dpp
06-28 03:18 PM
As far as I know We need only Employment offer letter. And the Designation should match your PERM Labor Certificate.
Sample Format:
DATE
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S. Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Re: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Petitioner: XXXXXXXXX
Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXX
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to certify that we had submitted petition for Alien Employment Certification on behalf of XXXXXXX. We are very much interested in continuing his employment with us in the capacity of XXXXXX(according to labor approval). His salary for the said employment will be $XXXXX (according to Labor approval)per year.
He will be managing XXXXXXXXXXXXX(according to Labor approval)
It should be noted that this is a full time and permanent position. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours Sincerely,
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
Yes, employment offer letter should have PERM title for sure. Same thing i mentioned in earlier post as well.
but for Employment verification letter, may be not all attorneys asks for it. But most of them ask. And it should have your current H1B/L1 title, if they are asking for this letter.
Sample Format:
DATE
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S. Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Re: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker
Petitioner: XXXXXXXXX
Beneficiary: XXXXXXXXX
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to certify that we had submitted petition for Alien Employment Certification on behalf of XXXXXXX. We are very much interested in continuing his employment with us in the capacity of XXXXXX(according to labor approval). His salary for the said employment will be $XXXXX (according to Labor approval)per year.
He will be managing XXXXXXXXXXXXX(according to Labor approval)
It should be noted that this is a full time and permanent position. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours Sincerely,
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
Yes, employment offer letter should have PERM title for sure. Same thing i mentioned in earlier post as well.
but for Employment verification letter, may be not all attorneys asks for it. But most of them ask. And it should have your current H1B/L1 title, if they are asking for this letter.
wallpaper Funny Quotes On Attitude
Anders �stberg
May 1st, 2005, 02:26 PM
Very nice, love the "wheel spin". I can see how it would take a couple of shots to get a good one with that shutter speed.
dealsnet
06-17 08:28 AM
You can extend H1B, if your labor was approved before I-94 expiry date. If it happens, do premium for I-140 (15 days), with approved I-140, you can extend upto 3 years.
2011 attitude quotes for boys to
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
ajp5
05-05 10:15 AM
It has to be approved before you can start to work. You can go with premium processing so its approved within a couple of weeks.
That is incorrect. It does not have to be approved before you can start working. My wife recently got her H1 to H4 to H1 approved and she started work as soon as H4 to H1 was filed.
That is incorrect. It does not have to be approved before you can start working. My wife recently got her H1 to H4 to H1 approved and she started work as soon as H4 to H1 was filed.
sk2006
08-19 12:45 PM
Is there anybody who got a mail like I got?
more...
ras
04-02 09:05 PM
My employer recd an RFE on Jan 8. The Requested Evidence is supposed to be provided in 12 weeks from the date of the RFE letter(Jan 8).
I am told that my attorny didn't respond to this RFE. Is it 84 days which means till April 2nd is the deadline when it is supposed to be answered. If that is the case I crossed the deadline by a day or two.
Can you experienced folks let me know if I crossed the deadline. Is there still a room to answer the ability to pay RFE?
my employer said he would answer RFE (ability to pay) if some financial adjustments are made. Is it ok and make this financial adjustment so that he can responde to the RFE inspite of the 12 week deadline just passed.
Will a delayed response for RFE for couple of days at USCIS does matter? Will they reject the evidence if they dont recieve in time?
Is it better to wait till the I140 is denied and then open an MTR? How easy and practical is it to open an MTR and successfully plead for the I140 approval?
Your early response helps me take a decision.
I have already filed 485 based on this RFE pending I140. that will go waste if I140 is denied.
I am told that my attorny didn't respond to this RFE. Is it 84 days which means till April 2nd is the deadline when it is supposed to be answered. If that is the case I crossed the deadline by a day or two.
Can you experienced folks let me know if I crossed the deadline. Is there still a room to answer the ability to pay RFE?
my employer said he would answer RFE (ability to pay) if some financial adjustments are made. Is it ok and make this financial adjustment so that he can responde to the RFE inspite of the 12 week deadline just passed.
Will a delayed response for RFE for couple of days at USCIS does matter? Will they reject the evidence if they dont recieve in time?
Is it better to wait till the I140 is denied and then open an MTR? How easy and practical is it to open an MTR and successfully plead for the I140 approval?
Your early response helps me take a decision.
I have already filed 485 based on this RFE pending I140. that will go waste if I140 is denied.
2010 house funny quotes about
Junky
10-28 08:02 AM
Happy diwali to every one.
May the festival of lights fill your hearts with hope, peace and serenity
May the festival of lights fill your hearts with hope, peace and serenity
more...
kerstbrd
07-04 06:16 PM
I am from Bosnia, so yes I guess it's ROW (rest of the world).
I whish you all the best resolution of this crisis. Trully. I really feel your pain and the pain of many of my friends who are affected by this.
I know when I first came on this site, it was devastating to read about so much negative stuff, so many cases in a limbo for years. I wanted to read som positive stories too. So, I hope that cases like mine give some people hope.
Thanks for the positive update.
I whish you all the best resolution of this crisis. Trully. I really feel your pain and the pain of many of my friends who are affected by this.
I know when I first came on this site, it was devastating to read about so much negative stuff, so many cases in a limbo for years. I wanted to read som positive stories too. So, I hope that cases like mine give some people hope.
Thanks for the positive update.
hair bad attitude quotes for girls
arunsarun
05-23 11:00 AM
Got it approved for 3 yrs (L1A to H1B)....... still couldnt believe that i won the lottery.
more...
140jibjab
02-25 04:53 PM
People like your (friend's) wife are a shame to the legal immigration community. We come here to work hard and make a better living. I don't think, this woman deserve to be admitted back to the US and I am not sorry to be rude in this case.
I think it is a Petty case. As long u can provide the Court Disposition and the ticket issued to the consular officer, You will get the Visa.. Provide as much documentation about the case to the consular officer.
SNTHAMPI , you work hard dude, don't be Hard on others.
I think it is a Petty case. As long u can provide the Court Disposition and the ticket issued to the consular officer, You will get the Visa.. Provide as much documentation about the case to the consular officer.
SNTHAMPI , you work hard dude, don't be Hard on others.
hot quotes about girls attitude.
Bpositive
08-21 03:33 PM
lots of opinions/answers for your qns...
more...
house 2011 2011 attitude quotes for
ajp5
11-02 12:31 AM
Talk to your company Liar (lawyer) first. My non-legal advise is
1. Ask lawyer to request more time for the RFE
2. If thats not possible - send what you can. eg W2 , paystubs etc etc. Try to get the client letter from your employer. If you get it in next 10 days, additional evidence is always welcome by USCIS I guess.
You cannot threaten your employer for something like this. Talk to them & resolve this with the help of your manager.....You have 1 last day ie Monday before last Fedex dropoff time.....reset your stopwatch.......maybe make a movie out of it and post it on youtube:)
1. Ask lawyer to request more time for the RFE
2. If thats not possible - send what you can. eg W2 , paystubs etc etc. Try to get the client letter from your employer. If you get it in next 10 days, additional evidence is always welcome by USCIS I guess.
You cannot threaten your employer for something like this. Talk to them & resolve this with the help of your manager.....You have 1 last day ie Monday before last Fedex dropoff time.....reset your stopwatch.......maybe make a movie out of it and post it on youtube:)
tattoo funny attitude quotes for
jonty_11
07-11 06:21 PM
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), chair of the House Immigration Subcommittee, sent Secretary Chertoff a list of questions and a request for documents from USCIS to get to the bottom of the whole Visa Bulletin fiasco. The letter is very interesting not just because it puts a heck of a lot of pressure on DHS right now, but also because Lofgren's folks imply from the questions that USCIS was short circuiting established security clearance procedures to "pre-request" visa numbers from DOS. If it turns out full security clearances were not carried out, USCIS will either need to say that they had the legal justification (which would be a public relations disaster for the agency) or that they intended to complete the checks after the fact (which would be a direct violation of their own regulations). The only way to avoid answering the questions and to make this go away would be to eat crow and start working the case July cases.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
Download letter_to_chertoff_re_visa_bulletin_issues_july_9_ 2007.pdf
What I dont understnad is that if they skipped security clearances on AOS applications to use up numbers..how does it imply taht they would have to eat crow and accept July application...Logic doesnt explain this,
They have alrady made teh blunder of skipping sec clearances...What they can now request is to go back and correct that mistake and ask that any and all applications in July be rejected so that they can do sec clearance on the ones they already used up/approved..
Does that make sense.?
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
Download letter_to_chertoff_re_visa_bulletin_issues_july_9_ 2007.pdf
What I dont understnad is that if they skipped security clearances on AOS applications to use up numbers..how does it imply taht they would have to eat crow and accept July application...Logic doesnt explain this,
They have alrady made teh blunder of skipping sec clearances...What they can now request is to go back and correct that mistake and ask that any and all applications in July be rejected so that they can do sec clearance on the ones they already used up/approved..
