mariner5555
05-14 04:24 PM
2009------we can see something happening.
Until then Visa Bulleting is our best hope and source
Let us pray.
do you say the above because of presidential election or because of new quota which will be released in oct.
if the first one is the answer - then nothing will happen even after the elections for atleast 2 years ..
Until then Visa Bulleting is our best hope and source
Let us pray.
do you say the above because of presidential election or because of new quota which will be released in oct.
if the first one is the answer - then nothing will happen even after the elections for atleast 2 years ..
wallpaper Jennifer Lopez#39;s kids don#39;t
perm2gc
01-07 03:17 AM
FYI:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/06/first.baby.ap/index.html
another reason to get a GC. although, toys r us reversed their decision, the whole incident kinda left a bad taste in the immigrant community. heck, they didn't ask for my GC when i bought toys in their store then why would they even bother about "citizenship" in their new year promotion. good thing they reversed it.
:(
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/06/first.baby.ap/index.html
another reason to get a GC. although, toys r us reversed their decision, the whole incident kinda left a bad taste in the immigrant community. heck, they didn't ask for my GC when i bought toys in their store then why would they even bother about "citizenship" in their new year promotion. good thing they reversed it.
:(
.jpg "Jennifer Lopez Kids")
bsbawa10
11-04 09:28 AM
(Punjabi) Holi gairan nal khadee too batheree , sadee vari rang mukiya
Translation:
You played Holi with everybody else, but when my turn came , you ran out of color.
Translation:
You played Holi with everybody else, but when my turn came , you ran out of color.
2011 Jennifer-Lopez
reddymjm
05-28 12:56 PM
Highly unlikely that they would approve a 485 when the PD is not current. The problem here is, even it has happened to someone, we will not see them come out and make an announcement as they fear their approval will be revoked. So we never hear of such cases.
Yes. You have to go through the process all over again, except you will be eligible for an earlier PD. The alternative is to seek employment with you original sponsor in which case, you can directly apply for 485 when your PD becomes current.
My advise is to stick to your 485 as 2006 is unlikely to become current by the time you get married. In the unlikely event of that happening, deal with the problem by trying to get your spouse in through other means.
I second this. Do not lose your postion in the Q.
Yes. You have to go through the process all over again, except you will be eligible for an earlier PD. The alternative is to seek employment with you original sponsor in which case, you can directly apply for 485 when your PD becomes current.
My advise is to stick to your 485 as 2006 is unlikely to become current by the time you get married. In the unlikely event of that happening, deal with the problem by trying to get your spouse in through other means.
I second this. Do not lose your postion in the Q.
more...
roseball
07-27 02:07 PM
I have a friend who filed is 485 on July 24th and he couldn't file for his spouse who was in india at that time.She is coming back on July 30 and planning to file for her I-485.My friend did not receive any receipt and what does he need to do in order to file for her i-485?
-Thanks
contributed $250 so far.
This is the way to unnecessarily complicate things. The best thing to do was to wait one more week and file together.....
Now, they have to include a copy of the courier receipt/delivery confirmation etc along with a letter explaining its a secondary I-485 pkg attached to so and so's primary package which was received by USCIS on a particular date.....I suggest writing the letter on a "bright colored paper" so its visible right away to the mailroom people....
-Thanks
contributed $250 so far.
This is the way to unnecessarily complicate things. The best thing to do was to wait one more week and file together.....
Now, they have to include a copy of the courier receipt/delivery confirmation etc along with a letter explaining its a secondary I-485 pkg attached to so and so's primary package which was received by USCIS on a particular date.....I suggest writing the letter on a "bright colored paper" so its visible right away to the mailroom people....
singhsa3
04-30 05:11 PM
All,
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
I am planning to write a letter to USCIS and DOS , suggesting the visa cut off dates for India. Kindly help me develop a model. I will send this letter over the weekend and also post over here.
So far I have the following rational (Of course , I will word them properly).
I have grouped applicants in the following groups
BEC, PERM ROW and PERM Non Row Countries. I then will estimate the visa usage by each categories using sources like FLCdata and DHS publications. Along the way I will make some assumption but the results should be realistic.
Facts
1. Per DOL , As of April'06 50K BEC labors were certified. Certification rates were 50% of labor processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
Per DOL, as of Sep'07 362,000 BEC labor were processed (certified, denied or withdrawn).
