GcInLimbo
12-01 12:28 PM
Thank You for your reply. Here are the more specifics of the case in short and understandable manner.
1) My H1B expired in Dec 2006 and an extension was filed in Oct 2006.
2) In February 2007 my company got an RFE on my H1B extension.
3) In Mar/Apr 2007 my company replied to the extension with the requested information
4) In Apr 2007, my case was transferred to Seattle Local office
5) In June 2007, my I-140 got approved
6) I-485 became current in July 2007, and we applied
7) I started working for another employer in August and the H1B was approved in September.
7) In September/October we received receipts for the 485 filing and the EAD/AP applications were approved in October 2007.
8) My new employer didn't apply for her H4 as she had a pending H1 application for Year 2008 ( Starting October 2007) that later was approved without I-94. Her employer filed amendments for missing I-94 and an RFE was issued on her H1B filing requesting more information.
9) We later withdrew the application as she got her EAD approved and I-485 receipt
10) Now I got the Notice of Intent to deny requesting evidence of my legality from Dec 2006 to July 2007.
Since my H1B was pending for this period, doesn't this put me in legal status. I hope this information helps. Please let me know if you have any specific questions to answer my query.
Once again thanks for your input.
1) My H1B expired in Dec 2006 and an extension was filed in Oct 2006.
2) In February 2007 my company got an RFE on my H1B extension.
3) In Mar/Apr 2007 my company replied to the extension with the requested information
4) In Apr 2007, my case was transferred to Seattle Local office
5) In June 2007, my I-140 got approved
6) I-485 became current in July 2007, and we applied
7) I started working for another employer in August and the H1B was approved in September.
7) In September/October we received receipts for the 485 filing and the EAD/AP applications were approved in October 2007.
8) My new employer didn't apply for her H4 as she had a pending H1 application for Year 2008 ( Starting October 2007) that later was approved without I-94. Her employer filed amendments for missing I-94 and an RFE was issued on her H1B filing requesting more information.
9) We later withdrew the application as she got her EAD approved and I-485 receipt
10) Now I got the Notice of Intent to deny requesting evidence of my legality from Dec 2006 to July 2007.
Since my H1B was pending for this period, doesn't this put me in legal status. I hope this information helps. Please let me know if you have any specific questions to answer my query.
Once again thanks for your input.
wallpaper BANKSY
optimystic
03-31 04:13 PM
This isn't correct Ronnie. Your non-immigrant status does determine whether you are a Resident alien or a non-resident alien for tax purposes.
Classic example is that while you are on F1 /OPT you don't have to pay social security and medicare.
I am taking a guess that what Ronnie meant to say was that, Tax filing (whether or not you file jointly) has no implications on your immigration process... which is true.
If you filed 'married filing separately' does not mean that you dont want to support your spouse anymore as a derivative of your I-485 !
Classic example is that while you are on F1 /OPT you don't have to pay social security and medicare.
I am taking a guess that what Ronnie meant to say was that, Tax filing (whether or not you file jointly) has no implications on your immigration process... which is true.
If you filed 'married filing separately' does not mean that you dont want to support your spouse anymore as a derivative of your I-485 !
anyluck?
09-15 01:23 PM
Obama told he will atleast discuss on CIR after health care. He knows well that Health care bill will take long time to resolve, so that he can escape. One way or other he will not do anything.
2011 BANKSY
srkamath
07-16 09:09 AM
IF the position needs Master's+ and applicant has a MS+ degree, then USCIS automatically classifies the I-140 as EB2, as the law clearly states this.
If the position requires (BS+5yrs)+ and the applicant meets this, it will NOT automatically be put into EB2. Employer must ask for the "exceptional ability" provision of the law to get EB2.
If the position requires (BS+5yrs)+ and the applicant meets this, it will NOT automatically be put into EB2. Employer must ask for the "exceptional ability" provision of the law to get EB2.
more...
cram
10-09 07:06 PM
please anybody????????
gsvisu
07-12 10:16 AM
Is it possible to show also Martin Luther King along with Gandhi in the template photographs ?
The locals & all can relate to MLK faster & better. Also there were previous chains that encouraged to refer MLK.
Remember we get a MLK - national holiday too...
Also modify the poem to reflect that something like...
Using Gandhi’s & MLK or ML King's way as our only tool.
Any suggestions ?
The locals & all can relate to MLK faster & better. Also there were previous chains that encouraged to refer MLK.
Remember we get a MLK - national holiday too...
Also modify the poem to reflect that something like...
Using Gandhi’s & MLK or ML King's way as our only tool.
Any suggestions ?
more...
lord_labaku
11-17 12:04 PM
Yes. layoffs and labor certs dont mix well. esp. if an american or GC holder worker with the same position as u is laid off.
It does make sense at a labor cert level...but if u look at this long drawn GC process of 6+ years....it is unfair to the potential immigrant as he is seeking GC for future employment. This is when a point based system like Canada does makes sense....even when economy is down...u continue to immigrate people who are still needed because of their critical skills.
It does make sense at a labor cert level...but if u look at this long drawn GC process of 6+ years....it is unfair to the potential immigrant as he is seeking GC for future employment. This is when a point based system like Canada does makes sense....even when economy is down...u continue to immigrate people who are still needed because of their critical skills.
2010 Banksy
kishdam
03-25 10:11 AM
This sustain act is total BS. They want to increase H1-B numbers without reforming the EB system. They do not want to increase EB numbers. They do not want to do away with country quotas. They don't have country quotas in H1-B. This just creates more and more backlogs for everyone. I HOPE THIS BILL DOESN'T PASS. The companies and lawmakers just want cheap labor without "paying" for it. Just a bunch of self-serving bigots !
Seems like this bill has some EB provisions as well - like exempting PhD holders from visa numbers. Ofcourse thats too little but something is better than nothing.
Seems like this bill has some EB provisions as well - like exempting PhD holders from visa numbers. Ofcourse thats too little but something is better than nothing.
more...
punjabi
08-13 11:12 AM
I personally think we should try to encourage new people to open new threads, and not discourage them. This way, they also get a feeling like they own ImmigrationVoice and they are the part of it.
Unless there is already an active thread, we should not mind if someone opens a new thread!
Unless there is already an active thread, we should not mind if someone opens a new thread!
hair Photos Banksy goes
eb3_nepa
10-26 04:43 PM
Logiclife i have sent you a PM if you want to discuss this offline let me know.
Thanks for the clarification though. Does Vbulletin have 2 seperate tables one for threads and one for messages. That is the structure that another forums software that we used had. If you have a messages and threads table seperately then maybe you can sort it simply by messageID (the primary key in the messages table). Since that column is a PK, it is already indexed and hence automatically faster
Thanks for the clarification though. Does Vbulletin have 2 seperate tables one for threads and one for messages. That is the structure that another forums software that we used had. If you have a messages and threads table seperately then maybe you can sort it simply by messageID (the primary key in the messages table). Since that column is a PK, it is already indexed and hence automatically faster
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
hot Graffiti artist Banksy pulls
adi787
12-11 08:15 PM
hi,
sorry to hear the denial.
Was this beyond 6th yr extn based on approved 140?
Or due to small company?
sorry to hear the denial.
Was this beyond 6th yr extn based on approved 140?
Or due to small company?
more...
house Banksy British Graffiti Artist
prasadn
04-07 05:15 PM
I did extended for my in-laws when they entered last time to US. When they entered next time they entered without any issues.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
From my understanding, you need to give USCIS a compelling reason (medical reasons etc.) for extending your stay on Visitor visa. If not, there is a good chance for the officer at POE to limit stay to a very short period on the next visit.
Last time time also lot of my friends scared me (immigration people will stop them at the port of entry), my another friend (both husband and wife doctors), they bring there in - laws everytime they will extend it to 3 times approxmately they will stay in US 2 years, they left several times and entered into US without any issues.
