sixburgh
08-13 06:05 PM
I saw some information somewhere, but don't have the link right away to post here.
But here is the crux of it.
Basically the guy said that : assuming that the wife is working on EAD, and the moment she gets an H4 extension approval, she automatically comes on H4 status, but the very next day if she goes back to work on EAD, the H4 status gets invalidated and person comes on AOS status instantly.
Now should she force the company to update the I-9 on that date, is the question.
The bottom line I think is : there is nothing called as a STATUS field in any USCIS or DOS computer system. Its what you do that determines your status. I believe USCIS allows dual intent.
Does anyone think that I am wrong?
But here is the crux of it.
Basically the guy said that : assuming that the wife is working on EAD, and the moment she gets an H4 extension approval, she automatically comes on H4 status, but the very next day if she goes back to work on EAD, the H4 status gets invalidated and person comes on AOS status instantly.
Now should she force the company to update the I-9 on that date, is the question.
The bottom line I think is : there is nothing called as a STATUS field in any USCIS or DOS computer system. Its what you do that determines your status. I believe USCIS allows dual intent.
Does anyone think that I am wrong?
wallpaper facebook logo
desi3933
07-20 04:58 PM
Let's assume Two people A and B entered into US on Jan 1st 2004 with Visa stamping Valid till June 2006.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
One is expected to know immigration laws. Who stopped Person B to re-enter USA before filing for I-485.
Not knowing laws is not a valid excuse.
A is without payslips for 2 years , that is until Dec 2005(730 days).A travels out side US and re enters into US in jan 2006 , after that he'll get the payslips and stays legal , then applies for his 485 in March 2006.Then he is maintaining
100% legal status as he is having continious payslips after his re entry.
B doesn't have payslips for period of 185 days(aggregate) in his whole stay in US , rest of the time he maintains legal status , but he never travels outside US and applies for his 485 in March 2006.
In this case B is under risk of illegal status for more than 180 days , as he never travelled outside US.How come this is fair law??This thought bugging me since coupe of days.Guys please share your ideas.
One is expected to know immigration laws. Who stopped Person B to re-enter USA before filing for I-485.
Not knowing laws is not a valid excuse.
venkatanathen@yahoo.com
12-08 03:51 PM
Hi,
I filed my I-140 and 485 concurrently using substitue labor by June'07. Still my I-140 is pending. Recently again I filed my Labor with the same company(No change in the compary ). it got approved last week. I am going to apply for new I-140. Can I port the previous PD?
Thanks
VK
I filed my I-140 and 485 concurrently using substitue labor by June'07. Still my I-140 is pending. Recently again I filed my Labor with the same company(No change in the compary ). it got approved last week. I am going to apply for new I-140. Can I port the previous PD?
Thanks
VK
2011 FaceBook Icon
nixstor
07-11 11:09 AM
Why not? USCIS already approved 60K 485 applications in 2 weeks time. How come they cannot do the same with some extra money (i.e. premium processing). They can do anything if want to do.
:mad:
Premium processing does not necessarily mean that it should be done in 15 days. It depends on the complexity of the application. We all know how complex 485 is because of the name check.
The premium processing can cost 1000-1500/more for 485 and should be done in 6 months. They can use the PP money to expedite their name checks. I am not sure what kind of issues USCIS will have implementing this
:mad:
Premium processing does not necessarily mean that it should be done in 15 days. It depends on the complexity of the application. We all know how complex 485 is because of the name check.
The premium processing can cost 1000-1500/more for 485 and should be done in 6 months. They can use the PP money to expedite their name checks. I am not sure what kind of issues USCIS will have implementing this
more...
sam_gc
04-07 04:14 PM
I did extended for my in-laws when they entered last time to US. When they entered next time they entered without any issues.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
javadeveloper
07-21 12:44 AM
thanks tinamatthew for your time and answers,
yeah it's fair law for those who re enters into usa , but not for those who lived in US for many years and have few gaps in employment.Anyhow it's a real scenario and it's my case.I gave all W2s to my company and I am not sure whether they submitted all the W2s or not , I need to check with them.I am much worried about how to proceed if my company sends all w2s to CIS and if CIS sends me RFE/NOID.I am also in dilemma to whether to consult any lawyer or not (My company uses corporate lawyers and I can't contact them directly) , even if contact any good lawyer , I am not sure if i have any options left.There are many unanswerd questions :mad: .Thanks again.
