mhathi
02-13 01:56 PM
Immigration Voice - the voice of LEGAL immigrants!
Click here to learn more.
Click here to learn more.
wallpaper Selena Gomez icons. by
ss1026
06-14 10:41 PM
I am sorry I have no answer to your question but I would like to know how you found out the exact dates your names was cleared. This would be useful info for a lot of us here. Appreciate if you could share this with this forum
GCBoy786
09-14 05:06 PM
We have received our I-485 receipts(me and spouse). On my receipt just below "Amount Received" there is a this tag called "Section". It is answered as "UNKNOWN" on both of our receipts.
My friends is answered differently. His is from TSC and mine are from NSC.
Does any of you know what does "UNKNWON" mean and what consequences it might have.
My friends is answered differently. His is from TSC and mine are from NSC.
Does any of you know what does "UNKNWON" mean and what consequences it might have.
2011 Selena Gomez 2011
Eternal_Hope
12-21 06:30 AM
I think she should be apprised of pains in getting green cards for skilled workers from India, by ImmigrationVoice.
Quote from the TOI news article:
"Amrit Singh has kept a low-profile in the case so far although she handles ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project".
Unquote
How should we reach out to her? But then again, if ACLU is not in the good books of the present government would aligning with them actually harm our case (although I don't know what more harm can come upon us after we were all thrown under the (omni)bus ..........)
----------------------
Member Texas IV
Quote from the TOI news article:
"Amrit Singh has kept a low-profile in the case so far although she handles ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project".
Unquote
How should we reach out to her? But then again, if ACLU is not in the good books of the present government would aligning with them actually harm our case (although I don't know what more harm can come upon us after we were all thrown under the (omni)bus ..........)
----------------------
Member Texas IV
more...
ar7165
07-20 02:57 PM
Sorry, I mistakenly wrote earlier that my I-485 is approved. It is not. It is at pending status. That's why I was wondering if I'm eligible to apply for Unemployement benefit.
randomdude
12-07 12:01 PM
A lot of folks are planning to leave the original sponsor after 180 days. My question is, is there any harm in quitting after 6 months as compared to say 9 months or a year? Would USCIS look infavorably on my application if I quit as soon as the AC21 can kick in? Would quitting after a few more months be any better?
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
more...
jcseeker
04-17 09:24 AM
it isnot dependent on how gradual your change is. If your LC process takes 10 years, you can gradually move to VP position. It does not mean it is legal. You should never change your job duties dramatically. You could move from Software engineer to Sr. Software engineer and not to Team lead or project manager. Again, it is not hard and fast rule. Legally, you could take up any job as long as you move back to the job described in the LC after the adjustment of status(I485).
Again the entire GC is for future job. I did not say "YOU HAVE TO" stay in that job. May be my wording is little bit wrong. It is always better to stay with the same company atleast for 6 months and min of one year after you get GC. If you do not, then if you intent to become citizen, there may be some questions regarding your intent for GC. I am not an attorney, but whatever, I have expressed above came directly from my company attorney.
Thanks
I am getting promoted to a manager's position. This postion requires the same technical knowledge and has the same job resposibilities. Apart from this, it has people management responsibilities. My lawyer said that since it is in the same devision and just added responsibilities it is fine. We just have to put the new position while applying for the next H1B.
It is not clear from the previous posts if this is a problem.
Being project lead and going to managing projects can be considerred as gradual change by someone or complete different job by another.
My question is since GC is for the future job why should it matter what the current job is so long it is in the similar technology area or part of the company.
Again the entire GC is for future job. I did not say "YOU HAVE TO" stay in that job. May be my wording is little bit wrong. It is always better to stay with the same company atleast for 6 months and min of one year after you get GC. If you do not, then if you intent to become citizen, there may be some questions regarding your intent for GC. I am not an attorney, but whatever, I have expressed above came directly from my company attorney.
Thanks
I am getting promoted to a manager's position. This postion requires the same technical knowledge and has the same job resposibilities. Apart from this, it has people management responsibilities. My lawyer said that since it is in the same devision and just added responsibilities it is fine. We just have to put the new position while applying for the next H1B.
It is not clear from the previous posts if this is a problem.
Being project lead and going to managing projects can be considerred as gradual change by someone or complete different job by another.
My question is since GC is for the future job why should it matter what the current job is so long it is in the similar technology area or part of the company.
2010 selena gomez at the kids
senthil1
12-06 05:12 PM
If you are in L1 with Manager or Above category then you can file EB1. There are some more restrictions for this. Because you converted to H1B you may not eligible. Check whether you have any loophole for this. If you are in H1B you should have a PHd and job requirement should be PHd.
Of course any persons like sports, Research, arts with international level skills also eligible. Those people are very rare.
