Ivyleaf
10-07 03:41 PM
my votes for bat. reflections are my fav :beam:
485Question
08-31 12:34 PM
It's all depends on how you maintain the relationship with your company. Offcourse they are into business and they will make sure if they are making money on you as well.
I would agree not to continue this topic here.
I would agree not to continue this topic here.
TomPlate
07-17 10:35 PM
You should not have a problem. But you will get an RFE and then you need to complete. But good if you can get medical examination completed, because almost everyone would have put that shot in India. Convey your doctor to say yes and complete it.
maximus777
05-28 02:44 PM
Are USCIS related expenses like visa/lawyer fees etc. tax deductible? :confused:
more...
johnnymore
03-18 04:12 PM
Wow, thanks so much for the fast responses. You can see how confused I am....I was in the wrong forum. Thank you for the heads-up and the redirection to the proper forums.
Much appreciated!!
Johnny
Much appreciated!!
Johnny
kondur_007
08-13 09:32 PM
Can you please tell us which service center you send your application to?
Thanks.
Thanks.
more...
needhelp!
10-22 11:09 AM
as volunteers for IV booth
chanduv23
09-25 12:17 PM
Thanks for the information logiclife. Being a low level mod myself, was a bit concerned, but now we have this information.
more...
gcgreen
07-22 02:31 AM
Quoting the AC21 memo:
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
there is a memorandum issued by USCIS on
12/27/2005. It clearly indicated that I can't be denied due to leaving
previous employer prior to 180 days.
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/amendac21.pdf
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny
portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her
employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application
pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current)
employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement
that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the
I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140
petitioner before the I- 485 has been pending 180 days will not
necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases
an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as
of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if
not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent
to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to
undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not
presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting
documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be
appropriate.
I guess that the key is to prove that it is a bona fide offer. I have worked for them for 4.5 years. So even if they won't cooperate, I can argue that it is real.
I won't want to restart the GC process again. We are talking about a big amount of money for the whole process.
"Adjudicators SHOULD NOT PRESUME ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate."
So, per the memorandum, you MAY be in trouble ONLY if the adjudicating officer decides something is fishy. And the officer is to treat the I-140 and supporting docs (based on which your I-140 was already approved) as prima facie evidence of intent. So why are you worried? Has your I-140 been withdrawn by old employer?
there is a memorandum issued by USCIS on
12/27/2005. It clearly indicated that I can't be denied due to leaving
previous employer prior to 180 days.
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/amendac21.pdf
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny
portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her
employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application
pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current)
employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement
that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the
I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140
petitioner before the I- 485 has been pending 180 days will not
necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases
an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as
of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if
not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent
to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to
undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not
presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting
documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in
appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be
appropriate.
I guess that the key is to prove that it is a bona fide offer. I have worked for them for 4.5 years. So even if they won't cooperate, I can argue that it is real.
I won't want to restart the GC process again. We are talking about a big amount of money for the whole process.
rb_248
04-15 11:07 AM
Is it B1 or B2 visa ?
more...
calgirl
05-25 07:50 PM
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
What does the above statement mean??
So, folks who have an advanced degree from the US are exempt from the cap? Or advanced degree plus 3 yrs of work exp is required?
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
iwantmygcnow
11-09 10:22 AM
This is exactly what happened to my case. My attorney sent the porting request three time with no success. He says USCIS is returning the request without giving any reason.
more...
lostinbeta
09-06 10:40 AM
I did my footer in Photoshop 7, exported as .png and imported the images into Flash MX. Added a little actionscript and *bam*, I got me a new footer.
Umm.. there is also www.carbonfour.com ....they are pretty good.
Umm.. there is also www.carbonfour.com ....they are pretty good.
Michael chertoff
04-15 10:28 AM
I got my approval y'day from TSC. This marks the end of GC journey. Been with same employer since Aug 1999 ( 9 Long years...........).
Congratulations .....everyone of us will see this day one day....
wow I can imagine how happy you are..enjoy and pray for rest of us.
Congratulations .....everyone of us will see this day one day....
wow I can imagine how happy you are..enjoy and pray for rest of us.
more...
meridiani.planum
12-18 11:53 PM
Team,
I need advise. Some should respond to my query. It is still unanswered after 190 views. I need to make some quick decisions. Naukri ka sawaal hai!!
Thanks
I apologize on behalf of all of IV for not having responded to your post even after 190 views. Seeing how much you have contributed to IV in time or money we should all have scrambled to get your highness the answer to your question asap. :rolleyes:
If you had bothered to search these forums you would have got your answers in 5 minutes. However its just easier to ask something and sit there waiting, right? instead of reaching out, researching a bit?
Now that someone has answered your questions, would you consider atleast contributing (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905) to IV? The same questions you have asked here, if you ask some of the good lawyers, would have cost you $300!
I need advise. Some should respond to my query. It is still unanswered after 190 views. I need to make some quick decisions. Naukri ka sawaal hai!!
Thanks
I apologize on behalf of all of IV for not having responded to your post even after 190 views. Seeing how much you have contributed to IV in time or money we should all have scrambled to get your highness the answer to your question asap. :rolleyes:
If you had bothered to search these forums you would have got your answers in 5 minutes. However its just easier to ask something and sit there waiting, right? instead of reaching out, researching a bit?
Now that someone has answered your questions, would you consider atleast contributing (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15905) to IV? The same questions you have asked here, if you ask some of the good lawyers, would have cost you $300!
webm
02-28 01:36 PM
Dear friends,
I am not fully clear on this..
Are they going to be seperate FP notices one for 485 and one for 765??
So far I have received only one FP notice..So does this effect EAD renewals??
Any one on the same boat??
Thanks!
I am not fully clear on this..
Are they going to be seperate FP notices one for 485 and one for 765??
So far I have received only one FP notice..So does this effect EAD renewals??
Any one on the same boat??
Thanks!
more...
MDix
01-26 04:35 PM
Voted.
Thank's
MDix
Thank's
MDix
psam
10-21 01:13 AM
. if my pre taxed salary is $ 5000 per-month , if I submit expense statemet for $500. Then my employer will send a check of 500 and paystub i.e. direct deposit after applying tax on $4500.
I am not sure whatever he is suggesting is good tyhing to do and it will not have any problem for me.
I don't think you will get in trouble with IRS. Because your W2 will have less salary stated. However for H1-B purpose, you salary will drop from what was probably stated on your H1-B application. No one is going to notice this. But just don't do this, when your H1-B stamping or renewal is near, so that you will have full salary mentioned in your recent paystubs.
--I am PC. Not an attorney or tax consultant :)
I am not sure whatever he is suggesting is good tyhing to do and it will not have any problem for me.
I don't think you will get in trouble with IRS. Because your W2 will have less salary stated. However for H1-B purpose, you salary will drop from what was probably stated on your H1-B application. No one is going to notice this. But just don't do this, when your H1-B stamping or renewal is near, so that you will have full salary mentioned in your recent paystubs.
--I am PC. Not an attorney or tax consultant :)
nayekal
02-17 01:02 PM
Nayekal, Thanks for your response.
What I meant to say is that my H1 is expiring on Sep 30th 2009 and therefore the earliest date I can apply for extension is April 1st. That's why I asked the question whether I can wait until April 1st for COS from H1 to H4 for my wife even though my wife's employment is ending on March 13th.
Also, is it necessary to have the proof of I-539 receipt by March 13th or few weeks difference is ok? Can you please let me know your experience in this matter.
Thanks...
I can't answer this question.
I believe you should talk to your lawyer about it.
What I meant to say is that my H1 is expiring on Sep 30th 2009 and therefore the earliest date I can apply for extension is April 1st. That's why I asked the question whether I can wait until April 1st for COS from H1 to H4 for my wife even though my wife's employment is ending on March 13th.
Also, is it necessary to have the proof of I-539 receipt by March 13th or few weeks difference is ok? Can you please let me know your experience in this matter.
Thanks...
I can't answer this question.
I believe you should talk to your lawyer about it.
GCwaitforever
06-19 04:09 PM
I heard that once we start using EAD (immigrant intent), we could never go back to using H-1B (quasi non-immigrant). Many lawyers suggest not using EAD as yet because if I-485 is ever rejected for any reason, we could still be on H-1B and go on for few more years and leave the country comfortably. Without H-1B in those circumstances, we would be out of any status and we have to leave the country immediately.
Your friend might have applied for EAD, but primarily he must be staying on H-1B only. His wife could be using the EAD very much.
Your friend might have applied for EAD, but primarily he must be staying on H-1B only. His wife could be using the EAD very much.
MDix
01-26 04:35 PM
Voted.
Thank's
MDix
Thank's
MDix