yeah it's fair law for those who re enters into usa , but not for those who lived in US for many years and have few gaps in employment.Anyhow it's a real scenario and it's my case.I gave all W2s to my company and I am not sure whether they submitted all the W2s or not , I need to check with them.I am much worried about how to proceed if my company sends all w2s to CIS and if CIS sends me RFE/NOID.I am also in dilemma to whether to consult any lawyer or not (My company uses corporate lawyers and I can't contact them directly) , even if contact any good lawyer , I am not sure if i have any options left.There are many unanswerd questions :mad: .Thanks again.
more...
logiclife
12-31 06:52 PM
But the way its worded now, it means no benefit for people who have no master's or Ph.D from US accredited university.
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
2010 facebook logo small png.
glus
02-19 11:38 AM
not really, but close.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Surge:
Your authorized period of stay ended on 10/1. Your marriage does not matter. The only reason you MAY be able to adjust status in your situation is the fact that you married a U.S. citizen. It is VERY risky to leave the United States before your I485 gets approved. Please consult an attorney before doing so. AP does not guarantee re-admittance especially when one was EVER out of status.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Surge:
Your authorized period of stay ended on 10/1. Your marriage does not matter. The only reason you MAY be able to adjust status in your situation is the fact that you married a U.S. citizen. It is VERY risky to leave the United States before your I485 gets approved. Please consult an attorney before doing so. AP does not guarantee re-admittance especially when one was EVER out of status.
more...
Jaime
08-06 02:16 PM
On the money, perfectly described. good choice of words.
Agreed, perfect response. At least some Senators are talking about this. Let us be optimistic and stay on it!
Agreed, perfect response. At least some Senators are talking about this. Let us be optimistic and stay on it!
hair Facebook Logo | PSD Detail
TeddyKoochu
09-25 11:34 AM
I won't be surprised if they pull a quick July 07 or something on those lines to collect more money for filing and renewal of EAD/ AP
I hope this happens, looks like in the current atmosphere there is a high likelihood of it happening as well. It will be a great step forward for people who missed Jul 07, it will be an opportunity for us to have EAD / AP and have a peep at the next step!
I hope this happens, looks like in the current atmosphere there is a high likelihood of it happening as well. It will be a great step forward for people who missed Jul 07, it will be an opportunity for us to have EAD / AP and have a peep at the next step!
more...
purgan
01-22 11:35 AM
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5585.html
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
The Immigrant Technologist:
Studying Technology Transfer with China
Q&A with: William Kerr and Michael Roberts
Published: January 22, 2007
Author: Michael Roberts
Executive Summary:
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain? Professor William Kerr discusses the phenomena of technology transfer and implications for U.S.-based businesses and policymakers.
The trend of Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs staying home rather than moving to the United States is a trend that potentially offers both harm and opportunity to U.S.-based interests.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S. and are strong contributors to American technology development. It is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group.
U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries, around 15 percent today. U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Immigrants account for almost half of Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers in the U.S., and are prime drivers of technology development. Increasingly, however, Chinese technologists and entrepreneurs are staying home to pursue opportunities. Is this a brain drain?
Q: Describe your research and how it relates to what you observed in China.
A: My research focuses on technology transfer through ethnic scientific and entrepreneurial networks. Traditional models of technology diffusion suggest that if you have a great idea, people who are ten feet away from you will learn about that idea first, followed by people who are 100 miles away, and so forth in concentric circles. My research on ethnic networks suggests this channel facilitates faster knowledge transfer and faster adoption of foreign technologies. For example, if the Chinese have a strong presence in the U.S. computer industry, relative to other ethnic groups, then computer technologies diffuse faster to China than elsewhere. This is true even for computer advances made by Americans, as the U.S.-based Chinese increase awareness and tacit knowledge development regarding these advances in their home country.
Q: Is your research relevant to other countries as well?
China is at a tipping point for entrepreneurship on an international scale.A: Yes, I have extended my empirical work to include over thirty industries and nine ethnicities, including Indian, Japanese, Korean, and Hispanic. It is very important to develop a broad sample to quantify correctly the overall importance of these networks. The Silicon Valley Chinese are a very special case, and my work seeks to understand the larger benefit these networks provide throughout the global economy. These macroeconomic findings are important inputs to business and policy circles.
Q: What makes technology transfer happen? Is it entrepreneurial opportunity in the home country, a loyalty to the home country, or government policies that encourage or require people to come home?
A: It's all of those. Surveys of these diasporic communities suggest they aid their home countries through both formal business relationships and informal contacts. Formal mechanisms run the spectrum from direct financial investment in overseas businesses that pursue technology opportunities to facilitating contracts and market awareness. Informal contacts are more frequent�the evidence we have suggests they are at least twice as common�and even more diverse in nature. Ongoing research will allow us to better distinguish these channels. A Beijing scholar we met on the trip, Henry Wang, and I are currently surveying a large population of Chinese entrepreneurs to paint a more comprehensive picture of the micro-underpinnings of this phenomena.
Q: What about multinational corporations? How do they fit into this scenario?
A: One of the strongest trends of globalization is that U.S. multinationals are placing larger shares of their R&D into foreign countries. About 5 percent of U.S.-sponsored R&D was done in foreign countries in the 1980s, and that number is around 15 percent today. We visited Microsoft's R&D center in Beijing to learn more about its R&D efforts and interactions with the U.S. parent. This facility was founded in the late 1990s, and it has already grown to house a third of Microsoft's basic-science R&D researchers. More broadly, HBS assistant professor Fritz Foley and I are working on a research project that has found that U.S.-based ethnic scientists within multinationals like Microsoft help facilitate the operation of these foreign direct investment facilities in their home countries.
Q: Does your research have implications for U.S. policy?
A: One implication concerns immigration levels. It is interesting to note that while immigrants account for about 15 percent of the U.S. working population, they account for almost half of our Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers. Even within the Ph.D. ranks, foreign-born individuals have a disproportionate number of Nobel Prizes, elections to the National Academy of Sciences, patent citations, and so forth. They are a very strong contributor to U.S. technology development, so it is in the United States' interest to attract and retain this highly skilled group. It is one of the easiest policy levers we have to influence our nation's rate of innovation.
Q: Are countries that send their scholars to the United States losing their best and brightest?
A: My research shows that having these immigrant scientists, entrepreneurs, and engineers in the United States helps facilitate faster technology transfer from the United States, which in turn aids economic growth and development. This is certainly a positive benefit diasporas bring to their home countries. It is important to note, however, that a number of factors should be considered in the "brain drain" versus "brain gain" debate, for which I do not think there is a clear answer today.
Q: Where does China stand in relation to some of the classic tiger economies that we've seen in the past in terms of technology transfer?
A: Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and similar smaller economies have achieved a full transition from agriculture-based economies to industrialized economies. In those situations, technology transfer increases labor productivity and wages directly. The interesting thing about China and also India is that about half of their populations are still employed in the agricultural sector. In this scenario, technology transfer may lead to faster sector reallocation�workers moving from agriculture to industry�which can weaken wage growth compared with the classic tiger economy example. This is an interesting dynamic we see in China today.
Q: The export growth that technology may engender is only one prong of the mechanism that helps economic development. Does technology also make purely domestic industries more productive?
A: Absolutely. My research shows that countries do increase their exports in industries that receive large technology infusions, but non-exporting industries also benefit from technology gains. Moreover, the technology transfer can raise wages in sectors that do not rely on technology to the extent there is labor mobility across sectors. A hairdresser in the United States, for example, makes more money than a hairdresser in China, and that is due in large part to the wage equilibrium that occurs across occupations and skill categories within an economy. Technology transfer may alter the wage premiums assigned to certain skill sets, for example, increasing the wage gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, but the wage shifts can feed across sectors through labor mobility.
Q: What are the implications for the future?
A: Historically, the United States has been very successful at the retention of foreign-born, Ph.D.-level scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs. As China and India continue to develop, they will become more attractive places to live and to start companies. The returnee pattern may accelerate as foreign infrastructures become more developed for entrepreneurship. This is not going to happen over the next three years, but it is quite likely over the next thirty to fifty years. My current research is exploring how this reverse migration would impact the United States' rate of progress.