From my understanding, you need to give USCIS a compelling reason (medical reasons etc.) for extending your stay on Visitor visa. If not, there is a good chance for the officer at POE to limit stay to a very short period on the next visit.
tattoo Pulp art: Banksy#39;s
siravi
08-06 04:38 PM
will be there as well.
more...
pictures Banksy#39;s knife wielding hoodie
sapota
08-31 11:33 AM
believe that American companies are telling the truth when they claim there is a lack of qualified talent in the U.S. for the high tech industry?
Even though the disclaimer says unscientific poll, this is outrageously biased.
Please forward to all hi tech companies. Let it come from the horses mouth.
Even though the disclaimer says unscientific poll, this is outrageously biased.
Please forward to all hi tech companies. Let it come from the horses mouth.
dresses Tags:art, anksy, anksy art,
IN2US
07-26 05:23 PM
You can get EAD even if your I-140 is pending.Correct me if I am wrong.
That is correct.
That is correct.
more...
makeup Banksy #39;The Palestinian Job#39;
go_guy123
06-22 12:36 AM
CIR 2009 RIP.....health care, economy , perhaps even iran etc are ahead of that
girlfriend Love the anksy Cop!
eb2_hope
08-08 09:20 AM
Friends , Just wanted to let you know that Infopass at Detroit local office is total waste of time. Today morning I had infopass appointment ( EB2-I 2004 ) .IO officer told us that they are not allowed to give any information regarding name check due to security reasons. Also IO told us that 1-800 number CR are trying to get rid of us hence they send us to Infopass at local office but local office has got instructions not to reveal any information about I-485 employment based cases.
So much for transparent and fair law in USA and american dream ..:mad::mad::mad:
So much for transparent and fair law in USA and american dream ..:mad::mad::mad:
hairstyles Banksy#39;s
sac-r-ten
03-22 10:34 AM
Sorry for any confusion. Here are the details :
My husband is on H1B visa and he is in US from past 4 years. I am on H-4 Visa and was in USA from past 2 years. We got extension in 2009 for another 3 years for H1 and H4. My husband stays in US but I came back to India for vacation. I appeared for H-4 visa stamping in US consulate in Delhi. After long wait they denied my H4 visa. My question is:
1) what are the options for me
2) Do they revoke my husband I797 H1 who is in US
3) What I have to do ..like appeal ..new petition..
Please advise..
sorry for your situation. its happening to others too. a friend (h1) and his wife(h4) went for stamping just last month in Mumbai consulate. They denied visa-stamping on the new employee-employer relationship clause. they are not fighting it with USCIS/Consulate. Its pretty ugly, USCIS approves the H1/H4 here and when people turn up for stamping they deny it. I am guessing as far as your husband is in US and in status his petition won't be revoked but if he goes for stamping outside US, then petition might get denied. Please ask your husband to talk to lawyers here in US.
Good luck.
My husband is on H1B visa and he is in US from past 4 years. I am on H-4 Visa and was in USA from past 2 years. We got extension in 2009 for another 3 years for H1 and H4. My husband stays in US but I came back to India for vacation. I appeared for H-4 visa stamping in US consulate in Delhi. After long wait they denied my H4 visa. My question is:
1) what are the options for me
2) Do they revoke my husband I797 H1 who is in US
3) What I have to do ..like appeal ..new petition..
Please advise..
sorry for your situation. its happening to others too. a friend (h1) and his wife(h4) went for stamping just last month in Mumbai consulate. They denied visa-stamping on the new employee-employer relationship clause. they are not fighting it with USCIS/Consulate. Its pretty ugly, USCIS approves the H1/H4 here and when people turn up for stamping they deny it. I am guessing as far as your husband is in US and in status his petition won't be revoked but if he goes for stamping outside US, then petition might get denied. Please ask your husband to talk to lawyers here in US.
Good luck.
gcwanted101
09-02 10:43 AM
Did any one(who have not applied 485 yet) got their 140 Approved copy by FOIA request? :confused:
soni7007
09-15 12:13 PM
I am glad that some of us are positive moving fwd with this idea. There are some other threads talking about other action items (write letters etc.). I think the first thing we need to do is to join hands and then decide a game plan. We need to concentrate the total energy at one point. What do you think?
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기