hi_mkg
05-07 08:49 PM
Hi Friends,
Recently, my brother's wife got GC-rejection. Though, my brother has already received his GC. The reason is : her status was invalid for a month in US. She got different I-94 expiration date than him during her first visit in 1999, though they landed here together. But, her I-94 expired earlier than my brother and he extended her Visa based on his I-94 expiration date. My brother did not realize it until now.
What are her option now? The attorney is applying for re-consideration based on husband & kids status (US born), but, they said chances of the acceptance are very slim. They are well settled here. Now, they need to go back to India just because of her GC-rejection. And of course she can not come back here again unless she applies for H1-B. This is very devastating for them after living here for more than 10 yrs.
Has anyone faced similar situation earlier. I guess it is a very common mistake and there must be some solution. Please share your thoughts/experience.
Thanks,
hi_mkg
Recently, my brother's wife got GC-rejection. Though, my brother has already received his GC. The reason is : her status was invalid for a month in US. She got different I-94 expiration date than him during her first visit in 1999, though they landed here together. But, her I-94 expired earlier than my brother and he extended her Visa based on his I-94 expiration date. My brother did not realize it until now.
What are her option now? The attorney is applying for re-consideration based on husband & kids status (US born), but, they said chances of the acceptance are very slim. They are well settled here. Now, they need to go back to India just because of her GC-rejection. And of course she can not come back here again unless she applies for H1-B. This is very devastating for them after living here for more than 10 yrs.
Has anyone faced similar situation earlier. I guess it is a very common mistake and there must be some solution. Please share your thoughts/experience.
Thanks,
hi_mkg
wallpaper wade-air-jordan-sixty-plus
gc_rip
06-18 12:48 PM
Hi Gurus,
Please comment on my situation.
My current job, 140 is approved, and employer ready to file 485. But there is also a risk of layoff in coming 2 months. Employer won't revoke I-140, if he had to let me go.
I have another employer interested and has filed H1 transfer. I am in the 7th year of H1.
If I let current employer file I-485, and also get EAD/AP. Then if laid off after 2 months, and new employer ready to wait for 2 months from now, understanding the situation.
1. Can I join the new employer on H1, after 2 months. Will can cancel my I-485 processing automatically, even though the employer did not revoke the I-140?
2. Should I join the new employer on EAD, which will be approved for 1 year by then? Will there be risk of violation of AC21, and 485 or EAD renewal being rejected at later stage? And what would be a fall-back strategy in such case?
3. Just join the new employer, as it will be stable job. and not worry about the 485 date. It will be current again next year.
4. Is there any information, how the AC-21 works? Is it automatic, or do I need to file for some documents when I switch jobs. That would prevent me from taking any job before 6 months. But I may be laid off in 2 months.
Thanks in advance!
Please comment on my situation.
My current job, 140 is approved, and employer ready to file 485. But there is also a risk of layoff in coming 2 months. Employer won't revoke I-140, if he had to let me go.
I have another employer interested and has filed H1 transfer. I am in the 7th year of H1.
If I let current employer file I-485, and also get EAD/AP. Then if laid off after 2 months, and new employer ready to wait for 2 months from now, understanding the situation.
1. Can I join the new employer on H1, after 2 months. Will can cancel my I-485 processing automatically, even though the employer did not revoke the I-140?
2. Should I join the new employer on EAD, which will be approved for 1 year by then? Will there be risk of violation of AC21, and 485 or EAD renewal being rejected at later stage? And what would be a fall-back strategy in such case?
3. Just join the new employer, as it will be stable job. and not worry about the 485 date. It will be current again next year.
4. Is there any information, how the AC-21 works? Is it automatic, or do I need to file for some documents when I switch jobs. That would prevent me from taking any job before 6 months. But I may be laid off in 2 months.
Thanks in advance!
willigetagc
08-09 05:51 PM
then why is'nt NSC approving 2006 cases at the rate at which TSC is?
Its not just what year petitions are getting approvals, the two service centers are taking different approaches. That makes a mockery of the visa bulletin. Its almost NSC giving the middle finger to DOS saying, we dont care where you move dates, we'll approve whatever petitions we wnat, at whatever rate we want.
