fuzzy logic
06-30 09:51 PM
Hi,
I was hoping to get some help on my situation. I have I-140 approved, received EAD and AP. Also my H1B was also recently extended. I am expecting a promotion and also will have to change location to a different city with the same employer.
Would this require filing for AC21? Also would this require amendment to H1B visa?
Any help would be appreciated.
I was hoping to get some help on my situation. I have I-140 approved, received EAD and AP. Also my H1B was also recently extended. I am expecting a promotion and also will have to change location to a different city with the same employer.
Would this require filing for AC21? Also would this require amendment to H1B visa?
Any help would be appreciated.
wallpaper Corvette+zr1+2009
scorpion
02-26 05:30 PM
Consult your Lawyer
123456mg
07-20 03:32 AM
Immigration attorneys normally send more than required documents to avoid getting RFEs later on. In this case, the reason people send W-2s (though it is not mandated) and tax returns is to show that you were working and were making approximately equal amount that was mentioned on you H-1B LCA.
Asking for W-2 or tax returns are within the powers of AOS adjudicator and s/he can raise an RFE for such "discretionary evidence".
The tax returns prove that you did not have any other source of income (that directly contradicts your H-1B compliance) and thus you were not employed on another part-time job or any other business of that fashion and complied to the terms of H-1B rules.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do. Also, if you had any other form(s) of income (like some people use to make money in day trading and that forms their additional income), it will be wiser not to send your income tax returns and create additonal issues.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 and income tax statements from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
Asking for W-2 or tax returns are within the powers of AOS adjudicator and s/he can raise an RFE for such "discretionary evidence".
The tax returns prove that you did not have any other source of income (that directly contradicts your H-1B compliance) and thus you were not employed on another part-time job or any other business of that fashion and complied to the terms of H-1B rules.
There are various factors to consider here:
1. If you know that your H-1B LCA had substantially higher amount and you did not make that much (cause you were on bench or any other reason), it would be far better not to send it. By sending your W-2 in such case, you are actually weakening your case and the AOS officer is going to find it out and will have RFE for it and later you will have a lot of explaining to do. Also, if you had any other form(s) of income (like some people use to make money in day trading and that forms their additional income), it will be wiser not to send your income tax returns and create additonal issues.
2. If you know that you made almost similar amount as mentioned on your H-1B LCA, then you will have to send all W-2 and income tax statements from the time when you were last inspected or paroled by the US immigration officer. Do not give anymore than what is really required of you. By giving unnecessorily more information, you may cause additional issues later on.
2011 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 w/
ash27
04-02 10:20 PM
It is not very clear if the new employer needs to explicitly state that they would like to continue your GC. I understand that a major chunk of employers will have reservation stating this in an offer letter.
My understanding is that to invoke AC21, employer needs to provide an offer letter for a full time position. Please clarify.
My understanding is that to invoke AC21, employer needs to provide an offer letter for a full time position. Please clarify.
more...
morpheus
04-02 09:44 PM
So if (for example) an H1B worked in the US for a few weeks before their visa became available, are they technically eligible for this? Or perhaps they were out of status for a week or two between jobs? I'm sure many H1's might have been in this situation. It's unclear who this applies to.
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
I just read the Specter amendments to 2454 and I can't see where in 218D or 602 it says the alien must have been here illegally. Can someone quote that part? All I can see is this requirement in 601.
`(1) PRESENCE; EMPLOYMENT.--The alien establishes that the alien--
``(A) was physically present in the United States before January 7, 2004; and
``(B) was employed in the United States before January 7, 2004, and has been employed in the United States since that date.
I read one summary of the bill that claims 'The alien also must acknowledge, under oath, that the alien is unlawfully present and subject to removal or deportation.' but this is at the time of application - not in the past. So technically this could still apply to many people. I haven't been able to find this clause in the actual bill though.
From what I have read, if this bill passes it may just turn out that an H1B could quit their employer tomorrow, go and join another employer without filing an H1 transfer and file under 218D in the next year. Since they are technically eligible for 218D at this point, they could move straight to a green card without the current massive backlogs. Also, the 218D status has job mobility, and no LCA is required.