There are two ways to satisfy the requirements for an EB-1-1 immigrant visa. The first is receiving a major, internationally recognized award. Fortunately for those who haven�t won the Nobel Prize yet, the second set of standards is not as difficult to achieve.
The INS regulations (8 C.F.R. � 204.5(h)(3)) require that a petitioner fulfill at least three of the following ten standards:
1. Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize for achievement in your field. This could include a medical fellowship, a Fulbright award, or a Caldecott award.
2. Membership in associations in your field that require "outstanding achievement" of their members. This standard is relatively vague. Associations that are open to all members of a given profession can be considered, but associations that limit membership to only the most accomplished members of the profession are certainly more valuable.
3. Material published about you in major trade publications or other major media. The material must concern your work in the field. Publications could range from journals specific to your field, like The Journal of Otolaryngology, to major newspapers, like The New York Times. You are not limited to print; a story about you on "60 Minutes" might also fulfill this requirement.
4. Serving as a judge of others in your field either individually or on a panel. Sitting on the Nobel Prize Committee would fulfill the requirement, as would participating in the peer review process of a scientific article or acting as a member of a thesis review committee.
5. Original, scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in your field. This standard is wide open. Basically, the INS will base its judgment of your contribution on the letters of support that others in the field submit. So letters from recognized authorities in your field who consider your contributions original and significant will satisfy this requirement.
6. Authorship of scholarly articles in your field. This refers to articles that you wrote concerning your work rather than material written about you by others, as is the case with standard 3 above. Again, the publications can range from major trade journals to mass media. Although the regulations refer specifically to "articles," other forms of publication such as visual media should fulfill this requirement.
7. Display of your work in exhibitions or showcases. The regulations do not mention how prestigious the exhibition must be.
8. Performing a critical or leading role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. This could be acting as curator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art or serving as an essential researcher for an important laboratory.
9. Commanding a high salary in your field. The regulation requires that your salary or remuneration be high in relation to others in the field, so a teacher need not make as much as a professional football player.
10. Commercial success in the performing arts. This can be demonstrated by box office receipts from your films or plays, sales of your record, or selling your video documentary to a network for a notable sum.
Satisfying three out of the ten criteria does not guarantee that the INS will grant you EB-1-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The INS looks for quality as well as quantity. As in so many other aspects of immigration law, comprehensive documentation of your qualifications is all important.
Of course any persons like sports, Research, arts with international level skills also eligible. Those people are very rare.
There are two ways to satisfy the requirements for an EB-1-1 immigrant visa. The first is receiving a major, internationally recognized award. Fortunately for those who haven�t won the Nobel Prize yet, the second set of standards is not as difficult to achieve.
The INS regulations (8 C.F.R. � 204.5(h)(3)) require that a petitioner fulfill at least three of the following ten standards:
1. Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize for achievement in your field. This could include a medical fellowship, a Fulbright award, or a Caldecott award.
2. Membership in associations in your field that require "outstanding achievement" of their members. This standard is relatively vague. Associations that are open to all members of a given profession can be considered, but associations that limit membership to only the most accomplished members of the profession are certainly more valuable.
3. Material published about you in major trade publications or other major media. The material must concern your work in the field. Publications could range from journals specific to your field, like The Journal of Otolaryngology, to major newspapers, like The New York Times. You are not limited to print; a story about you on "60 Minutes" might also fulfill this requirement.
4. Serving as a judge of others in your field either individually or on a panel. Sitting on the Nobel Prize Committee would fulfill the requirement, as would participating in the peer review process of a scientific article or acting as a member of a thesis review committee.
5. Original, scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in your field. This standard is wide open. Basically, the INS will base its judgment of your contribution on the letters of support that others in the field submit. So letters from recognized authorities in your field who consider your contributions original and significant will satisfy this requirement.
6. Authorship of scholarly articles in your field. This refers to articles that you wrote concerning your work rather than material written about you by others, as is the case with standard 3 above. Again, the publications can range from major trade journals to mass media. Although the regulations refer specifically to "articles," other forms of publication such as visual media should fulfill this requirement.
7. Display of your work in exhibitions or showcases. The regulations do not mention how prestigious the exhibition must be.
8. Performing a critical or leading role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. This could be acting as curator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art or serving as an essential researcher for an important laboratory.
9. Commanding a high salary in your field. The regulation requires that your salary or remuneration be high in relation to others in the field, so a teacher need not make as much as a professional football player.
10. Commercial success in the performing arts. This can be demonstrated by box office receipts from your films or plays, sales of your record, or selling your video documentary to a network for a notable sum.
Satisfying three out of the ten criteria does not guarantee that the INS will grant you EB-1-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The INS looks for quality as well as quantity. As in so many other aspects of immigration law, comprehensive documentation of your qualifications is all important.
more...
