kumar1305
11-17 10:01 AM
I applied for an extension of H1b but haven't got my 797 yet. Is it a must to carry original 797 in order to get license extended in FL,.
ram04
01-28 10:49 PM
It seems we are in synch.
Sep 04
MTR approved in December 09.
RFE for EVL on 23 rd Jan 23 rd.
Replying this week.
Let us see what is in store.
Sep 04
MTR approved in December 09.
RFE for EVL on 23 rd Jan 23 rd.
Replying this week.
Let us see what is in store.
Humhongekamyab
08-22 02:59 PM
Buddy for what I know everybody (mis)used the number so much that the US CIS had to change the extension. Now we will have to wait for somebody to (re)figure the extensions for the Service Center.
akred
07-05 01:29 PM
Ask them what the exact restriction is. It could be something as simple as needing a copy of your driver's license.
This is probably somebody at the plan administrator who doesn't have the foggiest idea about US immigration law.
This is probably somebody at the plan administrator who doesn't have the foggiest idea about US immigration law.
more...
beautifulMind
05-03 07:06 AM
I have still not received the approved I-140. I am hoping it would have the old date since I request priority date transfer.
evileks
12-21 04:21 AM
I would be interested. I know enough flash to make nice banners, and I am pretty good at photoshop. If you still need someone to team-up with you, here I am. I am also very laid-back.
more...
nousername
09-14 07:26 PM
Thanks for sharing your experience.. BTW, were you using your AP for the first time? I have heard that while traveling on AP you need to go through secondary screen, which takes time. Is that true?
sanju
06-07 07:35 AM
I am not really sure about the chances of such bills passing. Having an upper limit of 20k per year, similar to the quota for Master's in H1-B, might have relatively better chances of passing. Otherwise, all the anti-immigrant nuts from alipac and numbersusa will derail everything even before anything hits the discussion level...
btw, i read that the alipac founder was called lots of names in a NC newspaper...(details on their web-site)..that sounded like sweet nectar to me...he deserves all of it and more....the way he and all his honchos in their forum ban and bully everyone (not just illegal, but legal would-be immigrants)...just desserts!!!
Nobody knows this obsure group called USELESS ali pac. This group has no influence and it is totally inconsequential. That Green guy is a total jerk and no one cares what he says. We guys pay too much attention to this useless group. On the contrary NumbersUSA is an influencial group and they have paid lobbyist. These type of groups may have some communication between them but they are different groups. I think we should stop advertising/naming this ali group.
btw, i read that the alipac founder was called lots of names in a NC newspaper...(details on their web-site)..that sounded like sweet nectar to me...he deserves all of it and more....the way he and all his honchos in their forum ban and bully everyone (not just illegal, but legal would-be immigrants)...just desserts!!!
Nobody knows this obsure group called USELESS ali pac. This group has no influence and it is totally inconsequential. That Green guy is a total jerk and no one cares what he says. We guys pay too much attention to this useless group. On the contrary NumbersUSA is an influencial group and they have paid lobbyist. These type of groups may have some communication between them but they are different groups. I think we should stop advertising/naming this ali group.
more...
canleo98
01-11 02:29 PM
As per my understanding, extension will be given if and only if :
Either Labor is pending for more than 365 days or Labor and I-140 is approved.
If Labor is pending for more than 365 days, one year extension is approved and if Labor and I-140 is approved, three year extension is approved.
Am I right in interpreting the rule correctly?
Hello All,
I am on 7th year of my H1 and my I-140 is pending. Since my current H1 is about to expire, I need to file for my 8th year of H1 extension. Do you think there could be some problem in getting my 8th year extension since my labor is approved and I-140 is pending. The way I interpreted the extension rule is that you can only get the extension if your labor is pending for more than 1 year but in my case my labor is approved and I-140 is pending.And I cannot wait for I-140 approval since my current H1 is about to expire.
Please advise.
Thanks
Either Labor is pending for more than 365 days or Labor and I-140 is approved.
If Labor is pending for more than 365 days, one year extension is approved and if Labor and I-140 is approved, three year extension is approved.
Am I right in interpreting the rule correctly?
Hello All,
I am on 7th year of my H1 and my I-140 is pending. Since my current H1 is about to expire, I need to file for my 8th year of H1 extension. Do you think there could be some problem in getting my 8th year extension since my labor is approved and I-140 is pending. The way I interpreted the extension rule is that you can only get the extension if your labor is pending for more than 1 year but in my case my labor is approved and I-140 is pending.And I cannot wait for I-140 approval since my current H1 is about to expire.
