blank map of africa and middle east
Monday, June 13, 2011
Edit
images lank map of asia and africa. 
Pics,east north africa map
wallpaper Pics,east north africa map
lank map of africa countries.
lank africa print this map
2011 lank map of africa countries.
lank,middle east black
more...
Middle East/Africa World Globe
MIDDLE EAST NORTH AFRICA MAP
more...
Mar maps thus a lank map
2010 lank africa print this map
lank map of asia and africa.
more...
Disney World Map 2011
hair lank,middle east black
east north Map middleblank
more...
map of north africa southwest
hot Middle East/Africa World Globe
First comes a map showing the
more...
house In, lank africa crossword usa
world map blank worksheet.
tattoo MIDDLE EAST NORTH AFRICA MAP
africa blank Middle+east+
more...
pictures Mar maps thus a lank map
Africa, and Middle East
dresses First comes a map showing the
riviera maya, Middle
more...
makeup Disney World Map 2011
In, lank africa crossword usa
girlfriend africa blank Middle+east+
Blank Map Of Africa And Middle
hairstyles map of north africa southwest
online middle east map
srinivas_o
09-16 02:11 PM
Hello Gurus,
I am July 2nd filer like so many others. I have changed employer after 9 month of filing I-485. I-140 was approved in Jun 2007. I have AP approved.
My question : Is it advisable to travel to India and come back on AP? the reason I am asking is I have changed the employer? Will that affect my entry back to USA in any way at immigration check? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
--Srinivas
I am July 2nd filer like so many others. I have changed employer after 9 month of filing I-485. I-140 was approved in Jun 2007. I have AP approved.
My question : Is it advisable to travel to India and come back on AP? the reason I am asking is I have changed the employer? Will that affect my entry back to USA in any way at immigration check? Please advise.
Thanks in advance.
--Srinivas
wallpaper Pics,east north africa map
sivaramakrishna
06-17 04:28 PM
When you move to a different place you have to file AR-11 form and send it to USCIS...thats all you got to do.
When you change your address online(using AR-11 form) , you don't have to send any docs to USCIS.
When you change your address online(using AR-11 form) , you don't have to send any docs to USCIS.
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.
2011 lank map of africa countries.
greenerpastures
07-20 03:09 PM
I have a few questions and much thanks for those who answer.
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
MScapbust,
You are exempt from the H1B cap if you have/had H1B visa in 2002 for some time and have been staying in US legally till now. If you have been out of US for more than a year, then you are counted against the H1B cap. But, I assume you were on F1 during the past few years and never stayed out of US for more than a year. So, you should be eligible for 6 years H1B minus the time you were on H1 during 2002 (even though adv degree cap gets filled). I would suggest you to talk to an immigration attorney or the attorneys/HR of the company that you might be joining in August.
Good luck
1. I have had a H1-B in 2002, but I did not get a stamping. I quit my job and went back to school. I'm out of school now, do not have an OPT (second masters) and worried about the cap.
I heard that people who have held H1-B's in the past do not come under the cap. Is this true?
2. A company is interested in hiring me but only in the muiddle of August (they want to conduct a few more interviews). The cap would most likely be reached by then. Do I have any other options?
Thanks,
Much worried.
MScapbust,
You are exempt from the H1B cap if you have/had H1B visa in 2002 for some time and have been staying in US legally till now. If you have been out of US for more than a year, then you are counted against the H1B cap. But, I assume you were on F1 during the past few years and never stayed out of US for more than a year. So, you should be eligible for 6 years H1B minus the time you were on H1 during 2002 (even though adv degree cap gets filled). I would suggest you to talk to an immigration attorney or the attorneys/HR of the company that you might be joining in August.
Good luck
more...
actaccord
01-26 11:46 AM
Pls start the effort to team up and meet the lawmakers.
bobby
04-03 11:09 AM
I returned to the US last year after a vacation and while my current visa's expiration date is July 2007 the customs official would only stamp my I-94 & authorize entry until May 2007 when my passport expires. My lawyer has applied for our extension using copies of my passport which is expiring soon but she advised that USCIS would need a copy of the new passport with new expiry date before approving my extension. The lawyer says your passport has to have an expiry date after the date of expiration of your visa extension. I will get a new I-94 with my visa extension btw this extension is the 3 year extension as our I-140 is approved but we have not filed for adj. of status yet. PD 5/03 EB3 ROW
more...
abracadabra102
09-06 10:56 AM
USCIS receives around 7.5 million applications a year and mistakes happen. Cut them some slack here. Bad luck to OP. Contact USCIS and see what happens and please post here after your issue is resolved. Others will benefit from your experience.
2010 lank africa print this map
MrWaitingGC
05-22 04:20 PM
If you have I140 cleared from company A you can use Priority date if you change Job and apply fresh GC from Company B in any catergory.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
How will this change if the new legislation/amendment that are discussed passes.