Anders �stberg
June 4th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Went back to the local lake to stir up some waves and bubbles for a reshoot for FM forums
"Weekly Assignment #117: Blue"... what do you think?
(I chose the second picture for the contest, calling it "Smooth sailing". :) )
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/640s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/BubblesFramed_5450.jpg
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/500s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/WA117_BubbleVer3Framed_5455.jpg
"Weekly Assignment #117: Blue"... what do you think?
(I chose the second picture for the contest, calling it "Smooth sailing". :) )
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/640s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/BubblesFramed_5450.jpg
(100-400 @ 400mm, 1/500s, f/8, ISO 400)
http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/WA117_BubbleVer3Framed_5455.jpg
hair justin bieber and selena gomez
whyregisteration
12-19 03:08 PM
Hi, friends,
NIW approved(RD: 7/2006, AD: 1/2007 at SRC) while 485 pending (not current country, July 3rd/2007 submitted and taking a rest in SRC also:)), FP has not received yet, called several times but nothing useful up to now.
Now EB1 just approved, I would like to submit another 485, what problem will cause? I heard that the relink would be a good choice, but I also heard some failed while some succeded :confused:
A lot of thanks for any input:):)
NIW approved(RD: 7/2006, AD: 1/2007 at SRC) while 485 pending (not current country, July 3rd/2007 submitted and taking a rest in SRC also:)), FP has not received yet, called several times but nothing useful up to now.
Now EB1 just approved, I would like to submit another 485, what problem will cause? I heard that the relink would be a good choice, but I also heard some failed while some succeded :confused:
A lot of thanks for any input:):)
more...
satishku_2000
11-20 12:40 PM
For July 2nd filers, the freedom is attained on Dec 29th (180 days after filing).
I know ... :)
I know ... :)
hot selena gomez icons
parablergh
08-27 02:26 PM
While it is usually best to have your company (or legal representative) communicate directly with USCIS, it is possible to contact them directly to determine if your petition has been received. You will need to know which office the petition was filed at (based on the location of the employment it should have been CSC or VSC) and the date of filing.
After you provide some personal information, you may be able to receive your receipt number verbally.
Unfortunately this has worked in some instances, but not in others - so good luck.
If this does not work, your company should be able to confirm if the checks were cashed. If so, your receipt number should be stamped on the back of the checks.
After you provide some personal information, you may be able to receive your receipt number verbally.
Unfortunately this has worked in some instances, but not in others - so good luck.
If this does not work, your company should be able to confirm if the checks were cashed. If so, your receipt number should be stamped on the back of the checks.
more...
house selena gomez scandal 2011.
LostInGCProcess
09-01 08:25 PM
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Oh man!!!! Why are you so worried? As long as you did the right thing thats all it matters. Since you also have a confirmation number, why worry?
You are freaking out UNNECESSARILY.
This reminds ne of the hindi saying " aa bail mujhe maar"
Literal translation: Hey bull, come and hit me.
:D:D:D:D:D
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Oh man!!!! Why are you so worried? As long as you did the right thing thats all it matters. Since you also have a confirmation number, why worry?
You are freaking out UNNECESSARILY.
This reminds ne of the hindi saying " aa bail mujhe maar"
Literal translation: Hey bull, come and hit me.
:D:D:D:D:D
tattoo April 15, 2011 By Holly
Munna Bhai
01-09 01:14 PM
Mine is Feb 2007 NSC. I-140 got RFE on Oct will be replying sometime this week.
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
please share your inputs
Looks like they may work on May 2007 cases sometime this month occording to NSC progress.
please share your inputs
more...
pictures selena gomez 2011 photoshoot,
waiting_4_gc
01-18 01:54 PM
Great idea. We are getting another opportunity to meet with our NorCAL IV members.
I am in.
Can someone PM me with more info about this event?
I am in.
Can someone PM me with more info about this event?
dresses selena gomez icons livejournal. tonks icons livejournal
subba
06-19 10:01 AM
He says that is what he always used and he never had a problem.
more...
makeup selena gomez short haircut
das0
06-16 02:44 PM
Predierock,
Can you please adivse on the following:
My wife is currently on H4.
She has a H1b approved for 3 years to start working on October 1, 2007.
Now, she gets a EAD (though my I-485) to start working on September 1, 2007 valid for 1 year only.
She has a job and the company would like her join asap.
Questions are:
1. Will her EAD (I-485 pending) cancel her H1B approval for the company?
2. Can she work only Sept 1 - Spet-30 on EAD and then fall-back on her H1B (Oct 1 - later) for next 3 years?
We know that H1b is approved and all set for 3 years but Green-Card-EAD is only valid for 1 yr only and sometimes renwal takes time and $$ and bit riskly. So we cant decide if we should stick to her alreay approved H1b or fall back on EAD.