Please advise.
Thanks
shadowbuddy
03-15 02:14 AM
Hi All,
I need your help and suggestions. In November of last year my wife and I submitted our medicals and AOS applications. Our checks were never cashed. I informed my lawyer after a month of not seeing the checks cash and raised the question then. They replied that there is a lot of mail going through that room and just wait a bit more. Another month went by, nothing. Then another.
Here it is March 2009 and my lawyer finally contacts USCIS to find out that they cannot find my original application. (no receipt notice was issued) During the entire last year and right up until March my Prioirty Date was always current. Now there is SEVERE retrogression and my PD date is now not current.
We have to refile. I re-wrote the checks and we are submitting the package again.
How can we demand that our application be accepted based on the original filing date of November when we were current?
would the dated medicals prove that we submitted in November. Who would get their paperwork done then sit on it for months right?!?!?!
How do we challenge USCIS based on their error. My lawyer said they have a delivery confirmation for the original application however I have not seen that.
thanks!
I need your help and suggestions. In November of last year my wife and I submitted our medicals and AOS applications. Our checks were never cashed. I informed my lawyer after a month of not seeing the checks cash and raised the question then. They replied that there is a lot of mail going through that room and just wait a bit more. Another month went by, nothing. Then another.
Here it is March 2009 and my lawyer finally contacts USCIS to find out that they cannot find my original application. (no receipt notice was issued) During the entire last year and right up until March my Prioirty Date was always current. Now there is SEVERE retrogression and my PD date is now not current.
We have to refile. I re-wrote the checks and we are submitting the package again.
How can we demand that our application be accepted based on the original filing date of November when we were current?
would the dated medicals prove that we submitted in November. Who would get their paperwork done then sit on it for months right?!?!?!
How do we challenge USCIS based on their error. My lawyer said they have a delivery confirmation for the original application however I have not seen that.
thanks!
more...
bsbawa10
08-21 09:44 AM
I broke my politeness today.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
My case was filed in Nebarska then tranferred to Texas then as soon as the priority date became current, last month, it was transferred to California.
I talked yesterday to customer service and it by chance got transferred to California Service Center where the officer told me that my case was transferred back to Texas Service Center on August 14, 2008. She also told me to call TSC to confirm it.
I called today the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) to confirm it and the lady tells me that the case is still in California and she has no more infomation about it. I told her about my call yesterday.
Lady: How could you have ever called CSC because their phone numbers are not public
Me: I called the same number and for some reason it got transferred to CSC.
Lady: Then you have already been told that your case has been transferred back on Aug 14, what do you need now ?
Me: The website does not show that. Plus the officer yesterday asked me to confirm it which you are not doing, you are just repeating my words about my conversation. There are so many inconsitencies . You told me just now that my case is still in California.
Lady: Can you please hold for a moment.
After hold:
Lady: I just talked to my supervisor, if the website says it is in California then it is California. Is there anything else I can help you with ?
Me: I do not understand "To speed up processing " clause in the reason to transfer it to california. It has been transferred from the center which is processing 485 applications to the center which is not processing applications. So the clause "To speed up processing" is so inconsistent.
Lady: Sir, we cannot tell you the reason why do we transfers
Me: But you have already told me the reason in the written notice as "To speed up processing"
Lady: It is not "To speed up processing " it is "for processing". Is there anything else that I can help you with ?
Me: I hang up the phone.
sac-r-ten
07-28 10:19 AM
I think snathan is correct. if you look at the 485 denial letter it should say something related to EAD is invalid or something like that.
Sorry about your situation and Good luck.
Sorry about your situation and Good luck.
more...
techbuyer77
06-12 05:11 PM
I actually sent evl instead of paystubs. I cant produce paystubs because I am not currently working with them
EB3_SEP04
01-29 11:23 AM
what is bc & nabc?? :(
Birht Certificate/ Non Availability of Birth Certificate
Birht Certificate/ Non Availability of Birth Certificate
more...
jediknight
02-08 07:02 PM
We need to work with everyone and fix the legal immigration mess.
Once that is fixed, there would be no reason for people to break the immigration law. That problem will automatically go away.
"What line?" is a good question to ask all the anti-immigration groups. I hate it when they have names like "Americans for Legal Immigration." They should publish a list of their accomplishments for legal immigrants :-)
- JZ
Once that is fixed, there would be no reason for people to break the immigration law. That problem will automatically go away.
"What line?" is a good question to ask all the anti-immigration groups. I hate it when they have names like "Americans for Legal Immigration." They should publish a list of their accomplishments for legal immigrants :-)
- JZ
sagar_nyc
03-07 03:42 PM
I was with Company A. and had visa stamped for company A till Dec 2006. I switched from Company A to B in Nov 2004. and travelled to India in July 2005. Since I had a valid visa from company A, I didn't got it stamped with company B. Although I carried my transferred H-1 (Company B) and showed it to Immigration Officer upon arrival, which he was fine with.
Again This is not a legal advice. Please consult to lawyer before leaving.
Good Luck
Again This is not a legal advice. Please consult to lawyer before leaving.
Good Luck
more...
ultimate_champ
11-27 11:22 AM
Thanks. I will let you all know what happens after i speak to my immigration dept and the lawyer.
broadcaster
11-19 10:28 AM
Thanks for the information. On november 9, 2007, I called using other options and CSR level 2 took my data to begin a report. Today, I followed your instructions to check if there was a more effective way to obtain an aswer, but I am really dissapointed. CSR used my name to look in their system. The only thing that she could found was my H visa application. She never mentioned that there was an investigation due to my call of november 9. Finally she just asked me to wait 30 more days, and neven mention the option to place a report.
chantu
02-29 12:24 PM
Thanks guys for your replies. My employer has more than 100 consultants and I think it is a stable financially. I never had any problems in my salary. I was paid on time always.
So you mean after appeal they can approve my I140?
I do not know my PD. But my labor was filed sometime in Dec 2006.
So you mean after appeal they can approve my I140?
I do not know my PD. But my labor was filed sometime in Dec 2006.
menezeswayne
12-11 03:05 PM
Is upgrading to premium actually an upgrade of the existing case or is it just a new application filed under premium?
immm
08-10 02:04 PM
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/10/ap4009032.html
Associated Press
U.S. Seeks to Curb Illegal ImmigrationBy SUZANNE GAMBOA 08.10.07, 1:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A crackdown on illegal immigration will have to go forward without help from Congress, the Bush administration said Friday, asserting that an executive-branch-only approach is better than doing nothing.
Two Cabinet secretaries - Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff and Commerce's Carlos Gutierrez - said they had hoped to have new tools to combat illegal immigration before moving further to cope with the problem. But Congress could not agree on comprehensive legislation.
The officials said they'll rely instead on tools already in their arsenal, some of which are already under way, including a plan to administratively sanction employers who hire illegal immigrants.
At a joint news conference, Chertoff and Gutierrez put the onus on Congress for any consequences that may be suffered by employers as a result of the stepped-up enforcement effort.
"Our hope is that key elements of the Senate bill will see the light of day someday, but until Congress chooses to act we are going to be taking some energetic steps of our own," Chertoff said. The steps will "significantly strengthen our hand with respect to immigration enforcement."
The White House emphasized that its package of enforcement changes was all it could do under existing law - the same law that President Bush has repeatedly called unacceptable.
"Although the Congress has not addressed our broken immigration system by passing comprehensive reform legislation, my administration will continue to take every possible step to build upon the progress already made," Bush said as the changes were announced.
Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush has used his executive authority in the past to improve immigration enforcement, such as by strengthening border enforcement. She was pressed on why - if the new changes were such a good idea - Bush hadn't made them already.
Perino, talking to reporters at the Kennebunkport, Maine, seaside home of Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, said the president held off on sweeping administrative action while pushing Congress to pass better legislation to address the matter. With that effort now sidelined, she said "We're going as far as we possibly can without Congress acting."
The administration rolled out a proposed rule that will require employers to fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers 90 days after they've been notified of such discrepancies in so-called "no match letters." Employers who fail to comply will face possible criminal fines and sanctions.
"This regulation lays out a clear pattern for doing the right thing which will afford protection for employers," Chertoff said. The new rule will be effective in 30 days.
Recognizing that the crackdown could hurt some industries - particularly agriculture, where more than half of workers are believed to be undocumented - Gutierrez said the Labor Department will try to make existing temporary seasonal agriculture worker and non-agriculture worker programs easier to use and more efficient.
In addition, Chertoff said he will try to use the department's regulatory authority to raise fines on employers by about 25 percent. Current fines are so modest that some companies consider them a cost of doing business, the agency said in a summary of the new enforcement effort.
The administration also wants to expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S., reduce processing times for immigrant background checks, and install by the end of the year an exit system so the departure of foreigners from the country can be recorded at airports and seaports.
The Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver's license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses.
Some of the initiatives are similar to proposals contained in the recent immigration measure which failed to pass in the Senate, though they are not nearly as sweeping.
....
....
....
He said the billions of dollars that Congress added for immigration enforcement and the administration's "enhanced commitment" on immigration enforcement will secure borders.
But Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said the administration "can talk until they're blue in the face" but "I won't be happy until I see action that's more than just a press conference and words on a piece of paper."
The Senate legislation was opposed by many conservatives who complained that people don't trust their government to start new immigration programs since existing immigration laws are not enforced.
....
....
....
Some lawmakers have kept up efforts to tighten the border. Last month, the Senate added $3 billion to a homeland security bill and devoted the money to U.S.-Mexico border security.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Associated Press
U.S. Seeks to Curb Illegal ImmigrationBy SUZANNE GAMBOA 08.10.07, 1:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A crackdown on illegal immigration will have to go forward without help from Congress, the Bush administration said Friday, asserting that an executive-branch-only approach is better than doing nothing.
Two Cabinet secretaries - Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff and Commerce's Carlos Gutierrez - said they had hoped to have new tools to combat illegal immigration before moving further to cope with the problem. But Congress could not agree on comprehensive legislation.
The officials said they'll rely instead on tools already in their arsenal, some of which are already under way, including a plan to administratively sanction employers who hire illegal immigrants.
At a joint news conference, Chertoff and Gutierrez put the onus on Congress for any consequences that may be suffered by employers as a result of the stepped-up enforcement effort.
"Our hope is that key elements of the Senate bill will see the light of day someday, but until Congress chooses to act we are going to be taking some energetic steps of our own," Chertoff said. The steps will "significantly strengthen our hand with respect to immigration enforcement."
The White House emphasized that its package of enforcement changes was all it could do under existing law - the same law that President Bush has repeatedly called unacceptable.
"Although the Congress has not addressed our broken immigration system by passing comprehensive reform legislation, my administration will continue to take every possible step to build upon the progress already made," Bush said as the changes were announced.
Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush has used his executive authority in the past to improve immigration enforcement, such as by strengthening border enforcement. She was pressed on why - if the new changes were such a good idea - Bush hadn't made them already.
Perino, talking to reporters at the Kennebunkport, Maine, seaside home of Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, said the president held off on sweeping administrative action while pushing Congress to pass better legislation to address the matter. With that effort now sidelined, she said "We're going as far as we possibly can without Congress acting."
The administration rolled out a proposed rule that will require employers to fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers 90 days after they've been notified of such discrepancies in so-called "no match letters." Employers who fail to comply will face possible criminal fines and sanctions.
"This regulation lays out a clear pattern for doing the right thing which will afford protection for employers," Chertoff said. The new rule will be effective in 30 days.
Recognizing that the crackdown could hurt some industries - particularly agriculture, where more than half of workers are believed to be undocumented - Gutierrez said the Labor Department will try to make existing temporary seasonal agriculture worker and non-agriculture worker programs easier to use and more efficient.
In addition, Chertoff said he will try to use the department's regulatory authority to raise fines on employers by about 25 percent. Current fines are so modest that some companies consider them a cost of doing business, the agency said in a summary of the new enforcement effort.
The administration also wants to expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S., reduce processing times for immigrant background checks, and install by the end of the year an exit system so the departure of foreigners from the country can be recorded at airports and seaports.
The Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver's license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses.
Some of the initiatives are similar to proposals contained in the recent immigration measure which failed to pass in the Senate, though they are not nearly as sweeping.
....
....
....
He said the billions of dollars that Congress added for immigration enforcement and the administration's "enhanced commitment" on immigration enforcement will secure borders.
But Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said the administration "can talk until they're blue in the face" but "I won't be happy until I see action that's more than just a press conference and words on a piece of paper."
The Senate legislation was opposed by many conservatives who complained that people don't trust their government to start new immigration programs since existing immigration laws are not enforced.
....
....
....
Some lawmakers have kept up efforts to tighten the border. Last month, the Senate added $3 billion to a homeland security bill and devoted the money to U.S.-Mexico border security.
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
No comments:
Post a Comment