ash27
04-02 04:35 PM
Could somebody please advice if contract work on W2 as a primary employment is ok?
santa123
07-17 12:51 PM
Anyone??
shivaz90
07-16 10:40 PM
It's pretty strange..I really don't understand...why the entire credit is either being given to IV...or for that matter to AILA/AILF....Everyone has contributed....
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
People about to file I-485 have spread the word to everyone abt the injustice done to them...whereas each organization has done its own thing...
I won't blame or taunt AILA/AILF....because the idea of class lawsuit itself would have scared a lot of people in USCIS.....that also coming from legal organization...And filing a lawsuit takes time...there r lot of things to be considered..
Well .. lets think for a second before trumpeting our victory here. And Victory, I mean is not achieved by one group over the other. Various groups and parties have put in thier efforts to find a resolution and to cast blame on one another is playing some childish games.
Lets leave out our passion for a second and think "logically" for a second - which one of this scares the s*** out of the USCIS people here - flower campaign or a Class action lawsuit by bunch of immigration lawyers? I am not doubting anyone's efforts here - but to say that we have achieved victory here is too early, too short sighted and blaming other groups for not doing much is silly. As much as the flower campaign help spread the word among the media of the plight of legal immigrants - the proposed lawsuit has made USCIS tremble in thier pants.
Sheikh - couldn't agree more here with you.
Hermione
09-27 08:49 AM
Law abiding? I beg to differ. Application for asylum goes to court only if the petitioner spent more than one year illegally in the US.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
That does not change the fact that the immigration system is broken, I just want to point out that what is considered to be "law abiding" or "law breaker" is aften very-very relative. We are all in the same boat.
more...
kanshul
04-23 09:48 AM
Also remember that the client may not be happy with the small consulting firm who is threatning...
Do you have a middle layer (preferred vendor)? Does your employer have other working on the client site? In either case the employer faces serious possiblity of losing businesss in the future.
Talk to your client manager and I can assure you that no court will hold your employer's reasoning as valid.
What state are you in? In NJ your employer is not even considered an employer but an employmend agency so no non compete holds...
Do you have a middle layer (preferred vendor)? Does your employer have other working on the client site? In either case the employer faces serious possiblity of losing businesss in the future.
Talk to your client manager and I can assure you that no court will hold your employer's reasoning as valid.
What state are you in? In NJ your employer is not even considered an employer but an employmend agency so no non compete holds...
indyanguy
01-13 07:39 PM
Do they send you a copy of the original?
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
Hi All,
Thanks for your patience. I was busy yesterday and I would like to provide you all proper information what I sent to FOIA. Here is the information I got from my folders.
1) You need to fill the form G-639 to get the I-140 documents.
2) Provide as much Information as possible about your case. Some of you doesn't have the Receipt Number, they may also fill the form G-639 and provide any other information you have. (Ex: Provide with thorough description of your case in a separate paper.)
3) After filling the form, Notarise it (Your bank will do it)
4) Attach all the documents with this form and send it to:
USCIS National Record Center
FOIA Division
PO Box: 648010
Lee Summit, MO 64064 - 5570
5) There is no fee to submit this form. You will receive a receipt# within a week how they will process your request.
6) There is no way your Employer/Lawyer know about it. Its in between you and FOIA Division.
I feel myself proud to provide all these details to you since I know how difficult to stay with a blody sucking parasite Employer. I spent lot of sleepless nights and I decided to fight with bad/rogue Employers.
Please keep in touch if you have any other details.
Bhanu
more...
CrazyBoys
01-31 11:50 PM
Normally VISA bulletine gets advertised atleast 15-20 days before date becomes current. You can apply for your wife's I-485 during that time (Mostly from 1st day of the month). I don't know there is any grace period after I-485 is approved. It is better to file for I-485 as soon as date gets current to avoid any risk.
satishku_2000
02-21 01:09 PM
I saw that in morning , trust me its one of those things I do on my laptop everyday in the morning.
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
I try to access the page now and it shows the old one ...hehe :mad: ..
Hopefully they are in the process of correcting/retracting ...
more...
jay21
07-19 10:10 PM
hi, can the spouse travel outside after applying for I-485 but before getting the AP? Suppose during her stay abroad if the primary applicant's GC is approved? Her H4 will not be valid in that case. but can she use the visa waiver to gain entry back into the country? Will the receipt of I-485 help in anyway? thanx.
samrat_bhargava_vihari
06-25 03:50 PM
Why he sent before date?
Guru's Is it right that after filling 485, USCIS will process application according to PD(2003,2004,2005 like that) ?
or USCIS will process application with the date 485 application received?
or i am missing something over here.
Thanks
They will process applications based on receipt date. But approval will happen only if your PD is current. That means if
CASE A with PD 2003
CASE B with PD 2005
CASE C with PD 2007
Say all file in July and if dates gets retrogess some time in OCT or before to 2006.
Say for CASE A and CASE C all process is done( name check,... every thing but not approval) and CASE B is stuck in name check.
then CASE A will be approved because A process is complete and PD is current
CASE B will be pending waiting to clear name check though the PD is current
Once name check done and PD is current this will approve.
CASE C will not be approved though processing is complete PD is not current
once PD become current CASE C will approve.
This is just example to explain how it works.
Guru's Is it right that after filling 485, USCIS will process application according to PD(2003,2004,2005 like that) ?
or USCIS will process application with the date 485 application received?
or i am missing something over here.
Thanks
They will process applications based on receipt date. But approval will happen only if your PD is current. That means if
CASE A with PD 2003
CASE B with PD 2005
CASE C with PD 2007
Say all file in July and if dates gets retrogess some time in OCT or before to 2006.
Say for CASE A and CASE C all process is done( name check,... every thing but not approval) and CASE B is stuck in name check.
then CASE A will be approved because A process is complete and PD is current
CASE B will be pending waiting to clear name check though the PD is current
Once name check done and PD is current this will approve.
CASE C will not be approved though processing is complete PD is not current
once PD become current CASE C will approve.
This is just example to explain how it works.
more...
don_don
06-25 08:43 AM
If I were you, I would wait till it is 1st of July. What if they reject it,,u loose more time than saving!
number30
07-26 02:12 PM
In India 3 year grad are arts, humanities, science, management and accounting.
while 4+ year degrees are for technology, engineering, agriculture, medicine.
UK (some parts of europe as well) and Australia seems to have similar system in some of its university.
even some US universities have rightly adopted the same
fsu.edu | degree in 3 (http://www.degreein3.fsu.edu/)
Degree in Three Program Description (http://www.ecu.edu/threeyeardegree/)
Panola College Degree in 3 Program (http://legacy.panola.edu/instruction/degree_3/index.html)
The point is the content is more important than the duration.
I personally think 3year UG unlikely reason for reopening I140 after GC is approved. I would be shocked if that is the case.
I am afraid this could be a paper chase. Asking more docs to creating headache for the applicant.
U.S. steps up H-1B, green card assault with paper chase (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135552/U.S._steps_up_H_1B_green_card_assault_with_paper_c hase)
It is better to consult attorney to handle it properly.
The issue not the three year degree But It is 16 year education or 15 year education to attain the degree. In UK it still takes 16 years education to attain the Bachelors.
while 4+ year degrees are for technology, engineering, agriculture, medicine.
UK (some parts of europe as well) and Australia seems to have similar system in some of its university.
even some US universities have rightly adopted the same
fsu.edu | degree in 3 (http://www.degreein3.fsu.edu/)
Degree in Three Program Description (http://www.ecu.edu/threeyeardegree/)
Panola College Degree in 3 Program (http://legacy.panola.edu/instruction/degree_3/index.html)
The point is the content is more important than the duration.
I personally think 3year UG unlikely reason for reopening I140 after GC is approved. I would be shocked if that is the case.
I am afraid this could be a paper chase. Asking more docs to creating headache for the applicant.
U.S. steps up H-1B, green card assault with paper chase (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135552/U.S._steps_up_H_1B_green_card_assault_with_paper_c hase)
It is better to consult attorney to handle it properly.
The issue not the three year degree But It is 16 year education or 15 year education to attain the degree. In UK it still takes 16 years education to attain the Bachelors.
more...
seahawks
07-19 08:32 PM
I work in CA, my I140 is approved from NSC.
But the lawyer sent the 485 to TSC.
I just went over the I-485 form and it clearly says to send the I-485 employment based applications to NSC
Employment-based adjustment of status.
File all employment-based adjustment of statusapplications at the following address:
USCIS Nebraska Service CenterP.O. Box 87485Lincoln, NE 68501-7485
Did my lawyer screw up?
No, there are two theories, usually if your I-140 was approved from TSC, then 485 gets filed there. Most of the 485's got to Texas these days. Now if it was send in any of them, they usually forward it to the right center.
I am from WA, mine I-140 was filed in TSC and so was my 485. They have different clauses like if you file concurrently, if your I-140 was approved and soo on.. so what is given online is not very clear. Don't worry, things will be fine. If you feel you are confused, always call USCIS and they will provide you the input.
Not an attorney, just an observation and reading. I know lot of people filed in NSC and they got forwarded by NSC to TSC!
But the lawyer sent the 485 to TSC.
I just went over the I-485 form and it clearly says to send the I-485 employment based applications to NSC
Employment-based adjustment of status.
File all employment-based adjustment of statusapplications at the following address:
USCIS Nebraska Service CenterP.O. Box 87485Lincoln, NE 68501-7485
Did my lawyer screw up?
No, there are two theories, usually if your I-140 was approved from TSC, then 485 gets filed there. Most of the 485's got to Texas these days. Now if it was send in any of them, they usually forward it to the right center.
I am from WA, mine I-140 was filed in TSC and so was my 485. They have different clauses like if you file concurrently, if your I-140 was approved and soo on.. so what is given online is not very clear. Don't worry, things will be fine. If you feel you are confused, always call USCIS and they will provide you the input.
Not an attorney, just an observation and reading. I know lot of people filed in NSC and they got forwarded by NSC to TSC!
jvs_annapurna
04-12 03:13 PM
Ya, it is my first extension
sent RFE asking that Client letter on the original letter head.
which I couldnt get, but sent the vendor letter stating my duties and date from which started working etc even the copy of the client badge with photo on it is attached in reply to RFE.
But Its denied thats is not enough to prove that you are working at that client place and location. and it seems the employer i.e my h1 company is just token employer.
but I know the clock started from 31st march am in out of status.
will i able wipe out out of status as it effect in future ?
does MTR works or do I need to the appeal ?
What are chances of my transfer ?
Please gurus advise?
Thanks
jvs
sent RFE asking that Client letter on the original letter head.
which I couldnt get, but sent the vendor letter stating my duties and date from which started working etc even the copy of the client badge with photo on it is attached in reply to RFE.
But Its denied thats is not enough to prove that you are working at that client place and location. and it seems the employer i.e my h1 company is just token employer.
but I know the clock started from 31st march am in out of status.
will i able wipe out out of status as it effect in future ?
does MTR works or do I need to the appeal ?
What are chances of my transfer ?
Please gurus advise?
Thanks
jvs
more...
mchundi
03-15 12:30 PM
hi Super_Moderator,
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Guys,
This is a complex issue. That one point may have been the reason S-1932 did not go thru. It gives an impression as if 1/2 million employment based G.C's will be dumped into the market, but in reality the USCIS is able to process around 200k G.C's per year.
The current provisions in the CIRB target several areas and likely to keep the dates current for EB-1,2,3 current for a couple of years.
Our consultants have advised us well in this regard, if they have done so.
--MC
Why cant we try to add now..instead of waiting for later time..to add this ammendment thru some senator or somebody for filing 485 during retrogression...
just to know whey we need to wait for later to add this...
Guys,
This is a complex issue. That one point may have been the reason S-1932 did not go thru. It gives an impression as if 1/2 million employment based G.C's will be dumped into the market, but in reality the USCIS is able to process around 200k G.C's per year.
The current provisions in the CIRB target several areas and likely to keep the dates current for EB-1,2,3 current for a couple of years.
Our consultants have advised us well in this regard, if they have done so.
--MC
santb1975
02-14 05:12 PM
and we can.
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
Great to see this thread... gotta keep it on top!
TOGETHER, WE SHALL BRING HOME THE TROPHY!
more...
seahawks
07-21 09:52 AM
I still can't imagine Sen Hillary Clinton did not support legal immigrations..hmm, may be when we send it to Obama, he can take it up with his opponent to get her support too.. who knows, it is all a tricky issue
reddymjm
05-01 10:01 AM
I had applied for labour in 2001 and also applied for i 140 and i 485 in 2002 .My h1 had exausted 7 years and since my i 94 was becoming in valid i was suggested by my lawyer to either stay here in usa without job and wait till i get the reciept notice and ead from uscis .Since financially my situation was very tight with a baby on the way .i decided to leave for india .Now i am here again since last 4 years .When i was in india i asked my lawyer if we can do any thing like counsalar processing etc (here in this case i had paid huge amount to the lawyer,i was paying for my gc process ).the lawyer told me that nothing can be done as he has withdrawn the i 140 .
Now after 2 years i came (or had to come back) to usa .my new employer started the ggc process this year .Since i needed full information of my previous process to complete the forms i contacted old lawyer .he send me the papers and i was so shocked to see that they did not withdraw any thing my i 140 was approved 4 months after i left and my fingerprinting is due since 2002 .I just wish my lawyer had told me the truth .we could have cp or come back .
it took a day for me to overcome the frustration of what had happened .
and now my major concern is 1.that with one case pending ,i dont know how it is going to effect the new case
2.is there any thing i can do to reopen my old case .
Take a paid consultation with Murthy.com if you can ask for Murthy only.
Good Luck.
Now after 2 years i came (or had to come back) to usa .my new employer started the ggc process this year .Since i needed full information of my previous process to complete the forms i contacted old lawyer .he send me the papers and i was so shocked to see that they did not withdraw any thing my i 140 was approved 4 months after i left and my fingerprinting is due since 2002 .I just wish my lawyer had told me the truth .we could have cp or come back .
it took a day for me to overcome the frustration of what had happened .
and now my major concern is 1.that with one case pending ,i dont know how it is going to effect the new case
2.is there any thing i can do to reopen my old case .
Take a paid consultation with Murthy.com if you can ask for Murthy only.
Good Luck.
kumarh1b
01-28 05:16 PM
Can some please advice me how to proceed further Please find the denial notice for your reference. All your inputs means a lot to me. Please help me and guide in proper direction.
on Nov 19,2009, the petitioner responded by submitting a copy of a Contract or consulting Services agreement betwwen the petitioner and another software consulting firm, Company X-Which will further Contract the benificiary's services with other firms needing computer related positions to complete thier projects - to show that the petitioner has work for the beneficiary.
However, without valid contracts between CompanyX and the actual end-client firm ultimately involved with the eneficiary's computer related duties, the evidence does not establish the work to be completed; that the duties to be performed are those of a systems administrator and thus a specialty occupation Position and that the work will be avilable for the beneficiary.
The present record fails to demonstrate the specific duties the beneficiary would perform under contract for petitioners clients.The court in defensorv.meissner,201F.3d 384 (5th cir.2000) held that for purposes of determining whether apreferred positions is a specialty occupation,a petitioner acting ina similar manner as the present petitioner is merely a "token employer", while the entity for which the services are to be performed is the "more relevant employer". the defensor court recognized that evidence of the client companies job requirements is critical where the work to be performed is for an entity other than the petitioner. Accordingly, the court held that the legacy immigration and Naturalization service ( Service now CIS) had reasonably interpreted the Act and regulations to require that a petitioner produce evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services.
As Such, the petitioner has not established that the duties of the proferred position for the beneficiary require a speciality occupation and that it has sufficient work for the required priod of intended employment. There for the beneficiary is ineligible for classificationas a specialty occupation worker.
Pursuant to INA 291, the burden of the proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Here that burden has been met.
Consequently, the petiton is hereby denied.
on Nov 19,2009, the petitioner responded by submitting a copy of a Contract or consulting Services agreement betwwen the petitioner and another software consulting firm, Company X-Which will further Contract the benificiary's services with other firms needing computer related positions to complete thier projects - to show that the petitioner has work for the beneficiary.
However, without valid contracts between CompanyX and the actual end-client firm ultimately involved with the eneficiary's computer related duties, the evidence does not establish the work to be completed; that the duties to be performed are those of a systems administrator and thus a specialty occupation Position and that the work will be avilable for the beneficiary.
The present record fails to demonstrate the specific duties the beneficiary would perform under contract for petitioners clients.The court in defensorv.meissner,201F.3d 384 (5th cir.2000) held that for purposes of determining whether apreferred positions is a specialty occupation,a petitioner acting ina similar manner as the present petitioner is merely a "token employer", while the entity for which the services are to be performed is the "more relevant employer". the defensor court recognized that evidence of the client companies job requirements is critical where the work to be performed is for an entity other than the petitioner. Accordingly, the court held that the legacy immigration and Naturalization service ( Service now CIS) had reasonably interpreted the Act and regulations to require that a petitioner produce evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services.
As Such, the petitioner has not established that the duties of the proferred position for the beneficiary require a speciality occupation and that it has sufficient work for the required priod of intended employment. There for the beneficiary is ineligible for classificationas a specialty occupation worker.
Pursuant to INA 291, the burden of the proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Here that burden has been met.
Consequently, the petiton is hereby denied.
inspectorfox
07-22 09:01 PM
Can a senior member kindly address these questions posted for the last couple days. A quick response will be highly appreciated.
My case is very similar to yours. I had applied my I-140 in Oct 2006. Got an RFE for Ability to Pay which was responded to in Feb 2006. LUD changed twice in Feb and there was no progress. I upgraded to premium processing in June but there was no progress in my case even after 15 days past. Recently I got to know thru my lawyer that my case has been moved to the TSC Review Department for a background check and a decision is pending. I have taken an INFOPASS appointment to meet with an immigration officer to follow up about my case on Friday.
There are lot of people who are now stuck in background checks at I-140 stage which was very uncommon before.
I would advise you to follow up with you lawyer to get more details on your case. My lawyer actually spoke with the Immigration Officer at TSC.
Goodluck!
My case is very similar to yours. I had applied my I-140 in Oct 2006. Got an RFE for Ability to Pay which was responded to in Feb 2006. LUD changed twice in Feb and there was no progress. I upgraded to premium processing in June but there was no progress in my case even after 15 days past. Recently I got to know thru my lawyer that my case has been moved to the TSC Review Department for a background check and a decision is pending. I have taken an INFOPASS appointment to meet with an immigration officer to follow up about my case on Friday.
There are lot of people who are now stuck in background checks at I-140 stage which was very uncommon before.
I would advise you to follow up with you lawyer to get more details on your case. My lawyer actually spoke with the Immigration Officer at TSC.
Goodluck!
r50000
07-27 06:30 PM
hi All,
Is there any way to know if employer revoked I140. With what I understand if the employer revokes within 180 days of I485 filing, then we are screwed.
Thanks for the replies.
thanks!
Is there any way to know if employer revoked I140. With what I understand if the employer revokes within 180 days of I485 filing, then we are screwed.
Thanks for the replies.
thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment