trueguy
08-11 10:45 AM
Does anybody know how to change the title of thread? Since I cann't change options in poll, i would like to change the title to say that this poll is only till 2004.
thanks willwin for opening a new poll for remaining years.
thanks willwin for opening a new poll for remaining years.
wallpaper 2009 Nissan Gtr Nissan Skyline
macml
01-13 02:05 AM
Hi,
My wife's I-485 is currently pending. Along with the I-485, an I-131, and I-765application was filed on July 31, 2007. As you know, the process time frame for the I-131 is 90 days. The I-131 was being a bit delayed due to the amount of fillings from the new fee increases. Over 120 days later in mid Dec. I still had not received confirmation.
Unfortunately, I just purchased tickets to travel overseas to visit family and friends for after Christmas. I emailed my immigration lawyer about the status and they only said that it's still pending.
Over a period of a few days my wife and I contacted USCIS to check on the status, and we found out that there was an error on her date of birth. That very day the date of birth was corrected and the I-131 was expedited and we received the documents in time to travel a few days later.
The immigration lawyer says that the error in the date of birth had little to none effect on why the I-131 was delayed. Instead he believes the delay was because he didn't receive tax documents from me till Dec. 4., which he believes is why the I-131 and I-765 was approved on the same day.
However, I asked for a fee reduction due to his lack of service. Due I have a valid argument? Any thoughts welcomed!
My wife's I-485 is currently pending. Along with the I-485, an I-131, and I-765application was filed on July 31, 2007. As you know, the process time frame for the I-131 is 90 days. The I-131 was being a bit delayed due to the amount of fillings from the new fee increases. Over 120 days later in mid Dec. I still had not received confirmation.
Unfortunately, I just purchased tickets to travel overseas to visit family and friends for after Christmas. I emailed my immigration lawyer about the status and they only said that it's still pending.
Over a period of a few days my wife and I contacted USCIS to check on the status, and we found out that there was an error on her date of birth. That very day the date of birth was corrected and the I-131 was expedited and we received the documents in time to travel a few days later.
The immigration lawyer says that the error in the date of birth had little to none effect on why the I-131 was delayed. Instead he believes the delay was because he didn't receive tax documents from me till Dec. 4., which he believes is why the I-131 and I-765 was approved on the same day.
However, I asked for a fee reduction due to his lack of service. Due I have a valid argument? Any thoughts welcomed!
viqu
06-05 11:30 AM
My 140 was transferred from VSC to NSC, I received a new receipt from NSC. The new receipt show it is taking 5 months to 6 months to process this kind of case. My concern is my old receipt date (01/28/2006) is lost? totally unfair!!!
2011 Nissan Skyline GTR R34 Drift
casinoroyale
01-24 04:38 PM
Yellow Admin Review is usually TAL (Technology Alert List) check. This kind of makes sense with your Chemical background. This is usually faster check compared to other types (like name-check). This used to take 21 days, you are around the same timeframe.
Hello experts,
I had my h1-b interview in Toronto on January 4, 2008 and got 221g yellow for administrative review. I called DOS one week ago for processing status and was told that name check is on pending. I called DOS today and was told that security check is on pending. Could you please let me know usually how many checks the DOS will do? How long the security will be done?
Thanks!
Hello experts,
I had my h1-b interview in Toronto on January 4, 2008 and got 221g yellow for administrative review. I called DOS one week ago for processing status and was told that name check is on pending. I called DOS today and was told that security check is on pending. Could you please let me know usually how many checks the DOS will do? How long the security will be done?
Thanks!
more...
zCool
04-01 03:40 PM
Looking at your scenario
Moving to another employer and keeping 485 alive is only theoretical option to you.
In reality and practical terms your plan is fraught with risks and is probably not worth it.
If your situation isn't dire and current employer is paying on time and this next employer is not "once in a life-time" type of opportunity.. STAY!
Moving to another employer and keeping 485 alive is only theoretical option to you.
In reality and practical terms your plan is fraught with risks and is probably not worth it.
If your situation isn't dire and current employer is paying on time and this next employer is not "once in a life-time" type of opportunity.. STAY!