Does that make sense.?
more...
pictures quotes on girls attitude.
Abhinaym
01-27 09:59 AM
Does anyone have a link to this bill/article? I don't see anything on the news yet.
dresses attitude quotes and sayings.
crystal
03-28 11:02 AM
I think it is not fully functional yet. When I search on Country it results in nothing. Good start it is.
more...
makeup attitude quotes for girls for
pappu
05-08 10:26 AM
Hello all,
While I was out, the office of Congress called my home last night in regards to the email i sent them a month ago about the GC retrogression and H1B shortage. They asked me to return their call, I hold off calling them back because I'm confused of what to say, the thing is i don't want to disclose where I work (don't want to get my company involved). But really I am not sure what they have called me for given that email i sent them. Any ideas would be appreciated.
Good to hear that.
You must follow up with them and tell them that you are an IV member and stuck in rertrogression. Educate them a bit about the long delays in the green card process and seek an appointment with them so that you can discuss the issues in person. As soon as you seek an appointment, get in touch with IV. (varsha at immigrationvoioce.org and sanjay at immigrationvoice.org )and they will guide you for the meeting.
These are good signs that the office wants to discuss your concerns. Make use of the opportunity and help this community and yourself by following it up. If you would not like to disclose your employer to the lawmaker, that is fine. Generally lawmaker offices are considerate and very friendly. You will like the experience after you have met them.
While I was out, the office of Congress called my home last night in regards to the email i sent them a month ago about the GC retrogression and H1B shortage. They asked me to return their call, I hold off calling them back because I'm confused of what to say, the thing is i don't want to disclose where I work (don't want to get my company involved). But really I am not sure what they have called me for given that email i sent them. Any ideas would be appreciated.
Good to hear that.
You must follow up with them and tell them that you are an IV member and stuck in rertrogression. Educate them a bit about the long delays in the green card process and seek an appointment with them so that you can discuss the issues in person. As soon as you seek an appointment, get in touch with IV. (varsha at immigrationvoioce.org and sanjay at immigrationvoice.org )and they will guide you for the meeting.
These are good signs that the office wants to discuss your concerns. Make use of the opportunity and help this community and yourself by following it up. If you would not like to disclose your employer to the lawmaker, that is fine. Generally lawmaker offices are considerate and very friendly. You will like the experience after you have met them.
girlfriend quotes and sayings about
babu123
05-03 03:05 PM
EB2 Non Premium
I 140 , Date filed: Sep 20, 2006
Date Approved: Oct 4, 2006
Only in 10 business days.
I 140 , Date filed: Sep 20, 2006
Date Approved: Oct 4, 2006
Only in 10 business days.
hairstyles bad attitude quotes for girls
godbless
07-18 07:55 PM
My I 140 alone was applied on July12th as we did not know anything about the revision that time.
I did not recieve the receipt notice yet and I called USCIS and they dont have a record of my entry yet.
Mine was a labor substitution with my current company itself. My current company is a multi billion dollar US firm and they go by the rules, so I am not worried about my I 140 approval.
Since my I 140 was applied based on a labor subsitution, and if my I 140 receipt comes in August ( lets say august 10th), would I still be considered in the July bulletin ?
Thanks a lot for the reply,
Sam
You don't need to wait till the approval of your I 140 or the reciept notice. You are eligible to file I 485 right away. The attornys know how to do it. So don't waste time and send your I 485 in ASAP.
I did not recieve the receipt notice yet and I called USCIS and they dont have a record of my entry yet.
Mine was a labor substitution with my current company itself. My current company is a multi billion dollar US firm and they go by the rules, so I am not worried about my I 140 approval.
Since my I 140 was applied based on a labor subsitution, and if my I 140 receipt comes in August ( lets say august 10th), would I still be considered in the July bulletin ?
Thanks a lot for the reply,
Sam
You don't need to wait till the approval of your I 140 or the reciept notice. You are eligible to file I 485 right away. The attornys know how to do it. So don't waste time and send your I 485 in ASAP.
lazycis
12-17 09:52 AM
It depends. What is the reason for the denial? Usually notice of denial says whether you can appeal or not.
mdcowboy
09-15 02:38 PM
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
:)
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
:)
No comments:
Post a Comment