2. Per DHS, total EB (2, 3, 4 and 5 only) visas issued in FY’07 were 135,479 and FY’06 was 122,121.
3. FLC data center indicates that between March’05 and Oct’05, ~6000 PERM applications were filled and certified.
4. Per FLC data, 46,340 ROW PERM applications were certified in FY’06 and 47,251 ROW applications were certified in FY’07.
Assumptions
1. Each labor application uses in 2.2 visas.
2. Based on Fact 1 and Fact 2, let us assumed that in total 180,000 BEC labors were certified between March'05 and Sep'07 by BEC.
3. Total BEC visas requirements 180,000*2.2= 396,000
4. NIW applications are negligible.
5. Retrogressed countries account for 50% of visas used.
Calculations
Scenario 1: Visa processing time is Zero
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(47,251+6000)x2.2=18,306
3. BEC visas remaining as on 10/01/08= 396,000-20,173-18,306= 357,521
Scenario 2: Visa processing time is one year. Note: it affects only the applications certified within the preceding year.
1. BEC visas used in Fy'06 : = 122,121- (46,340)x 2.2 = 20,173
2. BEC visas issued in FY'07 : 135,459-(6000)x2.2=122,259
3. BEC visas (And NOT labor) remaining as on 10/01/08 = 396,000-122,259= 273,741.
What it means:
BEC contained labors from both retrogressed and non-retrogressed countries. Thus, in FY’08 and FY’09 visa consumptions will be attributed to BEC mainly. Once this backlog is cleared, the normal consumption (Supply = Demand) should resume. But it will also mean that there will always be 2-3 years wait.
Conclusion:
Suggested Cut-off dates for India as on 10/01/2008: ??? TBD.
Last update:
Time 11.32 AM ET , 05/01/08.
more...
kaisersose
07-11 06:16 PM
I am seriouly looking out for a job as currently on bench from last one month and my employer doesn't pay the bench salary. Currently I am on EAD with my GC sponsering employer. I would appreciate if any of you pls. reply this post. My question is,
If I joined a new employer using EAD-AC21 (as 11 month passed of my I-485) which is very small employer (currently have about 35 employees only), would it cause a problem in my GC process approval? I mean, do you think USCIS may create any RFC as I have join the very small employer, may ask any financial document to declare? Can you pls. tell me what are the potential problems my come in this situation?
Pls. help, your reply will be highly appreciable?
The Yates memorandum is very clear on this. It is not necessary for CIS to issue an Ability to pay RFE for the new employer. However, if they suspect fraud or some other problem, then they can always investigate. Having only 32 employees is obviously not a reason to start an investigation.
Short answer - No potential problems.
If I joined a new employer using EAD-AC21 (as 11 month passed of my I-485) which is very small employer (currently have about 35 employees only), would it cause a problem in my GC process approval? I mean, do you think USCIS may create any RFC as I have join the very small employer, may ask any financial document to declare? Can you pls. tell me what are the potential problems my come in this situation?
Pls. help, your reply will be highly appreciable?
The Yates memorandum is very clear on this. It is not necessary for CIS to issue an Ability to pay RFE for the new employer. However, if they suspect fraud or some other problem, then they can always investigate. Having only 32 employees is obviously not a reason to start an investigation.
Short answer - No potential problems.
2010 Jennifer Lopez Kids
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
indianabacklog
07-30 08:59 PM
The priority date for children who might age out is fixed at the time of your I140 filing. So if you I140 took six months to approve this can be taken off the age of the child when the labor priority date becomes current. So even if you file when a child is 20 and a half and you have to wait for two years for the date to become current, unless the I140 took 1 and a half years their age will be over 21 when the green card can be processed so they age out of derivative status.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
Good luck to those who are facing this. I do understand your anxiety since my son aged out while I was waiting three and half years for my labor cert. It would seem that this 'black hole' in the employment based process is non existent to the people who can change it.
Not sure what the future holds for such children, maybe there is some greater plan which we are not aware of yet.
I do see one advantage they cannot be called up for military service (for the USA) on a non-immigrant visa whereas they can if they have a green card. While I understand fighting is a noble cause I would not want my son to fight for our country of origin either.
hair Jennifer Lopez
HRPRO
02-23 01:51 PM
I have sent an email to the Embassy today, enquiring about the status of my application and finally, for the very first time, received a response saying it will be checked into. I hope to hear that they have already mailed it out.
Nice to hear that Jagan. Persistence pays, doesn't it. :-)
Nice to hear that Jagan. Persistence pays, doesn't it. :-)
more...
anyluck?
06-08 01:53 PM
I could not attend.Thanks for the contribution you are providing to us.
Contributed $100.
receipt no : 4703-1115-6249-7039
Contributed $100.
receipt no : 4703-1115-6249-7039
hot A pregnant Jennifer Lopez
humsuplou
12-01 07:14 PM
Thanks for the input.
I actually went to my appoitnment this morning at my local uscis office, the lady was nice. but i was told that the hospital letter need to state what are my granma's sickness instead just sayong terminally ill. and she had me to go back with a new letter tomorrow, and if her supervisor approves it, I will get it right away.
just some info to share.
wish me luck!
I actually went to my appoitnment this morning at my local uscis office, the lady was nice. but i was told that the hospital letter need to state what are my granma's sickness instead just sayong terminally ill. and she had me to go back with a new letter tomorrow, and if her supervisor approves it, I will get it right away.
just some info to share.
wish me luck!
more...
house American Idol judge, Jennifer
perm2gc
12-03 04:30 PM
hello all,
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
It will take 2 weeks once you submit all the documents.
i attended for visa stamping on dec 1st at Hyderabad consulate so i got 221g yellow form but he retained passport with him. he told to submit all the documents that are mentioned on the yellow form. did any body got same thing. usually how many days they will take for processing after submiting the documents
Thanks,
Praveen
It will take 2 weeks once you submit all the documents.
tattoo TMZ caught Jennifer Lopez
forgerator
10-23 11:08 AM
Ok, thanks for the info...really appreciate it...will let him know to stay atleast 3-4 days and then leave.....by the way did u go to Ottawa for stamping or some place else in canada?
I went to Vancouver . It's the same thing as Ottawa. I've been to Ottawa twice as well. Got passport either next day or within two business days (Alhamdulilah)
I went to Vancouver . It's the same thing as Ottawa. I've been to Ottawa twice as well. Got passport either next day or within two business days (Alhamdulilah)
more...
pictures 2010 Jennifer Lopez and husband jennifer lopez husband and kids.
anilsal
01-18 04:49 PM
People need to wake up to reality.
dresses with her kids and husband,
green_mile
09-14 01:41 PM
This is a great idea I am in.
more...
makeup Jennifer Lopez sat down with
vkrishn
08-27 08:13 PM
There is no point in moving the PD if they cannot process the PD's who are current. This is what is happenning now in USCIS. I would rather they move it by small amounts and process those who are current than give false hope to people!
girlfriend Pregnant Jennifer Lopez and
aka
10-23 08:48 PM
Hi prom2, thanks for continuing this thread. Could you rename it to early-June filers or something more broad? Or maybe even the same name as the previous thread? That way, the same members can simply join this thread. Your present title is way too specific and with all the other similar threads out there, we might be missed by some members.
hairstyles Jennifer Lopez#39;s beauty
Prashant
09-26 08:08 PM
GCtrouble.. I hope u are serious and not trying to scare ppl converting eb3 to eb2 ..
If one is eligible for eb2 their aiint anything thats gonna stop one from getting there..
We all are in the same boat dude ....
Good luck
If one is eligible for eb2 their aiint anything thats gonna stop one from getting there..
We all are in the same boat dude ....
Good luck
pd052009
09-13 02:51 PM
You save time when you port from one EB category to another EB category and your country of chargeability has a backlog. Switching b/w employers with same EB category will not save any time.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
sanju_dba
09-14 01:27 PM
If you feel IV is our only hope/interpreter, then lets fuel it.
We all know IV needs funds to operate and to drive our concerns.
I propose $100K raffle every month, result will be announced on the VB day, if VB brings bad news atleast our raffle may get a good one! :D
each ticket may be sold for $10 ,
$10 x 20,000 tickets = 200k
100k for IV , 100k can be split to top 10 winners.
Please take your poll above.
Experts can add suggestions to help it construct.
We all know IV needs funds to operate and to drive our concerns.
I propose $100K raffle every month, result will be announced on the VB day, if VB brings bad news atleast our raffle may get a good one! :D
each ticket may be sold for $10 ,
$10 x 20,000 tickets = 200k
100k for IV , 100k can be split to top 10 winners.
Please take your poll above.
Experts can add suggestions to help it construct.