Any ideas guys.
more...
redelite
08-27 10:48 AM
Here's my go at it...
Calvin & Hobbes -> http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47743&stc=1&d=1219871683 http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47744&stc=1&d=1219871687
Btw, that Sonic is awesome! :thumb2:
Calvin & Hobbes -> http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47743&stc=1&d=1219871683 http://www.kirupa.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=47744&stc=1&d=1219871687
Btw, that Sonic is awesome! :thumb2:
hair lank,middle east black
munnu77
06-16 09:47 PM
My labour got approved on May 23rd .
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
whoch perm processing centre did u apply labor???
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
whoch perm processing centre did u apply labor???
more...
immigrationvoice1
03-06 02:21 PM
I filed my I485 mid 2003. I missed the boat end of 2004, some where in 2005 and then in 2007 when my dates were current. My pd is in 2002. People who filed with me have been approved and they are ready for citizenship next year :mad:, while I got my 6th EAD approved
You mean all these years you were stuck in name check or something ? Are you EB3 India ? 6th EAD is too many EADs to believe....wish you get your GC soon.
You mean all these years you were stuck in name check or something ? Are you EB3 India ? 6th EAD is too many EADs to believe....wish you get your GC soon.
hot Middle East/Africa World Globe
vin13
08-24 11:40 AM
I had 485 interview a month back (previously at the national benefits center) at the local USCIS office. The interview went fine except that they gave me an RFE asking for additional documents verifying employment. Since then I submited documents to the local office a 3 weeks back. Today my supervisor got a call from USCIS Anti Fraud Detection (homeland security) and they left a voice mail that they need to verify my immigration status.
Is this normal? Is there something i need to worry about?
My record is pretty straighforward. I am with the same employer since 2002 first on H1b and then EAD on a permanent postion and no gap in employment and never out of status
My supervisor called back but went to voicemail and left a general message
I have been hearing of more verifications of this kind. But if your records are straightforward, you should not worry. Make sure your immigration attorney is in the loop.
Just wondering what could have triggered this inquiry. Could you give some insight to whether you are working for a small company, consulting, etc that you believe could be a possible reason. Maybe it is just a random pick...
Is this normal? Is there something i need to worry about?
My record is pretty straighforward. I am with the same employer since 2002 first on H1b and then EAD on a permanent postion and no gap in employment and never out of status
My supervisor called back but went to voicemail and left a general message
I have been hearing of more verifications of this kind. But if your records are straightforward, you should not worry. Make sure your immigration attorney is in the loop.
Just wondering what could have triggered this inquiry. Could you give some insight to whether you are working for a small company, consulting, etc that you believe could be a possible reason. Maybe it is just a random pick...
more...
house In, lank africa crossword usa
ndbhatt
05-11 09:31 AM
Please check with your local Indian consulate if they can issue a BC. If you have a current original passport which includes the names of both your parents, it should work fine. Your original BC is not required.
Link to this service provided by the Consulate General in San Francisco
http://www.cgisf.org/visa/indian_services.html#mis-bc.
Thank you Samir, but this format won't help to me. Can some one clarify to me while submitting our I-485 , do we need our birth certificate which contains both parents information or only father's name is okay?
I need to know clearly on this subject, In my present BC contains only Fathers information only.
Pls help me if some one have that specific format which contains both parents information.
I am just curious to know why this format won't help. Won't the BC issued by Consulate General of India be honored during GC process.
Currently, I am in Texas and debating whether to send misc. form requesting BC from Consulate General of India, Houston.
Let me know if anyone has got BC from Consulate General of India and used it in GC process.
Thanks,
Nikhil
Link to this service provided by the Consulate General in San Francisco
http://www.cgisf.org/visa/indian_services.html#mis-bc.
Thank you Samir, but this format won't help to me. Can some one clarify to me while submitting our I-485 , do we need our birth certificate which contains both parents information or only father's name is okay?
I need to know clearly on this subject, In my present BC contains only Fathers information only.
Pls help me if some one have that specific format which contains both parents information.
I am just curious to know why this format won't help. Won't the BC issued by Consulate General of India be honored during GC process.
Currently, I am in Texas and debating whether to send misc. form requesting BC from Consulate General of India, Houston.
Let me know if anyone has got BC from Consulate General of India and used it in GC process.
Thanks,
Nikhil
tattoo MIDDLE EAST NORTH AFRICA MAP
karthkc
05-24 12:38 PM
You are right about that. However, the situation when you try to switch to H1B from EAD while remaining in the US is what I was referring to...
Under that situation, you only get the remaining years on H1 but I was told by my attorney that you do count against the cap though..
This is such a grey area, I bet even USCIS is not clear on what they would do...
Do you have a basis that it has to be started from scratch. Why it needs to be started from scratch when there is still time on H1 say about 1.5 years?
I think u need to start afresh a new one only if you are out of country for one year.
Folks, if any one has done this please corraborate
Under that situation, you only get the remaining years on H1 but I was told by my attorney that you do count against the cap though..
This is such a grey area, I bet even USCIS is not clear on what they would do...
Do you have a basis that it has to be started from scratch. Why it needs to be started from scratch when there is still time on H1 say about 1.5 years?
I think u need to start afresh a new one only if you are out of country for one year.
Folks, if any one has done this please corraborate
more...
pictures Mar maps thus a lank map
snathan
06-05 02:08 PM
My labour got approved on May 23rd .
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
If only Labour is approved and you change employer, you will lose it and have to start from the scrach. Only if your I-140 is approved and its more than six months, you can use the PD.
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
If only Labour is approved and you change employer, you will lose it and have to start from the scrach. Only if your I-140 is approved and its more than six months, you can use the PD.
dresses First comes a map showing the
kirupa
11-11 01:07 PM
This is multi-week process ritwik. I wouldn't expect the public poll to go up any sooner than the 18th.
:)
:)
more...
makeup Disney World Map 2011
GCKarma
07-21 08:57 PM
With 485 pending more than 180 days 140 approved ..not using EAD i use ac21 to change job on h1.....in that scenario can i get h1-b extension after six years?...if so for how many years?
girlfriend africa blank Middle+east+
PD_Dec2002
07-07 09:58 PM
Thanks for your reply. We just published the ad a week ago. Is that a big deal to revise now ? It went into computer world and stuff. I am not sure how difficult it would be.
Hence for this matter, I have another employer willing to file my LC this month. But I am thinking since I was not with them when they sent out the ad and requesting wage details, IS this something considered equivalent to LC subsitution if I join them and file my LC with already sent out ad ??
Your answer is highly important.
Thanks
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But before you get flamed (and correctly so) by everyone, I just have one advice for you: "What goes around comes around".
Never, never ever do anything in life that will come back to haunt you. Dishonesty can only go so far...
Good luck.
Thanks,
Jayant
Hence for this matter, I have another employer willing to file my LC this month. But I am thinking since I was not with them when they sent out the ad and requesting wage details, IS this something considered equivalent to LC subsitution if I join them and file my LC with already sent out ad ??
Your answer is highly important.
Thanks
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But before you get flamed (and correctly so) by everyone, I just have one advice for you: "What goes around comes around".
Never, never ever do anything in life that will come back to haunt you. Dishonesty can only go so far...
Good luck.
Thanks,
Jayant
hairstyles map of north africa southwest
rb_248
01-13 02:21 PM
you are a selfish person. you do not care about the rest of the iv community.
these provisions are suited for your own benefit. please do not distract the forum with ideas suited to benefit you. let's stick behind the iv strategy.
Let us somehow try and push SKIL bill. It almost got to the floor last time.
these provisions are suited for your own benefit. please do not distract the forum with ideas suited to benefit you. let's stick behind the iv strategy.
Let us somehow try and push SKIL bill. It almost got to the floor last time.
amitarora74
08-04 11:43 AM
anoopraj2010
you have been waiting for just 1 year. My wife(primary applicant) got her GC exactly 3 years back while i could not be approved due to pending name check. Then the whole thing retrogressed. Have been renewing AP/EAD since then.I know couple of other people in same boat. I think this is more common than you think
you have been waiting for just 1 year. My wife(primary applicant) got her GC exactly 3 years back while i could not be approved due to pending name check. Then the whole thing retrogressed. Have been renewing AP/EAD since then.I know couple of other people in same boat. I think this is more common than you think
saro28
08-31 08:25 PM
I received FP notice today towards I485, not sure what for :confused:
Well done! you have successfully gained access to Decrypted Link.
Tomorrow's top smartphone? That'll probably be a 5G phone, like the Galaxy S10 5G, and then, eventually, a foldable phone with 5G, starting with the Huawei Mate X and Samsung Galaxy Fold. But foldable phones are unproven and 5G in the US isn't in enough cities around the country to recommend. Our list will remain practical.
Our pick for best phone isn't just crowning the newest iPhone and calling it a day, though our list does have a lot of familiar names: Apple, Samsung, Google, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo and LG, all in the top 15. Newer companies in the US like Huawei and OnePlus make the list, too, though their limited availability is noted.
Our pick for best phone isn't just crowning the newest iPhone and calling it a day, though our list does have a lot of familiar names: Apple, Samsung, Google, Xiaomi, Oppo, Vivo and LG, all in the top 15. Newer companies in the US like Huawei and OnePlus make the list, too, though their limited availability is noted.