LongJourny
01-21 04:30 PM
Thank you all for giving me confidence. I have updated my profile. I do not remember dates of some information. I will update them later.
One last question is if worst thing to happen would my adv. parole be useful for reentry?
One last question is if worst thing to happen would my adv. parole be useful for reentry?
more...
mariner5555
02-08 01:14 PM
Thanks for the info. but is it 180 days or 120 --there was a thread that said it has become 120 days before expiry or else it is getting denied ??
2010 Nissan Skyline GTR R34
sam_hoosier
12-11 02:50 PM
guys,
I have hired as an "Auditor" in 2002, which is also the title of my position in my LC. If I use AC21 for AUdit manager, which is considered to be in the same occupational classification, will it be a problem? My salary will probably be double of what is on the LC application.... your thoughts are appreciated..
I heard that a major change in salary with regards to AC21 can be a problem..and the the title "manager" will always excite IOs ...for RFEs...
Did you check the job code for Auditor vs. Audit Manager ? 2x salary differential could be a problem.
You should consult a lawyer.
I have hired as an "Auditor" in 2002, which is also the title of my position in my LC. If I use AC21 for AUdit manager, which is considered to be in the same occupational classification, will it be a problem? My salary will probably be double of what is on the LC application.... your thoughts are appreciated..
I heard that a major change in salary with regards to AC21 can be a problem..and the the title "manager" will always excite IOs ...for RFEs...
Did you check the job code for Auditor vs. Audit Manager ? 2x salary differential could be a problem.
You should consult a lawyer.
more...
apb
09-05 02:27 PM
This should go to top of queue. BUMPING
hair Nissan Skyline R34
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...
looivy
11-21 12:28 AM
Experts, which is a better location for TCN H1 stamping? Nogales or Ciudad Juarez.
I plan to visit one of these for H1 stamping. Any guidelines you can provide would be very helpful.
Also, I am getting Nogales at 8 AM but I also need to get a check made from Banamex. Is there a BANAMEX in US that makes the visa check?
Thanks.
I plan to visit one of these for H1 stamping. Any guidelines you can provide would be very helpful.
Also, I am getting Nogales at 8 AM but I also need to get a check made from Banamex. Is there a BANAMEX in US that makes the visa check?
Thanks.
hot r34 skyline gtr wallpaper.
Rb_newsletter
12-15 06:03 PM
Why did you submit pay stubs for 2+ years? Is it not enough if we submit for last 3 or 6 months?
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
4) Can I see your Paystubs?
A) Gave him all the paystubs since May 2007.
5) Why are the amounts different in paystubs?
A) Base salary is same, but bonus component varies every pay cycle. Also, my employer had switched to a different payroll company and since then they are running the payroll weekly.
more...
house R34 Skyline GTR V Spec II Nur
seahawks
09-09 11:52 PM
Will there be merchandise sold locally when we come for the rally for us to buy since there may be no time for us to order and get it on time back in Seattle? We leave Seattle on Friday early hours (Sep 14th)
tattoo Nissan Skyline GTR R34 - GTR,
Imigrait
08-31 03:08 PM
Bottomline is that the whole process translates to Luck.
Surely is. That's why if you search on this forum there are so many theories and postulates put forward that tries to second guess or figure out what their algorithm/methodology is. The last person who could guess the PD movement algorithm was VDLRao, but he is MIA nowadays.
Anyways if anyone who has their PDs current on this forum and believes that they are feeling lucky tommorrow or anytime in the next month, I would suggest NOT to wait for GC news. When you're feeling lucky go to Vegas, maybe a multimillion $ jackpot that you always dreamt about is around the corner:D.
Surely is. That's why if you search on this forum there are so many theories and postulates put forward that tries to second guess or figure out what their algorithm/methodology is. The last person who could guess the PD movement algorithm was VDLRao, but he is MIA nowadays.
