Sunx_2004
08-01 11:17 AM
Her H1 is valid from Oct. onward, You can still file her status as H4. Apply for EAD and AP also. Hope this help.
Cheers
My wife's current H4 is valid till Nov. She got her H1 also approved from Oct'2007. She checked the status this morning only on USCIS.
I'm applying for I-485 and adding her as spouse. Should I file for her advance parole and put her status as H4 in it? What happens to to her H1 approval, if advanced parole gets approved also. Will she loose her H1 status?
any ideas??
Cheers
My wife's current H4 is valid till Nov. She got her H1 also approved from Oct'2007. She checked the status this morning only on USCIS.
I'm applying for I-485 and adding her as spouse. Should I file for her advance parole and put her status as H4 in it? What happens to to her H1 approval, if advanced parole gets approved also. Will she loose her H1 status?
any ideas??
pointlesswait
06-17 11:30 AM
i know that there was post on the forum what to say..when you call..cant find it now..
can anyone post the link here..plz!
Don't think that your call doesn't matter.. They do take the number of person called for the same issue and this is the response i got from CHC Dennis Cardoza's office...
Dennis Cardoza : Well aware of the bills, i was number 15 for friday the 13th and when i asked for total number, she said we have received 100 or so calls for these bills....
And two or three lawmakers office said that we are reviewing the bills at the moment.. so definitely a positive sign...
So grab your phone and reach out to house reps... Just try to call 2 members and i bet that you will finish the rest of the calls and you'll reply to my message so you can share your experience and encourage others.
can anyone post the link here..plz!
Don't think that your call doesn't matter.. They do take the number of person called for the same issue and this is the response i got from CHC Dennis Cardoza's office...
Dennis Cardoza : Well aware of the bills, i was number 15 for friday the 13th and when i asked for total number, she said we have received 100 or so calls for these bills....
And two or three lawmakers office said that we are reviewing the bills at the moment.. so definitely a positive sign...
So grab your phone and reach out to house reps... Just try to call 2 members and i bet that you will finish the rest of the calls and you'll reply to my message so you can share your experience and encourage others.
CantLeaveAmerica
04-01 11:05 AM
Here is the answer! Your filing date was July2, 07. If you filed with NSC, in Feb they had moved their processing dates to July 18th. So your case was assigned to officer for review and he called for interview!.
Then he made a decision: Case approvable pending visa availability!
Hope that helps!
Yes, what Vinnysuru said makes sense completely and seems to be the apt explanation for your case. I have a question though if I may ask?
What did the Immigration officer ask you and what were your answers? Any input from you will be appreciated by all of us if someone here gets an interview call too :)
Then he made a decision: Case approvable pending visa availability!
Hope that helps!
Yes, what Vinnysuru said makes sense completely and seems to be the apt explanation for your case. I have a question though if I may ask?
What did the Immigration officer ask you and what were your answers? Any input from you will be appreciated by all of us if someone here gets an interview call too :)
andy garcia
11-08 01:48 PM
Do you mean EB based AOS alone is 655K? 1.3 million is I-130 petition which is different from AOS.
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Both require a I-485 to adjust status
more...
Blog Feeds
01-26 08:40 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)
tabletpc
12-15 11:54 AM
Atul555:
Cool down. Nothing to be warried. Since you are married, 485 is not of much help. So you should think of maintaining h1b in order to keep your wife status h4.
1. With cool mind start applying for jobs, increase network. To be on safer side. find a good consultant. Ping me if you need help in finding a good consulatant. Yes when say good consualtant..he is good...!!!!
you still have 4 months time. SO cheer up.
My 2 cents..don't think of using EAD & keeping u r wife on foloow to join blah blah....!!!!
Also if you change your job , your GC journey you had so far will not get wasted. You don't have to file Labour/i-40 again. Make sure the new job is same or similiar. Discuss with your potential employer, they will help you.
Whats your area of work..??Are you into IT...????
My company is surplussing me among other employees to be laid off around Apr 2009.
My case is as follows:
Case EB3 India
PD Mar 2004
Labor and I-140 approved
I-485 filed during Jun-Jul 2007 rush, FP done, waiting for PD to become current
Right now I am working on H1-B extension, and to make things complicated, I got married in Jul 2008 and brought spouse on H4.