Can anyone refute this?
GooblyWoobly
07-18 06:25 PM
Wrong! Yes, you will be the new fee but then you will pay the same fee each year you renew your EAD. No fee payment only applies if you file your I-485 with the new fee structure.
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
Can someone else confirm this too? For Q2, I think you are wrong. Take this case....
Primary is on H1, derivative on H4, both apply for AOS, primary goes on EAD (thus invalidating H1, and in turn spouse's H4). So, the spouse just has AOS receipt number, and no H4. Is she out of status? Of course not. This is a very common scenario.
Also, for Q1, I765 is a completely different entity in the pay schedule http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
So, why wouldn't I get the benefit of the higher fee if I pay that? Any source of information for you to say I will have to pay each year?
If you are not planning on using EAD and she won't either then she needs to change status to H4.
Can someone else confirm this too? For Q2, I think you are wrong. Take this case....
Primary is on H1, derivative on H4, both apply for AOS, primary goes on EAD (thus invalidating H1, and in turn spouse's H4). So, the spouse just has AOS receipt number, and no H4. Is she out of status? Of course not. This is a very common scenario.
Also, for Q1, I765 is a completely different entity in the pay schedule http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf
So, why wouldn't I get the benefit of the higher fee if I pay that? Any source of information for you to say I will have to pay each year?
more...
parimmigv
08-10 03:23 PM
I searched for $20 but the link is no where found.
2010 Brakes 2011 Chevrolet Corvette
Blog Feeds
09-29 08:10 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-M9UOqLpWMfQGS6veKywPlTL54-ILZDnoer45gt0D7Ht4XHacHeL3iLwuFOrJ1CLRA4tFSDCbsBsrcG8qfKf-Ju_mKjdBxsxvONPy1iR87sUwoFbhQTDymXlZmexnn-MacUKlXmycJkg/s320/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-M9UOqLpWMfQGS6veKywPlTL54-ILZDnoer45gt0D7Ht4XHacHeL3iLwuFOrJ1CLRA4tFSDCbsBsrcG8qfKf-Ju_mKjdBxsxvONPy1iR87sUwoFbhQTDymXlZmexnn-MacUKlXmycJkg/s1600-h/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG)
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you broached the subject of the possible need to increase filing fees because of a decrease in the number of applications received by USCIS this fiscal year. You also noted that there was over $100 million shortfall in your budget because of these decreased filings. I have some suggestions to meet your budget.
First, look at your budget projections from this last year. Last October, who didn't see the recession? Why weren't reductions in force made at that time? On April 1 when only 33% of the H-1B applications were filed as compared to the year before, why didn't USCIS staff get pared down? A monumental increase in naturalization applications occurred before the Presidential elections (as they do every 4 years), who did not not see a decrease in naturalization applications for 2009! My heck, every business in America was laying off employees, but not USCIS!
Second, have a heart to heart talk with anyone who issues an RFE that requires more than 5 pages to respond to. This last week we submitted a 3,000 page (30 lb.) response to an RFE (see the picture above), which alleged that an Accountant was not a professional position! Director, what is the deal with your Service Centers? Is there simply too little to do and too many employees? The "service" we are receiving as your customers is not doing the American Economy any good.
Third, why are the local adjudications officers interviewing non-current priority date visa applicants, including on Saturdays in September! You are paying OVERTIME to examiners to interview people who cannot be approved for their green cards. What sense does that make?
I have many other ideas as well if you would like to chat. The bottom line is this. The agency you have just taken over is in serious need of a top to bottom review. You have a monstrous challenge ahead of you to bring this agency in line with the priorities it should have. Priorities that not only include national security, but also ensuring our own economic well being and competitiveness by promoting job growth and allowing companies to hire qualified workers, keeping families together through reunification, and bringing new citizens into the fold.
You need to get control of service centers, where officers are issuing, at increasingly frequent rates, Requests for Evidence that are not only unnecessary, but which are onerous and burdensome, and appear to be designed to make the employer give up his request for the visa application. You have local offices finding marriage "fraud" where no such fraud exists. You have CIS doing 25,000 random walk ins of legitimate U.S. employers of H-1B workers, disrupting the workplace asking questions about the H-1B employer, without regard to a lawyers appearance in the case in clear violation of the 6th Amendment. The list could go on about what your agency is doing wrong. And, while there are things USCIS does right, the reality is that rather than serving immigrants and their employers, you are punishing them.
So, before you raise your fees, I think you MUST first get your own house in order. You should not and cannot honestly balance your budgetary disaster on the backs of the employers and immigrants you are committed to serving.
With all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck in your new position.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2662713464097056944?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-M9UOqLpWMfQGS6veKywPlTL54-ILZDnoer45gt0D7Ht4XHacHeL3iLwuFOrJ1CLRA4tFSDCbsBsrcG8qfKf-Ju_mKjdBxsxvONPy1iR87sUwoFbhQTDymXlZmexnn-MacUKlXmycJkg/s320/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-M9UOqLpWMfQGS6veKywPlTL54-ILZDnoer45gt0D7Ht4XHacHeL3iLwuFOrJ1CLRA4tFSDCbsBsrcG8qfKf-Ju_mKjdBxsxvONPy1iR87sUwoFbhQTDymXlZmexnn-MacUKlXmycJkg/s1600-h/RFE+FROM+HELL.JPG)
Dear Director Mayorkas:
Last week in a speech you broached the subject of the possible need to increase filing fees because of a decrease in the number of applications received by USCIS this fiscal year. You also noted that there was over $100 million shortfall in your budget because of these decreased filings. I have some suggestions to meet your budget.
First, look at your budget projections from this last year. Last October, who didn't see the recession? Why weren't reductions in force made at that time? On April 1 when only 33% of the H-1B applications were filed as compared to the year before, why didn't USCIS staff get pared down? A monumental increase in naturalization applications occurred before the Presidential elections (as they do every 4 years), who did not not see a decrease in naturalization applications for 2009! My heck, every business in America was laying off employees, but not USCIS!
Second, have a heart to heart talk with anyone who issues an RFE that requires more than 5 pages to respond to. This last week we submitted a 3,000 page (30 lb.) response to an RFE (see the picture above), which alleged that an Accountant was not a professional position! Director, what is the deal with your Service Centers? Is there simply too little to do and too many employees? The "service" we are receiving as your customers is not doing the American Economy any good.
Third, why are the local adjudications officers interviewing non-current priority date visa applicants, including on Saturdays in September! You are paying OVERTIME to examiners to interview people who cannot be approved for their green cards. What sense does that make?
I have many other ideas as well if you would like to chat. The bottom line is this. The agency you have just taken over is in serious need of a top to bottom review. You have a monstrous challenge ahead of you to bring this agency in line with the priorities it should have. Priorities that not only include national security, but also ensuring our own economic well being and competitiveness by promoting job growth and allowing companies to hire qualified workers, keeping families together through reunification, and bringing new citizens into the fold.
You need to get control of service centers, where officers are issuing, at increasingly frequent rates, Requests for Evidence that are not only unnecessary, but which are onerous and burdensome, and appear to be designed to make the employer give up his request for the visa application. You have local offices finding marriage "fraud" where no such fraud exists. You have CIS doing 25,000 random walk ins of legitimate U.S. employers of H-1B workers, disrupting the workplace asking questions about the H-1B employer, without regard to a lawyers appearance in the case in clear violation of the 6th Amendment. The list could go on about what your agency is doing wrong. And, while there are things USCIS does right, the reality is that rather than serving immigrants and their employers, you are punishing them.
So, before you raise your fees, I think you MUST first get your own house in order. You should not and cannot honestly balance your budgetary disaster on the backs of the employers and immigrants you are committed to serving.
With all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck in your new position.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-2662713464097056944?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/09/rfe-hell-and-increased-uscis-filing.html)
more...
gcwatchdog
05-10 10:37 PM
Hello 90210,
If you entered on AP your status is AOS/EAD,you can transfer your H1 but you can't be on H1 status unless and until you go out of the country and enter on H1.
I talked to Murthy about this couple of months ago.
If you entered on AP your status is AOS/EAD,you can transfer your H1 but you can't be on H1 status unless and until you go out of the country and enter on H1.
I talked to Murthy about this couple of months ago.
hair 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
senthil1
07-12 12:01 AM
Various conspiracy theories are
1. They made all PD current for July to encourage legal immigrants to support CIR. CIR is failed they backed out on July. But it has weak argument as they moved PD for about 2 years in previous month.
2. They made PD current based on rules and regulations as 60k Visa was available. But USCIS may lose fees increase so they backed out to get more revenue. If this is correct they will make all PD current in Oct 2007. But I do not think this will be reason as just for more money for Organization anyone will risk their career. If anyone gets personal financial gain then they might do but here there is no chance for that
3. Because first 2 weeks of June not much approvals of I485 DOS made all PD current. But when USCIS started approving cases they realized that there were enough applications already and alerted DOS and DOS issued revised VB
4. USCIS does not want flooding of I485 applications as that will be shown up as backlog. To prevent that they asked DOS to issue revised VB
There is going to be 3 important questions in Lawsuit(If court accepts lawsuit for consideration) or congress hearing(if happens)
1. Whether DOS or USCIS violated law in issuing revised VB.
2. Whether they violated law in bypassing FBI check for applications to make Visa numbers unavailable
3. Why they could not accept the I485 applications based on First VB? What is the need for issuing revised VB?
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
1. They made all PD current for July to encourage legal immigrants to support CIR. CIR is failed they backed out on July. But it has weak argument as they moved PD for about 2 years in previous month.
2. They made PD current based on rules and regulations as 60k Visa was available. But USCIS may lose fees increase so they backed out to get more revenue. If this is correct they will make all PD current in Oct 2007. But I do not think this will be reason as just for more money for Organization anyone will risk their career. If anyone gets personal financial gain then they might do but here there is no chance for that
3. Because first 2 weeks of June not much approvals of I485 DOS made all PD current. But when USCIS started approving cases they realized that there were enough applications already and alerted DOS and DOS issued revised VB
4. USCIS does not want flooding of I485 applications as that will be shown up as backlog. To prevent that they asked DOS to issue revised VB
There is going to be 3 important questions in Lawsuit(If court accepts lawsuit for consideration) or congress hearing(if happens)
1. Whether DOS or USCIS violated law in issuing revised VB.
2. Whether they violated law in bypassing FBI check for applications to make Visa numbers unavailable
3. Why they could not accept the I485 applications based on First VB? What is the need for issuing revised VB?
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
more...
brb2
04-19 08:45 AM
Politians will act when they think it is time to act. It is already known that the CIR is planned for second half of May in the senate. Why would they want to lay it out in detail and have those against conduct minute analysis and attack it. So they will only reveal the content closer to the debate.
It is clear Nancy Pelosi has told Bush, if you want it, deliver me the Republican votes and then I will schedule it. She is not going to spend her political capital on CIR. She knows Democrats will vote for it, but republicans will play both sides and she does not want it to happen. The senator who are elected for 6 years (as opposed for 2 years in the house) are less affected by short term public opinion and do what is right for the country. Even there Presidential hopefuls change their tune, like McCain. He was too left of the republican party and now he is moving too much to the right and will please no one, just like Romney.
It is clear Nancy Pelosi has told Bush, if you want it, deliver me the Republican votes and then I will schedule it. She is not going to spend her political capital on CIR. She knows Democrats will vote for it, but republicans will play both sides and she does not want it to happen. The senator who are elected for 6 years (as opposed for 2 years in the house) are less affected by short term public opinion and do what is right for the country. Even there Presidential hopefuls change their tune, like McCain. He was too left of the republican party and now he is moving too much to the right and will please no one, just like Romney.
hot 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 -
GCchakravyuh
07-13 11:58 AM
you never know 'huge change in 24 hrs is ' actually a stunt to shut us up from the rally:rolleyes:
more...
house 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
Siddharta
09-26 04:26 PM
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
So you recommend I stay in the similar position (and company) till 2015. Greattttttttt.....
So you recommend I stay in the similar position (and company) till 2015. Greattttttttt.....
tattoo Chevy Corvette ZR1. 2010
bsbawa10
02-12 05:13 AM
looks like this is what happening...