Anyways if anyone who has their PDs current on this forum and believes that they are feeling lucky tommorrow or anytime in the next month, I would suggest NOT to wait for GC news. When you're feeling lucky go to Vegas, maybe a multimillion $ jackpot that you always dreamt about is around the corner:D.
more...
pictures nissan skyline gtr r34
GCard_Dream
02-22 11:38 PM
I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the clarification.
a large number of thsoe "extra" GC were schedule A recaptures and did not affect most applicants. so really it was by profession not by country.
a large number of thsoe "extra" GC were schedule A recaptures and did not affect most applicants. so really it was by profession not by country.
dresses Nissan Skyline R Gtr Wallpaper
nashorn
12-18 03:25 PM
Have you got their decision on your 140? They wouldn't make dicision on your 485 untill they have decision on your 140. If your 140 got denied, your 485 would be denied.
more...
makeup nissan skyline r34 wallpaper
arunmohan
04-08 03:35 PM
Please refer to my signature for PD
girlfriend r34 skyline gtr wallpaper.
ras
05-30 01:31 AM
From my attorney and my understanding, say u have h1 and u started using ead.. later on u still have the unexpired h1b and u wanted to go back to h1 from ead, then all u do is go out of the country and go for visa stamping using ur h1 approval notice. Then you wil enter the country in h1b with a new i94 at POE. Then u are all set...
Say ur visa stamp in ur passport hasn't expired, then they said you could do an amendment or some change in ur h1b and get it approved. this iwll come iwht a new I94 and u wil hten b in h1b...Otherwise, u go out of the country and enter back showing h1b approval and get a new I94 at POE that will say h1b...
Hope that helps...
Sure that helps...
I didn't get what the below means
"this iwll come iwht a new I94 and u wil hten b in h1b...Otherwise, u go out of the country and enter back showing h1b approval and get a new I94 at POE that will say h1b..."
Say ur visa stamp in ur passport hasn't expired, then they said you could do an amendment or some change in ur h1b and get it approved. this iwll come iwht a new I94 and u wil hten b in h1b...Otherwise, u go out of the country and enter back showing h1b approval and get a new I94 at POE that will say h1b...
Hope that helps...
Sure that helps...
I didn't get what the below means
"this iwll come iwht a new I94 and u wil hten b in h1b...Otherwise, u go out of the country and enter back showing h1b approval and get a new I94 at POE that will say h1b..."
hairstyles Skyline GTR R34 Wallpapers
ddeka
09-17 10:36 AM
When AP is approved, you get 3 copies. I went twice on intl trips and each time they took a copy. I am left with 1 copy of the AP.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
Don't give original copy. Let them make a copy of the original.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
Don't give original copy. Let them make a copy of the original.
jindhal
09-23 01:47 PM
tell them she is in legal status, like that of a H4. also, you might say that she is not going to study as a full time student and therefore does not need a student visa. how many courses she takes up after getting admission is totally different.
Having an EAD ensures you can receive scholarships, grants, and any other financial assistantship. If you have an H4 you cannot work on campus or off campus and cannot receive any money from the university. My suggestion to the OP would be to get in touch with the International Students sections at the university and talk to the head or someone higher up. If possible set up a meeting and explain your situation and visa category. Maybe they might change their minds.
Best of luck and please post what your final decision was, I am going to be in a similar situation a year from now.
Having an EAD ensures you can receive scholarships, grants, and any other financial assistantship. If you have an H4 you cannot work on campus or off campus and cannot receive any money from the university. My suggestion to the OP would be to get in touch with the International Students sections at the university and talk to the head or someone higher up. If possible set up a meeting and explain your situation and visa category. Maybe they might change their minds.
Best of luck and please post what your final decision was, I am going to be in a similar situation a year from now.
agc2005
09-06 09:52 AM
Last year me and my wife had same issue with EAD and AP , we had to send them back with new application, new photos, passport photo copies and cover letter explaining that it's USCIS Admin error, we didn't send the checks.
Later we received corrected EADs after 5 weeks, but for AP it took about 2 months.
agc2005
PD: EB2 3/2005
RD: 07/02
Later we received corrected EADs after 5 weeks, but for AP it took about 2 months.
agc2005
PD: EB2 3/2005
RD: 07/02
No comments:
Post a Comment