About the author
Michael Roberts is a senior lecturer in the Entrepreneurial Management unit at Harvard Business School.
hot Twitter icon Facebook icon
ragz4u
04-17 01:54 PM
Hi
I am new to this group. I have a question regarding my PERM case.
MY PERM case is pending in DOL from last 10 months. I find this very
unusual.
Anybody heard about such a long pending case?
Are there any suggestion for following up on my PERM case?
Any advise will be useful.
Thanks
-Sahil.
Is there a way someone can call the DOL? I never received any receipt number from my lawyer, but the PERM was evaluated in 60 days!
I am new to this group. I have a question regarding my PERM case.
MY PERM case is pending in DOL from last 10 months. I find this very
unusual.
Anybody heard about such a long pending case?
Are there any suggestion for following up on my PERM case?
Any advise will be useful.
Thanks
-Sahil.
Is there a way someone can call the DOL? I never received any receipt number from my lawyer, but the PERM was evaluated in 60 days!
more...
house logofacebookpng Logo-small
sukhwinderd
08-15 12:50 PM
was it send to nebraska or texas ?
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
I thought this will give some hope to you.
Mine reached USCIS on July-3rd around 6:00am. All 6 (2x485, 2xAP, 2xEAD) checks were cached today.
Hope yours on the way too...
tattoo facebook
satyasaich
06-29 09:46 AM
My friend
What else we lose if we stand up the plate to express some legitimate concerns?
Most of the members of this forum (and so many more) have already lost the prime time of their lives because we just followed the path of playing by rules.
Unless some compelling personal reasons, i do not see any thing wrong to raise the voice
---
Yes, once "They" identify "You" the consequences can be severe.:rolleyes:
Beware! Big Brother is watching.
That is the reason I didn't support the US soccer team at World Cup.
US team is so unpopular in Europe :p Given a choice between popularity and doing the right thing, I guess popularity always wins :D
Hilarious! Couldn't resist :o
What else we lose if we stand up the plate to express some legitimate concerns?
Most of the members of this forum (and so many more) have already lost the prime time of their lives because we just followed the path of playing by rules.
Unless some compelling personal reasons, i do not see any thing wrong to raise the voice
---
Yes, once "They" identify "You" the consequences can be severe.:rolleyes:
Beware! Big Brother is watching.
That is the reason I didn't support the US soccer team at World Cup.
US team is so unpopular in Europe :p Given a choice between popularity and doing the right thing, I guess popularity always wins :D
Hilarious! Couldn't resist :o
more...
pictures orkut logo png. facebook logo
ghost
02-07 03:31 PM
Thank for the reply. I hope the suggestions will be acted on and implemented at the earliest. It's frustrating to see that the priority dates haven't moved by a single day in last 6 months, something really needs to be done and I will do my support IV with anything.
Thanks for your commitment...if you are frustrated by no movement in 6 months then imagine the plight of folks on this forum who have no priority date movement since Jan 2002 (9 years and counting)....most of them have literally became dormant with the long wait and some of them have become cynical and skeptical of the entire process and quite frankly about IV...it's hard to motivate and make them commit to supporting IV. There are few brave souls who refuse to give up and are fighting for the greater benefit of the entire community!
Thanks for your commitment...if you are frustrated by no movement in 6 months then imagine the plight of folks on this forum who have no priority date movement since Jan 2002 (9 years and counting)....most of them have literally became dormant with the long wait and some of them have become cynical and skeptical of the entire process and quite frankly about IV...it's hard to motivate and make them commit to supporting IV. There are few brave souls who refuse to give up and are fighting for the greater benefit of the entire community!
dresses facebook-logo-square-
tabletpc
01-07 11:29 AM
its a gray area....
If your I-140 is not aproved after 180 days and if your emplyer does not respond to RFE..then your GC is gone for a toss...!!!!
its always recomended to wait untill i-140 is aproved and 180 days are over...!!!!
Not to scare you..i have also heard of emplyers revoking i-140 after it is approved which has caused tremendious pain to emplyees later in getting GC.
My advice....give your career high priority and just go with your gut feeling that things will be fine...!!!!