They have 100's of 1000's of cases....thrown in one dark room.
They have this Q on their computers, with cases approved Namecheck, background check, I-140, FP complete....
Now, when they are assigned with a case, they will try to find the file....Just imagine its not easy to find the case, but USCIS doesnt put any effort to sort them either.
So, he will leave that case there, go to next one...This is just my guess...
EXACTLY, they seem not to be organized and they do not have the will to be organized. They do not have will to find the files and they do not have will to process the case. The easiest thing for them is to pick up the file which they can grab from the top and process it if the PD is current. If you are lucky, you will get GC, otherwise , your file is burried somewhere and nobody excepting you has the desire to locate it. On the top of that , they have no accountability..nobody to check if the IO is doing the right thing or not. Nobody to check if the customer service is giving the right answers or not. Nobody to check if customer service is directing to the right people or not.
They have 100's of 1000's of cases....thrown in one dark room.
They have this Q on their computers, with cases approved Namecheck, background check, I-140, FP complete....
Now, when they are assigned with a case, they will try to find the file....Just imagine its not easy to find the case, but USCIS doesnt put any effort to sort them either.
So, he will leave that case there, go to next one...This is just my guess...
EXACTLY, they seem not to be organized and they do not have the will to be organized. They do not have will to find the files and they do not have will to process the case. The easiest thing for them is to pick up the file which they can grab from the top and process it if the PD is current. If you are lucky, you will get GC, otherwise , your file is burried somewhere and nobody excepting you has the desire to locate it. On the top of that , they have no accountability..nobody to check if the IO is doing the right thing or not. Nobody to check if the customer service is giving the right answers or not. Nobody to check if customer service is directing to the right people or not.
more...
pictures Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 – 2009
morpheus
04-02 09:59 PM
Great fact sheet. It should list people like Andy Grove, Jerry Yang, and Sergey Brin - Hungarian, Chinese and Russian co-founders of Intel, Yahoo and Google - all immigrants.
dresses 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
go_gc_way
06-01 03:55 PM
We have discussed this issue earlier on this forum.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
Question for Foks asking for a separate bill : I understand from Admins answer above , this may not be possible now.
My question is , separting this from CIR will QUICKEN the proceedings with respect to our issues?
Question for Admin : Was this poll started by IV?
BTW I have voted in favor of a separate bill assuming it will quicken things. Thanks.
IV really wishes that this is possible but the truth is that when CIR has already been passed in the Senate, there is no way that Frist (or any other senator for that matter) will allow for the introduction of another immigration bill now.
So if we need to proceed with a legal immigrant's only bill, we will atleast have to wait till CIR dies. So don't get your hopes high now.
Question for Foks asking for a separate bill : I understand from Admins answer above , this may not be possible now.
My question is , separting this from CIR will QUICKEN the proceedings with respect to our issues?
Question for Admin : Was this poll started by IV?
BTW I have voted in favor of a separate bill assuming it will quicken things. Thanks.
more...
makeup 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 -
eb3retro
06-19 10:07 PM
Hi
Here is my situation
My current labor shows title as Systems Analyst (EB3-I category - PD Sept 2002). The code that I can read shows 030-167014.
I-140 is approved in 2005. 485 Applied in June 2007.
8th year on H1B - H1 Valid till November 2009.
I have offer to join one of big 5 IT Firms as Project Manager( working at client through them from past 4 years), however due to the "Same or Similar" clause , I am confused and kind of nervous as well that it may impact my GC application as the job title is not similar to what is on the labor.
This is great company to work for and Salary raise is about 15-20% from current and about 90% higher than what is on the labor. Would this create any issue?
I had kind of made up my mind that I will go ahead and join and skip notifying USCIS of AC21 and will deal with it if and when I receive the RFE, but the prospective employer's immigration guys are telling that they have policy and their attorney will prepare a letter for invoking AC21 and send that to USCIS.
Just tired of waiting for GC and losing the opportunities, What options do I have ?
� Should I stay put and continue to wait till I get GC in hand?
� If new employer notify USCIS with AC21 letter that my new title is PM or something else (but not same or similar to what is on Labor)
- Would USCIS makes the decision on my 485 right there saying it's a no go?