I am not sure which avenue is the best for me, I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
Cool down. Nothing to be warried. Since you are married, 485 is not of much help. So you should think of maintaining h1b in order to keep your wife status h4.
1. With cool mind start applying for jobs, increase network. To be on safer side. find a good consultant. Ping me if you need help in finding a good consulatant. Yes when say good consualtant..he is good...!!!!
you still have 4 months time. SO cheer up.
My 2 cents..don't think of using EAD & keeping u r wife on foloow to join blah blah....!!!!
Also if you change your job , your GC journey you had so far will not get wasted. You don't have to file Labour/i-40 again. Make sure the new job is same or similiar. Discuss with your potential employer, they will help you.
Whats your area of work..??Are you into IT...????
My company is surplussing me among other employees to be laid off around Apr 2009.
My case is as follows:
Case EB3 India
PD Mar 2004
Labor and I-140 approved
I-485 filed during Jun-Jul 2007 rush, FP done, waiting for PD to become current
Right now I am working on H1-B extension, and to make things complicated, I got married in Jul 2008 and brought spouse on H4.
I am not sure which avenue is the best for me, I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
more...
eb3retro
04-17 04:44 PM
I didnt sign this petition.
gcnirvana
05-12 01:42 PM
Thanks for your template but also please include IV's name wherever possible so that they can contact IV for a full coverage.
I Used their tool but sent the folllowing message
Greetings. My name is XXXXXXXXXXXXX. I
am a citizen of India and have been living in the United States for close
to 7 years on a H1b visa and work as a Senior Software Consultant catering
to various Ammerican clients and my employer is located in Irving, Texas.
My Green Card petition was filed by my employer under the EB2 category and
my I 140 petition has been approved, but I am unable to file for i485
(Adjustment of Status) because visa numbers are not available. My wife is
also on a H1b visa and is a first year resident physician at a Community
Hospital in Brooklyn, New York on a H1b visa.
Based on the fact that we have been law abiding tax paying legal
immigrants, we would like to reach out to you and let you know our issues.
Our main issue is career stagnation. Unavilability of visa number
(retrogression) locks us up with the same employer for years together and
does not allow us to grow careerwise and unable to make critical and life
decisions.
We duly understand that there is a 7% per country upper limit when
Visa numbers are allocated and the fact that India and China has been over
subscribed. These caps and limits are hurting us. STRIVE ACT and SKIL
Bill have provisions to raise the cap and we would like to support these
bills and the provisions.
High tech and health care are sectors where highly skilled immigrants
from all over the world are attracted to and want to contribute in the
best ways we can to pursue our American dream. We would like to contribute
to the growth and development of America in the best possible way. Please
support us and help us in our cause.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXX
718XXXXXXXX
I Used their tool but sent the folllowing message
Greetings. My name is XXXXXXXXXXXXX. I
am a citizen of India and have been living in the United States for close
to 7 years on a H1b visa and work as a Senior Software Consultant catering
to various Ammerican clients and my employer is located in Irving, Texas.
My Green Card petition was filed by my employer under the EB2 category and
my I 140 petition has been approved, but I am unable to file for i485
(Adjustment of Status) because visa numbers are not available. My wife is
also on a H1b visa and is a first year resident physician at a Community
Hospital in Brooklyn, New York on a H1b visa.
Based on the fact that we have been law abiding tax paying legal
immigrants, we would like to reach out to you and let you know our issues.
Our main issue is career stagnation. Unavilability of visa number
(retrogression) locks us up with the same employer for years together and
does not allow us to grow careerwise and unable to make critical and life
decisions.
We duly understand that there is a 7% per country upper limit when
Visa numbers are allocated and the fact that India and China has been over
subscribed. These caps and limits are hurting us. STRIVE ACT and SKIL
Bill have provisions to raise the cap and we would like to support these
bills and the provisions.
High tech and health care are sectors where highly skilled immigrants
from all over the world are attracted to and want to contribute in the
best ways we can to pursue our American dream. We would like to contribute
to the growth and development of America in the best possible way. Please
support us and help us in our cause.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXXXX
718XXXXXXXX
more...
morchu
04-21 01:35 PM
See my answers below:
a) Yes. You need to file another H1B+COS and wait for its approval. Wont be counted in cap.
b) Yes, you can. It is a simple application. You may even travel outside of USA and get an H4 stamp from a US consulate in India/Canada/Mexico, without any COS application.
c) Yes you can file for AOS. But at the time of filing of AOS you should have an "intention" to join the employer permanently, and the offered permanent position should be available at that time, and the employer should have an "intention" to employ you permanently.
You can file for Consular Processing, but for that you might need to file an I-824 now.
Again the same things mentioned above for AOS applies.
-Morchu
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
thank you!
a) Yes. You need to file another H1B+COS and wait for its approval. Wont be counted in cap.
b) Yes, you can. It is a simple application. You may even travel outside of USA and get an H4 stamp from a US consulate in India/Canada/Mexico, without any COS application.
c) Yes you can file for AOS. But at the time of filing of AOS you should have an "intention" to join the employer permanently, and the offered permanent position should be available at that time, and the employer should have an "intention" to employ you permanently.
You can file for Consular Processing, but for that you might need to file an I-824 now.
Again the same things mentioned above for AOS applies.
-Morchu
a.) If i switch to H4 and after few months i get a project..can i go back to H1..->
b.) Can i file for H4 on my own..is it complicated?
c.) if i change to H4..and my PD becomes current (PD Dec 2005)
.) Can i file for AOS..as my 140 is approved..
.) Suppose i go back to desh ..can i file for consular processing..if my PD become current
thank you!
gcwait2007
07-20 11:37 AM
I am in Austin
more...
r50000
07-27 08:04 PM
Why would your employer do that unless you did something inappropriate?
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
whatever is the reason of revoking ? I just want to know if employer revokes an approved I140 withing 180 days of filling, will the employee know about it.
thanks!
As long as the employee does not not step out of line. He has nothing to worry. In this case, the only problem is layoffs for unavoidable reasons in which case it is not the employee's fault. In such situations, the employer will not revoke the 140.
whatever is the reason of revoking ? I just want to know if employer revokes an approved I140 withing 180 days of filling, will the employee know about it.
thanks!
grupak
08-04 12:12 PM
IMHO, your best bet probably is filing another I-485 linking it with the new I-140 (EB2).
Also, send a copy of the old EB3 I-140 asking them to port the old date when you file a new I-485.
You can try to "interfile" but its an unsolicited mail as far as USCIS is concerned. There is no official form, does not generate a receipt number, and no sure way of knowing if USCIS acted on your request.
Also, send a copy of the old EB3 I-140 asking them to port the old date when you file a new I-485.
You can try to "interfile" but its an unsolicited mail as far as USCIS is concerned. There is no official form, does not generate a receipt number, and no sure way of knowing if USCIS acted on your request.
more...
nobody
05-27 02:16 PM
soul's sucks=)
VMH_GC
07-13 11:13 AM
:) Have every one wear white as the color of peace/silent protest/sadness.
As he says, Wear a white kurtha/Shirt.
Suit is also not a bad idea, but whatever be the dress, guys going to rally, pls. ensure your unity in dress code as well.
As he says, Wear a white kurtha/Shirt.
Suit is also not a bad idea, but whatever be the dress, guys going to rally, pls. ensure your unity in dress code as well.
more...
angelfire76
01-16 03:44 PM
3-4 people from MSFT and couple from Nordstrom who got laid off last week.
This economy really blows.
This economy really blows.
priderock
05-15 12:48 PM
Is there already a poll like this for EB3?
Yes I have seen one for EB3 ...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4440
Yes I have seen one for EB3 ...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4440
more...
jungalee43
12-11 11:01 AM
Very good catch. South Korea (& Philipines) falls under ROW and got a lot more EB3 visas than India. So if EB3 is born in South Korea, s/he would get GC in three years where as we are rotting for last eight years. The only reason is the country of birth. How unfair and discriminatory! Is this pre-planned?? And hardly any lawmaker is concerned. Hard to believe this is USA.
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
S Korea 1,923 7,125 4,727
Philippines 310 2,057 5,625
UK 3,472 2,043 909
Canada 2,368 3,404 1,207
Mexico 1,457 1,348 4,021
Now the question is why is there no 7% quota for South Korea ?
Country EB1 EB2 EB3
S Korea 1,923 7,125 4,727
Philippines 310 2,057 5,625
UK 3,472 2,043 909
Canada 2,368 3,404 1,207
Mexico 1,457 1,348 4,021
Now the question is why is there no 7% quota for South Korea ?
priti8888
10-05 11:56 AM
How can someone with EB3 with a later PD get GC before me? If he has been approved there should be valid reason why mine is not approved, the reason should be something other than USCIS ineffeciency.
Because his RD is before yours. When a PD is current , GC is isssued based on RD.So if your PD is May 2002, but RD is July 2007. and another guys PD is May 2004 but his RD is June 2007...The other guy will get GC first.
In july uscis assigned visa numbers to variious cases with older RD regardless of PD.Hence, you will see approvals in the coming month, inspite of the fact that their PD is not current.
Because his RD is before yours. When a PD is current , GC is isssued based on RD.So if your PD is May 2002, but RD is July 2007. and another guys PD is May 2004 but his RD is June 2007...The other guy will get GC first.
In july uscis assigned visa numbers to variious cases with older RD regardless of PD.Hence, you will see approvals in the coming month, inspite of the fact that their PD is not current.
Openarms
10-03 10:17 AM
Even PA DMV also adopted more troublesome procedure of giving DL to the LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Even after having VALID EAD DOCUMENT, verifying ORIGINAL USCIS documents and ORIGINAL SOCIAL SECURITY CARD why DMV want to check status with USCIS again?
What do they get out of that process?? Seems like another way of harassing LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Why redundant procedures???... Why to waste tax payers money with these kinds of redundant policies??
Why individual states like PA, GA and SC adopting these policies??
Please share your experiences from other states if any similar sort.
Even after having VALID EAD DOCUMENT, verifying ORIGINAL USCIS documents and ORIGINAL SOCIAL SECURITY CARD why DMV want to check status with USCIS again?
What do they get out of that process?? Seems like another way of harassing LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Why redundant procedures???... Why to waste tax payers money with these kinds of redundant policies??
Why individual states like PA, GA and SC adopting these policies??
Please share your experiences from other states if any similar sort.
vedicman
01-20 01:46 PM
Any EB3 here?
Famous American Immigrants � Immigration Update (http://immigrationupdate.wordpress.com/famous-american-immigrants/)
Even your link does not provide which category these immigrants came from - possibly because employment category did not exist, they came early in childhood with parents......
Besides stop creating the rift between the categories in this forum!
Einstein - Germany
Madeleine Albright: Czechoslovakia
John Muir: Scotland
Joseph Pulitzer Hungary
Felix Frankfurter: Austria
Martina Navratilova: Czechoslovakia
Irving Berlin: Russia
Saint Frances X. Cabrini: Italy
Mary Harris Jones: Ireland
Edward M. Bannister: Canada
Rita M. Rodriguez: Cuba
Ieoh Ming Pei: China
Subranhmanyan Chandrasekhar: India
David Ho: Taiwan
Ang Lee: Taiwan
Hakeem Olajuwon: Nigeria
Famous American Immigrants � Immigration Update (http://immigrationupdate.wordpress.com/famous-american-immigrants/)
Even your link does not provide which category these immigrants came from - possibly because employment category did not exist, they came early in childhood with parents......
Besides stop creating the rift between the categories in this forum!
Einstein - Germany
Madeleine Albright: Czechoslovakia
John Muir: Scotland
Joseph Pulitzer Hungary
Felix Frankfurter: Austria
Martina Navratilova: Czechoslovakia
Irving Berlin: Russia
Saint Frances X. Cabrini: Italy
Mary Harris Jones: Ireland
Edward M. Bannister: Canada
Rita M. Rodriguez: Cuba
Ieoh Ming Pei: China
Subranhmanyan Chandrasekhar: India
David Ho: Taiwan
Ang Lee: Taiwan
Hakeem Olajuwon: Nigeria
aj2000
01-09 03:51 PM
and so are 26 other consultants in her department. All of them are being replaced by permanent employees by client from other departments.. Basically, tough times like these., consultants are the first to be kicked out. I am awaiting my turn :(
No comments:
Post a Comment