Please advise folks.
Can you please adivse on the following:
My wife is currently on H4.
She has a H1b approved for 3 years to start working on October 1, 2007.
Now, she gets a EAD (though my I-485) to start working on September 1, 2007 valid for 1 year only.
She has a job and the company would like her join asap.
Questions are:
1. Will her EAD (I-485 pending) cancel her H1B approval for the company?
2. Can she work only Sept 1 - Spet-30 on EAD and then fall-back on her H1B (Oct 1 - later) for next 3 years?
We know that H1b is approved and all set for 3 years but Green-Card-EAD is only valid for 1 yr only and sometimes renwal takes time and $$ and bit riskly. So we cant decide if we should stick to her alreay approved H1b or fall back on EAD.
Please advise folks.
girlfriend Watch out, Selena Gomez.
miththoo
01-10 08:56 PM
>if one enters using AP,then works for his current employer , even then, >he/she has to leave and reenter to get h1 status? or only in case of ac21?
Ok, after using AP there are two ways in order to reinstate H1B status.
1) By applying H1b extension after entering on AP
2) going out of country and entering with valid h1b visa stamp.
This is based on what i read in immigration-law.com and again as per murthy office.
I used AP recently. My H1 is valid till Jun 10 2008. So I am asking my company to file for an extension. My paroled I-94 is valid till Dec24th 2008. My company is saying that they can not file for H1 extension now as my I-94 is valid till Dec 24th 2008. And they can only file for extension 6 month prior to I-94 expiry. But if that's the case then I will not be able to file for H1 extension until Jun24 (i.e. 6 month before I-94 expiry Dec24) and by that time my H1 ll be invalid. I would appreciate if you someone let me know if the H1 extension is possible in my case or not.
Thanks,
Miththoo
Ok, after using AP there are two ways in order to reinstate H1B status.
1) By applying H1b extension after entering on AP
2) going out of country and entering with valid h1b visa stamp.
This is based on what i read in immigration-law.com and again as per murthy office.
I used AP recently. My H1 is valid till Jun 10 2008. So I am asking my company to file for an extension. My paroled I-94 is valid till Dec24th 2008. My company is saying that they can not file for H1 extension now as my I-94 is valid till Dec 24th 2008. And they can only file for extension 6 month prior to I-94 expiry. But if that's the case then I will not be able to file for H1 extension until Jun24 (i.e. 6 month before I-94 expiry Dec24) and by that time my H1 ll be invalid. I would appreciate if you someone let me know if the H1 extension is possible in my case or not.
Thanks,
Miththoo
hairstyles justin bieber moving icon
pappu
12-06 10:25 PM
In order to get EB1 visa via L1 visa route I believe you need to be on L1 at present and also hold a senior manager level position in your multinational company and command good salary. If you want to try for EB1 proving yourself to be extraordinary, then you need to satisfy at least 3 criterias mentioned in another post on this thread. This kind of EB1 catagory is very tough and unless you can really prove that you are a genious and extraordinary, its not worth spending money.
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
wandmaker
09-18 07:07 AM
I paid the money to my company who has applied for my H1B.
Even I have not yet received receipt number for the H1 application filed on 7-April-2009 by my employer in NJ USA. I was also given fedex tracking number for the application that was sent on 7-April-2009.
I applied for H1B through a NJ based consultancy company for year 2010. I haven't got any receipt number though my employer claims to have fedexed my application on April 6th.
......had nicely and smartly enjoyed everyones money and are free without any problems. Now from last few weeks they are not even replying any emails or phone calls. This clearly indicates that it was very well planned fraud. They should really be sent to jail.
3 x $3,500 = $10,500 is easy money! As long as there are people like you ready to pay for their H1Bs; these companies will continue make money out of you. First, You should stop paying them! Second, file a complaint with USCIS about this company!!
Even I have not yet received receipt number for the H1 application filed on 7-April-2009 by my employer in NJ USA. I was also given fedex tracking number for the application that was sent on 7-April-2009.
I applied for H1B through a NJ based consultancy company for year 2010. I haven't got any receipt number though my employer claims to have fedexed my application on April 6th.
......had nicely and smartly enjoyed everyones money and are free without any problems. Now from last few weeks they are not even replying any emails or phone calls. This clearly indicates that it was very well planned fraud. They should really be sent to jail.
3 x $3,500 = $10,500 is easy money! As long as there are people like you ready to pay for their H1Bs; these companies will continue make money out of you. First, You should stop paying them! Second, file a complaint with USCIS about this company!!
No comments:
Post a Comment