- or Would they send me the RFE later on when my PD is current?
- What if I say I am willing to go back to my old employer on the title that is on the labor, in the situation of RFE - would USCIS accepts that (I have good relationship with my current employer and they are mid size company)
Any Suggestion - Anybody?
Need to make the decision in next couple of days.
hey man, if i were you, i wouldn't do this..i personally changed jobs twice in ac21 and would not do this change..
Here is my situation
My current labor shows title as Systems Analyst (EB3-I category - PD Sept 2002). The code that I can read shows 030-167014.
I-140 is approved in 2005. 485 Applied in June 2007.
8th year on H1B - H1 Valid till November 2009.
I have offer to join one of big 5 IT Firms as Project Manager( working at client through them from past 4 years), however due to the "Same or Similar" clause , I am confused and kind of nervous as well that it may impact my GC application as the job title is not similar to what is on the labor.
This is great company to work for and Salary raise is about 15-20% from current and about 90% higher than what is on the labor. Would this create any issue?
I had kind of made up my mind that I will go ahead and join and skip notifying USCIS of AC21 and will deal with it if and when I receive the RFE, but the prospective employer's immigration guys are telling that they have policy and their attorney will prepare a letter for invoking AC21 and send that to USCIS.
Just tired of waiting for GC and losing the opportunities, What options do I have ?
� Should I stay put and continue to wait till I get GC in hand?
� If new employer notify USCIS with AC21 letter that my new title is PM or something else (but not same or similar to what is on Labor)
- Would USCIS makes the decision on my 485 right there saying it's a no go?
- or Would they send me the RFE later on when my PD is current?
- What if I say I am willing to go back to my old employer on the title that is on the labor, in the situation of RFE - would USCIS accepts that (I have good relationship with my current employer and they are mid size company)
Any Suggestion - Anybody?
Need to make the decision in next couple of days.
hey man, if i were you, i wouldn't do this..i personally changed jobs twice in ac21 and would not do this change..
girlfriend 2011 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
Soul
06-12 07:32 PM
lol you really want it? :P
hairstyles 2010 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1
amsgc
01-22 10:08 PM
You shouldn't confuse porting I-140 using AC21 and H-1B - these are two different things.
You can start working for a new employer - using EAD or H-1B, while your I-485 is pending.
When people say that they have used AC21, they usually mean that they are using the provisions in AC21 (clarified by the Yate's memo), to port their I-140 to a new employer after 180 days of applying for I-485.
What do yo mean by siwtching employer using AC-21 and again H1B status? Do you mean that you have a H1B with the new company? In that case isnt that just a H1B transfer? noa Ac021 switch?
You can start working for a new employer - using EAD or H-1B, while your I-485 is pending.
When people say that they have used AC21, they usually mean that they are using the provisions in AC21 (clarified by the Yate's memo), to port their I-140 to a new employer after 180 days of applying for I-485.
What do yo mean by siwtching employer using AC-21 and again H1B status? Do you mean that you have a H1B with the new company? In that case isnt that just a H1B transfer? noa Ac021 switch?
aamchimumbai
09-04 03:00 AM
I called my Civil Surgeon yesterday and asked her if she was willing to fill out a new I-693 form because it has been changed. Well, she was willing to fill out but said the old data (May 2008) is not valid, precisely TB test/Blood work/Physical exam. I thought it was ridiculous because all she had to do was validate her own results from the last exam. She was open for validating any vaccination records but not her own tests that she conducted.
I really don't want to spend $200/person again for the tests which she has already conducted. Anyways. I guess I'll have to pay her and get the new forms signed.
Is anyone in the same situation?
Thanks
I really don't want to spend $200/person again for the tests which she has already conducted. Anyways. I guess I'll have to pay her and get the new forms signed.
Is anyone in the same situation?
Thanks
rayen
02-05 03:20 PM
18003755283
1
2
1
receipt no
1
1
3
4
Good luck
Chris,
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.
1
2
1
receipt no
1
1
3
4
Good luck
Chris,
Thanks a lot I will try to reach them now.
Thanks, again.