Don't you know? they hate each other. If TSC does somethin NSC will do the opposite. That makes for nice coffee room gossip...
All these folks have only one finger - the middle one... And that leads to a lot of miscommunications even if unintended!!! :D
Its not just what year petitions are getting approvals, the two service centers are taking different approaches. That makes a mockery of the visa bulletin. Its almost NSC giving the middle finger to DOS saying, we dont care where you move dates, we'll approve whatever petitions we wnat, at whatever rate we want.
Don't you know? they hate each other. If TSC does somethin NSC will do the opposite. That makes for nice coffee room gossip...
All these folks have only one finger - the middle one... And that leads to a lot of miscommunications even if unintended!!! :D
2011 New Dwyane Wade Shoes 2011
Robert Kumar
02-25 12:04 PM
The moment your H-1 is rejected and you dont have another underlying petition, you are technically out of status. You could apply for another H, but with a Consular Processing request. In other words you will be asked to leave the country and get a stamping before you start work again.
And not to affect your long term stay in the country, it is better to leave the country immediately.
One of my friends case was pending for more than 6 months with USCIS for H1B renewal, masters, and working at a client place. The employer checked with USCIS and they give a message " that the case needs further investigation".
What does this mean.
And not to affect your long term stay in the country, it is better to leave the country immediately.
One of my friends case was pending for more than 6 months with USCIS for H1B renewal, masters, and working at a client place. The employer checked with USCIS and they give a message " that the case needs further investigation".
What does this mean.
more...
ragz4u
03-25 12:43 PM
As per the information I received yesterday afternoon, IV's fax provider had already sent about 21,000 faxes and another 17,000+ were in the queue waiting to be sent. I just hope the fax provider's computer/fax machine does not overheat and burn :D
About 385 people had already clicked for sending faxes. This means that each senator will get atleast 385 faxes from IV. Not bad at all.
At the same time it just means that less than 30% of the members faxed.
The rest of the members of IV, what would make you guys participate in such activities in future? Is clicking the mouse 4 times that difficult? We really need to know what will spur you guys to do something FOR YOURSELF? Will you move only if you are told by the government to pack your bags?
Please let us know what we can do to get you involved?
About 385 people had already clicked for sending faxes. This means that each senator will get atleast 385 faxes from IV. Not bad at all.
At the same time it just means that less than 30% of the members faxed.
The rest of the members of IV, what would make you guys participate in such activities in future? Is clicking the mouse 4 times that difficult? We really need to know what will spur you guys to do something FOR YOURSELF? Will you move only if you are told by the government to pack your bags?
Please let us know what we can do to get you involved?
GCwaitforever
10-04 05:45 PM
Learn Dutch. That is more useful than French there.
more...
ski_dude12
05-04 02:34 PM
Thanks for the reply.
2010 D.Wade Debuts Air Jordan 11
Didiusthegreat
05-08 12:37 PM
funny score... :P
more...
logiclife
02-04 01:37 PM
The last line on this article may mean something for us. Hopefully.
http://tracypress.com/2006-02-04-nation-one.php
http://tracypress.com/2006-02-04-nation-one.php
hair D Wade broke out a new un-seen
jsb
01-28 02:03 PM
per my OP, my physical receipt said my "RECEIPT date" is July 30th.
but the ONLINE status said "it was RECEIVED on Sept 5th"\
I was mainly concern about the wording on the online statis "received on..."
how did you determine I was a NSC-CSC-NSC transfer case from that?
I am a little confused here.
thank you very much
Systems were designed when as soon as mail was recieved, it was entered in the system. Therefore, for practical purposes, data entry date was the receive date. Many centers, when they claim, "we process cases in order we receive them...", or "our processing is within prescribed time schedule limits...", they treat this data entry date as the received date (as they think until it reached them for data entry, it is not their responsibility). When files are shuffled around, there may be a big difference in these dates, but no one has ever clarified that issue.
but the ONLINE status said "it was RECEIVED on Sept 5th"\
I was mainly concern about the wording on the online statis "received on..."
how did you determine I was a NSC-CSC-NSC transfer case from that?
I am a little confused here.
thank you very much
Systems were designed when as soon as mail was recieved, it was entered in the system. Therefore, for practical purposes, data entry date was the receive date. Many centers, when they claim, "we process cases in order we receive them...", or "our processing is within prescribed time schedule limits...", they treat this data entry date as the received date (as they think until it reached them for data entry, it is not their responsibility). When files are shuffled around, there may be a big difference in these dates, but no one has ever clarified that issue.
more...
LostInGCProcess
08-18 12:00 AM
Hi All,
Please let me know, based on your personal experience, Does Change of Address 'triggers' an RFE from USCIS????
I recently found a project (after many months) and am working for this new employer on EAD. However, I have not vacated my old apt....still paying rent and keeping it as my current one, and sharing accommodation with others in the new city where I am working....because of the only reason that I fear, which is an RFE.
Please let me know.
Thanks.
Please let me know, based on your personal experience, Does Change of Address 'triggers' an RFE from USCIS????
I recently found a project (after many months) and am working for this new employer on EAD. However, I have not vacated my old apt....still paying rent and keeping it as my current one, and sharing accommodation with others in the new city where I am working....because of the only reason that I fear, which is an RFE.
Please let me know.
Thanks.
hot Dwyane Wade Air Jordans
boston_gc
06-05 08:33 PM
I am in the similar situation. I think we should be fine not renewing it as long as we don't use it.
Does anyone else has comments on this?
Does anyone else has comments on this?
more...
house Images of the Air Jordan 2011
Blog Feeds
01-14 08:20 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HrmmM9Zhq1c/S04tovssNVI/AAAAAAAAAYI/V_rZEIpt7vo/s200/uscisLogo.gif (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HrmmM9Zhq1c/S04tovssNVI/AAAAAAAAAYI/V_rZEIpt7vo/s1600-h/uscisLogo.gif)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
The US Citizenship and Immigration Service has issued a long memorandum (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf) on what constitutes an "employer-employee" relationship for H-1B purposes. This should be especially interesting to H-1B workers and employers with consulting or contracting arrangements.
US immigration regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(4)(ii)) require, among other things, that a H-1B petitioner "Has an employer-employee relationship with respect to employees under this part, as indicated by the fact that it may hire, pay, fire, supervise, or otherwise control the work of any such employee"
CIS acknowledges that the lack of guidance defining what constitutes a valid employer-employee relationship has caused problems, especially when employees such as consultants or contractors are placed at 3rd-party sites. In these situations, the petitioner might not be able to show the required control over the employee's work. CIS considers that the "right to control" the employee's work is critical. The memo stresses that the right to control is different to actual control. To analyze the control, CIS looks at:
Does the petitioner supervise the beneficiary and is such supervision off-site or on-site?
If the supervision is off-site, how does the petitioner maintain such supervision, i. e. weekly calls, reporting back to main office routinely, or site visits by the petitioner?
Does the petitioner have the right to control the work of the beneficiary on a day-to-day basis if such control is required?
Does the petitioner provide the tools or instrumentalities needed for the beneficiary to perform the duties of employment?
Does the petitioner hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary?
Does the petitioner evaluate the work-product of the beneficiary, i.e. progress/performance reviews?
Does the petitioner claim the beneficiary for tax purposes?
Does the petitioner provide the beneficiary with any type of employee benefits?
Does the beneficiary use proprietary information of the petitioner in order to perform the duties of employment?
Does the beneficiary produce an end-product that is directly linked to the petitioner's line of business?
Can the petitioner control the manner and means in which the work product of the beneficiary is accomplished?
The CIS Memo describes various different employment relationships, and states whether they meet the regulatory requirements. Those which CIS considers do not comply with regulations include:
Self employment;
Independent contractors;
"Job shops".
The memo describes, in detail, the evidence that can be submitted to prove an employer-employee relationship, especially where the employee will be working off-site.
The memo also notes that petitions must show compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) which states:
Service or training in more than one location. A petition that requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training and must be filed with USCIS as provided in the form instructions. The address that the petitioner specifies as its location on the Form I-129 shall be where the petitioner is located for purposes of this paragraph.
The memo notes that to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), the petitioner must "submit a complete itinerary of services or engagements that specifies the dates of each service or engagement, the names and addresses of the actual employers, and the names and addresses of the establishment, venues, or locations where the services will be performed for the period of time requested. Compliance with 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B) assists USCIS in determining that the petitioner has concrete plans in place for a particular beneficiary, that the beneficiary is performing duties in a specialty occupation, and that the beneficiary is not being "benched" without pay between assignments." Submitting a detailed itinerary for the next 3 years will be very difficult for many employers who place employees out on contracts.
This memo has just been published today, and there will undoubtedly be many more rticles published that analyze the provisions.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-2453679137512034994?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/cis-issues-memo-on-employer-employee.html)
tattoo Air Jordan 2011 – Dwyane Wade
HRPRO
02-25 12:15 PM
One of my friends case was pending for more than 6 months with USCIS for H1B renewal, masters, and working at a client place. The employer checked with USCIS and they give a message " that the case needs further investigation".
What does this mean.
Robert
It means that they are either not satisfied that the job meets the speciality occupation criteria or the credentials of the employee/employer/any of the document s provided. They will conduct an investigation and your friend will hear from them upon completion of thier investigation.
HRPRO
What does this mean.
Robert
It means that they are either not satisfied that the job meets the speciality occupation criteria or the credentials of the employee/employer/any of the document s provided. They will conduct an investigation and your friend will hear from them upon completion of thier investigation.
HRPRO
more...
pictures The Air Jordan 2011 is hitting
jindal_sanjeev
06-23 01:59 PM
Thanks for the response guys.
I will have to pay penalty if i amend my return. But i guess to be on the safe side i will have to do that.
I will have to pay penalty if i amend my return. But i guess to be on the safe side i will have to do that.
dresses Air Jordan 2011 White Black
Chiwere
06-11 03:22 PM
what about the people who are beyond their 6 year H1B term -extending it every year. The USCIS website does not provide any indication for those.
Looks like it applies only to people with 6 year term expiring and labor applied/approved < 365 days. A very small subset of people perhaps but they needed immediate relief.
Looks like it applies only to people with 6 year term expiring and labor applied/approved < 365 days. A very small subset of people perhaps but they needed immediate relief.
more...
makeup Dwyane+wade+jordan+shoes+
TomPlate
12-12 09:26 PM
thanks ram for your message. where did you cut and paste? see if you have any soft LUD?
girlfriend NBA Kicks: Dwyane Wade Rockin#39;
spicy_guy
08-05 01:54 PM
I think he should consider awarding citizenship to LONG waiting GC applicants. :D
hairstyles Dwyane Wade had an exceptional
bkn96
11-25 12:25 PM
hi kprgroup,
congratulation.. I am in same situation. My previous employer withdrawn approved 140, I moved to new employer after 1 year of 485 pending. I didn't filed AC21 papers and currently working on EAD not in H1 staus.
I left PM to you.
congratulation.. I am in same situation. My previous employer withdrawn approved 140, I moved to new employer after 1 year of 485 pending. I didn't filed AC21 papers and currently working on EAD not in H1 staus.
I left PM to you.
go_gc_way
08-29 03:32 PM
But how will get your final step completed ... which is consular processing.
I was thinking you need your passlips (?) as proof of employment.
Sorry if I am pulling this to the top of discussion forums, this is an interesting question, given there will be many people stuck with retrogression and not being able to apply 485.
I was thinking you need your passlips (?) as proof of employment.
Sorry if I am pulling this to the top of discussion forums, this is an interesting question, given there will be many people stuck with retrogression and not being able to apply 485.
venky08
11-02 11:17 PM
time is running out...looks like they will keep on playing this game till the elections...unless the media kicks in and starts painting the negative picture about the plight of employment based immigration. currently its only is dominant in newspapers etc. the visual media is still dominated by likes of Dobbs.
one thing what we can do is start writing emails to the ombudsman cisombudsman@dhs.gov
i think everybody shall start telling their stories and give the ombudsman a bulleted list about what needs to happen to fix the broken system...just a thought...it may have a chance of better visibility.
i may be too naive but nevertheless why miss the opportunity to spread the word around...
one thing what we can do is start writing emails to the ombudsman cisombudsman@dhs.gov
i think everybody shall start telling their stories and give the ombudsman a bulleted list about what needs to happen to fix the broken system...just a thought...it may have a chance of better visibility.
i may be too naive but nevertheless why miss the opportunity to spread the word around...