Good luck
If your I-140 is not aproved after 180 days and if your emplyer does not respond to RFE..then your GC is gone for a toss...!!!!
its always recomended to wait untill i-140 is aproved and 180 days are over...!!!!
Not to scare you..i have also heard of emplyers revoking i-140 after it is approved which has caused tremendious pain to emplyees later in getting GC.
My advice....give your career high priority and just go with your gut feeling that things will be fine...!!!!
Good luck
more...
makeup The IAPQ member logo is
small2006
08-31 10:15 AM
Looks like this is only for renewals
A colleague of mine (not India or China) got her EAD card in mail within a month of applying. Her 485 has been pending for more than a year.
Another friend of mine from India got his approved within 60 days of applying.
Doesn't all these mean that the interim EAD (or whatever you want to call it) is still possible and we can get it?
I am confused.
A colleague of mine (not India or China) got her EAD card in mail within a month of applying. Her 485 has been pending for more than a year.
Another friend of mine from India got his approved within 60 days of applying.
Doesn't all these mean that the interim EAD (or whatever you want to call it) is still possible and we can get it?
I am confused.
girlfriend 95% used Facebook followed by
arrarrgee
07-17 02:20 PM
Its actually Her...:) Murthy is a She
Screw Murthy !!! I have never seen him picking up any good news.
Screw Murthy !!! I have never seen him picking up any good news.
hairstyles Facebook Logo
sammyb
09-04 05:31 PM
I already got a denial of my wife's application and had to pay $585 for the MTR :mad: ... that would be a nice source of revenue for the agency...
They have to advance the dates down the line to get more fees in order to keep the dumdums employed at the USCIS.........
That does not mean it translates into GCs.....its just more people get EADs and APs and continued revenue for USCIS.
I also won't be surprized if the fees go up in the next round.
Also until the CIR is passed there is no way they will eliminate the backlog as that will mean giving up their "cash cows"===a.k.a "us".......
Here is what I beleive will happen until amnesty is enacted(whether we like it or not our fate is tied to the illegals):
1. Dates will be moved forward and backward randomly to get more fees from new and old suckers like us(everytime the dates move fwd they raise our hopes and we hang on longer).....they don't want us to leave...they just want us to keep paying for their jobs...so as Obama says......"keep the HOPE train alive" even if its not moving an inch.
2. Increase the fees.....
3. Increase the rate of denials: more denials mean more MTRs mean more revenue......
Its a business and you will do whatever to survive.........nothing personal........
They have to advance the dates down the line to get more fees in order to keep the dumdums employed at the USCIS.........
That does not mean it translates into GCs.....its just more people get EADs and APs and continued revenue for USCIS.
I also won't be surprized if the fees go up in the next round.
Also until the CIR is passed there is no way they will eliminate the backlog as that will mean giving up their "cash cows"===a.k.a "us".......
Here is what I beleive will happen until amnesty is enacted(whether we like it or not our fate is tied to the illegals):
1. Dates will be moved forward and backward randomly to get more fees from new and old suckers like us(everytime the dates move fwd they raise our hopes and we hang on longer).....they don't want us to leave...they just want us to keep paying for their jobs...so as Obama says......"keep the HOPE train alive" even if its not moving an inch.
2. Increase the fees.....
3. Increase the rate of denials: more denials mean more MTRs mean more revenue......
Its a business and you will do whatever to survive.........nothing personal........
smit
02-27 09:20 PM
Can anyone tell me what was final outcome of this? and which state it was where this happened?
franklin
07-20 08:43 PM
To my knowledge, neither paystubs, W2s nor tax returns are required for filing.
However, some attorneys (mine included) requested my tax returns for the last few years. I think this is so they are prepared just in case of RFE on something?
To answer the original question with a quote from my grandmother whenever I whined, "but that's not fair" as a kid, "Life never is"
The law is the law. We abide by them. We can lobby for changes to said law if we believe they are incorrect, but we don't break them before they are changed.
However, some attorneys (mine included) requested my tax returns for the last few years. I think this is so they are prepared just in case of RFE on something?
To answer the original question with a quote from my grandmother whenever I whined, "but that's not fair" as a kid, "Life never is"
The law is the law. We abide by them. We can lobby for changes to said law if we believe they are incorrect, but we don't break them before they are changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment