smuggymba
03-09 01:03 PM
Now I need to know what are the things that I can do.
1. Do I need to file PERM, I140 again on EB2?
2. Do I need to file for H1 again and complete the entire process?
3. What is and how to do EB3 to EB2 porting? is that all I need to do?
Please give me some advice. Thanks in advance.
I guess u need to have an approved labor in EB2 to even think about it. You can't port because you dont have an approved EB2 labor.
1. Do I need to file PERM, I140 again on EB2?
2. Do I need to file for H1 again and complete the entire process?
3. What is and how to do EB3 to EB2 porting? is that all I need to do?
Please give me some advice. Thanks in advance.
I guess u need to have an approved labor in EB2 to even think about it. You can't port because you dont have an approved EB2 labor.
wallpaper Cover Up Tattoos (18 pics)
paskal
12-20 11:10 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Pagal
07-24 04:57 PM
Hello,
If I read the USCIS news, then these are the questions I would ask myself and see if there is any serious legal concern...
1. Was I in non-pay status while working for VSG?
2. Is my job and location same as in my H-1B labor certification?
3. Are there any false documents submitted on my behalf to USCIS to support my visa petition?
If you answer no to all these questions, then legally you should be safe. However, as a further precaution, I would suggest to use AC-21 and move to another company. File a fresh labor (you can still claim the priority date from your old labor) and distance yourself from the fraudsters.
If I read the USCIS news, then these are the questions I would ask myself and see if there is any serious legal concern...
1. Was I in non-pay status while working for VSG?
2. Is my job and location same as in my H-1B labor certification?
3. Are there any false documents submitted on my behalf to USCIS to support my visa petition?
If you answer no to all these questions, then legally you should be safe. However, as a further precaution, I would suggest to use AC-21 and move to another company. File a fresh labor (you can still claim the priority date from your old labor) and distance yourself from the fraudsters.
2011 makeup used to cover up
iamlost
07-24 10:37 PM
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with the erroneous 140 approvals from TSC. So, they revised all the approvals to pending status ... and my 2.5 old approved case also got in midst of it ... Hmmm !!! This is killing man .... No peace even after GC !
TSC Erroneously Issues I-140 Approval eMails on Premium Processing Cases
�MurthyDotCom
The Texas Service Center (TSC) advised in late July 2009 that eMail notifications have incorrectly been sent, which indicate approvals of Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-140) cases. These eMails are originating from the Premium Processing Unit due to a technical problem. The system is issuing these eMails in error shortly after the transmission of the eMail receipt.
�MurthyDotCom
Erroneous I-140 Approval eMails do not have a Priority Date
�MurthyDotCom
The erroneous eMail does not contain a priority date or EB classification for the case. TSC is working to address the technical problem. Employers who are unsure about any such communication received from the TSC Premium Processing Unit can contact that unit at the eMail address or phone number provided on the I-140 receipt notice.
�MurthyDotCom
Conclusion
�MurthyDotCom
This likely is annoying and frustrating to individuals who believed their I-140 approvals were received in record time, only to find out that the approval eMail notification was erroneous. Although not specifically stated in the information released by TSC, it appears that this problem has been limited to eMail notifications. There was no indication that any hard-copy approval notices have been issued in error. MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers will be advised of any further information on this topic, when it is made available.
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)
brb2
11-08 06:31 PM
remember the bulk of the pending AOS are from retrogressed countries. So even those from ROW who have not yet filed (and may do so next few years) need to be added to the "pending AOS" in order to obtain the 'real' que size of pending AOS applications.
more...
enver
06-13 04:00 PM
Im from Turkey.
2010 Best Cover Up Tattoo Ever: A
InTheMoment
04-25 12:23 PM
Mail sent by CIS has a endorsment on their envelopes "Return Service Requested". USPS does NOT forward mail with such endorsements.
Even if online address change thru AR-11 has not taken effect, post office will forward your mail to your new address for 12 months - make sure you fill out change of address form with postal dept immediately
Even if online address change thru AR-11 has not taken effect, post office will forward your mail to your new address for 12 months - make sure you fill out change of address form with postal dept immediately
more...
venky08
08-06 03:05 AM
capturing visa numbers would put an end to our misery. and increasing the employment based visa will pave way for future immigrants. handling a few thousand more cases is not a big deal for USCIS(there may be performance issues but not like difficulty of hiring more people to do the stuff!). don't get panicky about the number. it should be lot less than you would think.
hair Warrior-woman-cover-up Tattoo
Illuminae
06-05 12:48 PM
i was sending out a resume today, and i was EVER so tempted to stick this site in my portfolio..
then i realized i really need this job despite the enourmos amount of laughter i would get from the deal...
then i realized i really need this job despite the enourmos amount of laughter i would get from the deal...
more...
skagitswimmer
June 6th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Thanks. I will go back and reshoot this and experiment a bit. The scene wasn't lit by harsh light - high cloud as I recall. I actually deepended the shadows intentionally in the PS CS2 RAW converter - the original wasn't as contrasty. What is interesting is that while the actual exposure of the blown area should be well within tolerances (If I were still shooting B&W film I would have guessed it at around zone 8) it is just the one colour that is blown - and yellow is not one of the 3 channels so it must have actualy been 2 colours. I will have to keep an eye on my histogram display because I don't have the $ for a 1DSMkII!
hot Koi Carp Cover Up Tattoo
tnite
06-26 03:29 PM
While filing for my wife's G-325A form, her last name was filled in first name and first name as last name. We got our FP notice yesterday and thats when I went back and reviewed all the forms I filed. I was wondering if any of you know what can be done so that an honest mistake can be corrected?
Any input appreciated. I understand it is for information purpose only and not many of us are attorneys, so no disclosure required :)
Check this forum (http://www.baraban.org/go/printthread.php?threadid=15493)
Question:Name misspelled on I-485 NOA
Yesterday we recieved 3 NOAs (for 130, 485, and 131) from USCIS, and unfortunately, most important (I-485) NOA misspelled my last name (while two other NOAs not). Nothing was misspelled on my application - I checked my copy.
On the NOA, USCIS wrote in bold: Please notify us immediately if any of the above is incorrect. Well, my last name is incorrect (twice). Unfortunately, USCIS didn't say how exactly I should notify them immediately.
So, what is the best way to correct this? Infopass? Or any good phone/fax numbers or email? We are in San Francisco.
Thank you.
Answer Yes, you can do it through INFOPASS or you can wait until your fingerprinting appointment which will happen shortly and do it at that time
An attorney has suggested them to take an infopass appt and I suggest you do the same
Any input appreciated. I understand it is for information purpose only and not many of us are attorneys, so no disclosure required :)
Check this forum (http://www.baraban.org/go/printthread.php?threadid=15493)
Question:Name misspelled on I-485 NOA
Yesterday we recieved 3 NOAs (for 130, 485, and 131) from USCIS, and unfortunately, most important (I-485) NOA misspelled my last name (while two other NOAs not). Nothing was misspelled on my application - I checked my copy.
On the NOA, USCIS wrote in bold: Please notify us immediately if any of the above is incorrect. Well, my last name is incorrect (twice). Unfortunately, USCIS didn't say how exactly I should notify them immediately.
So, what is the best way to correct this? Infopass? Or any good phone/fax numbers or email? We are in San Francisco.
Thank you.
Answer Yes, you can do it through INFOPASS or you can wait until your fingerprinting appointment which will happen shortly and do it at that time
An attorney has suggested them to take an infopass appt and I suggest you do the same
more...
house Cover up Tattoo #1
harishgowda
05-19 08:08 AM
Hello,
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
My H -1B visa is been approved from August 2008 to September 2011 which equals to 3 year.
I have worked in US from October 2008 to January 2009.
Later i got layoff and my Agent\Consultant said that my Visa was cancelled according to U.S. Immigration regulations and termination of employment procedures.
Thereafter i came to India and started work job here. My company had applied for Business Visa but Today my Business Visa got rejected and they gave me the reason that you dont justify that you will come back. What if you stay back there.?
I am thinking to reapply again in next 2 day.
Can anyone help me what should i do in this case?
Thanks,
Harish Gowda
tattoo cover up tattoos. tattoo cover
gc28262
07-11 02:53 PM
My last EAD renewal was processed very fast from TSC
Applied: 10/22
Card Production Ordered: 11/12
Applied: 10/22
Card Production Ordered: 11/12
more...
pictures Cover up tattoos,
darsh678
12-26 03:17 PM
No you cant do that. One should not leave country when 485 pending. Once you laid off from sponsor you can not do counsural processing also. Travelling in AP should be for a mimimum period. It will be big mistake, if you leave country without job offer. No one knows when they issue RFE for employment verification during your 485 pending period. If you do not have job when they issue RFE, thats it. Bottomline is, it is better to be employed during 485 pending and stay in the country to reply any RFE.
Can we take vacation for 2 months when we have pending 485 and 140 approved for more than six months. I had applied for 485 and 140 when i was on h4 but have now lost that status...
I plan to be under new employer with the same job description while going on for vacation and returning back on AP.
Please clearify...
Can we take vacation for 2 months when we have pending 485 and 140 approved for more than six months. I had applied for 485 and 140 when i was on h4 but have now lost that status...
I plan to be under new employer with the same job description while going on for vacation and returning back on AP.
Please clearify...
dresses Cover Up Tattoo Ideas are
GC092003
04-18 11:33 AM
I received a receipt confirmation for my I-140 petition. It shows that they received on March 24, 2006. I tried to check on the status on USCIS website in case status. I could not find my case so far. Does it take so long to be updated. I am worried if my petition is misplaced somewhere...
Please give me your advice.
Please give me your advice.
more...
makeup Cover-up tattoos are not a new
fromnaija
03-24 12:49 PM
Thank you Mark how you rebuffed that stereotypical response on "being grateful to being here in this wonderful economy and enjoying such nice living conditions".
I really enjoyed the interview.
I really enjoyed the interview.
girlfriend Cover up tattoo ideas
Michael chertoff
03-28 06:49 PM
Wait for ITIN to be processed and once get the ITIN amend your tax filing.
you seems to know everything man...whats your PD sir.
you seems to know everything man...whats your PD sir.
hairstyles Before and After Tattoo Cover-
Maverick5
08-26 05:20 PM
Thanks for your reply. As I am applying for LC with Software Engineer, and my Masters is in Mech Engg, I have asked my employer to put "Computer Science, Engineering (Any), Math or Related" in the majors required for the position.
I am hoping that Engineering (Any) would cover for Mech Engg.
I am hoping that Engineering (Any) would cover for Mech Engg.
onemorecame
06-25 04:18 PM
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.
Thanks samrat_bhargava_vihari
for this nice example to clear the things
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.
Thanks samrat_bhargava_vihari
for this nice example to clear the things
hatighora
07-30 02:54 PM
I think there is a chance if the baby becomes a celebrity baby. If our babies become a hollywood star,sports star or a baby genius, there should be some possibility of getting greencard thru that baby, but with an ordinary baby chances are slim with the current immigration rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment