.
My company is financially very good.
Now which wage USCIS consider or match with W2??
I will really appreciate your response.
Thanks.
From personal experience I know she is well qulaified for this kind of evaluations. She gives you a very comprehensive evaluation. I can honestly say that I have my GC now because of her. I have been recommending her ever since.
Hello,
I just received RFE for I-140.
I-140 Details:
I have applied I-140 under EB2 India.
I have BS(3 years) with computer science & MCA(MS 3 years) in computer science. So total 6 years of education in computer science(3 yrs BS + 3 yrs MS).
Also I have 1.5 years(18 months) of experience after completing my MS. I have submitted my experience letter at the time of filling labor But USCIS didn't ask anything regarding experience.
In labor(PERM) we mentioned Masters required
& Major field of study is Computers.
Do I qualify for EB2?? Plz let me know.
RFE details:
1) Degree evaluation(what's the procedure?)
&
2) They want most recent W2 for 2007.
In 2007(W2) I got paid $59K(gross) & in LCA(H1B) prevailing wage mentioned is $55k.
In labor(PERM) prevailing wage mentioned is $63K & offered wage mentioned is $65K.
Difference between W2 & Prevailing wage in labor(PERM) is $4000($63K - $59K).
Difference between W2 & Offered wage in labor(PERM) is $6000($65K - $59K).
Is this a serious problem???
My labor already got approved.
My company is financially very good.
Now which wage USCIS consider or match with W2??
I will really appreciate your response.
Thanks.
hairstyles selena gomez and justin bieber
kirupa
01-21 11:19 PM
I will go ahead and host them! Just give me a few hours...or days! :P
I was planning on hosting the entries for the final poll.
I was planning on hosting the entries for the final poll.
anilsal
10-12 12:06 PM
in the processing of receipts, EAD and AP. I know it is very frustrating to have not received your receipts.
All you can do is wait some more time AND call the 800 number once in a while to see if the receipt is being generated.
As long as you have a fedex tracking confirmation, you should be fine. The receipts will get generated.
All you can do is wait some more time AND call the 800 number once in a while to see if the receipt is being generated.
As long as you have a fedex tracking confirmation, you should be fine. The receipts will get generated.
surabhi
06-02 11:25 AM
Surabi. thanks a lot. gave a good insight. will contact an attorney.
but ONe thing I missed to mention : my h1 is only lottery-selected as of now.
So even if I apply for L1 extn, I dont know which might get approved first !! .
does that change anything ?
Nothing would change. If any, it'd be for better I guess.
So you dont know what the "last" action would be. If your L1 extension gets approved immediately with premium processing and H1 approval comes later with COS, then you dont have to go out.
If the situation is reversed, then it would be 1st or 3rd scenario, since 2nd scenario is not applicable.
but ONe thing I missed to mention : my h1 is only lottery-selected as of now.
So even if I apply for L1 extn, I dont know which might get approved first !! .
does that change anything ?
Nothing would change. If any, it'd be for better I guess.
So you dont know what the "last" action would be. If your L1 extension gets approved immediately with premium processing and H1 approval comes later with COS, then you dont have to go out.
If the situation is reversed, then it would be 1st or 3rd scenario, since 2nd scenario is not applicable.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق