gemini23
08-02 12:57 PM
my experience with all carriers including fedex/dhl and others have been bad. Infact no one can guarantee a timely delivery for international shipments, as there is customs check, that can delay the delivery. Customs clearance is not controlled by these carrier companies, though they can only expedite it.
my 2 cents.
my 2 cents.
wallpaper Fiat Idea Adventure 1.8 2008 -
eb3retro
10-24 03:47 PM
Once H-1B extension is received, one gets all the luxuries like any other H-1B. You can change jobs any day you want. Having that said, there are few things you have to re-do. Get the H-1B stamped if you change jobs. You have to re-start the GC process from scratch, yet you get to keep the PD and at the same time can switch to any EB catagory.
Before LC PERM process started, people didn't change jobs as LC could take any where from 2 to 4 years and re-starting the GC process was just no brainer. Now, as it takes 45days or less (theoraticaly) people easily change jobs and get H-1 transferred as well as get new GC process started and get LC in 45 days and then I-140 approved (with premium processing) in another 2 weeks.
So you once you change jobs you can get to the same stage where you are in two months if you start GC process right-away.
For tips to the other readers.
Some employers has company policy where they support the H-1 transfer (financially also) and then one has to wait for 1 or 2 years before they initiate GC process. The mostly the excuse is "Budget is fixed for a year".
One can propose a solution to this. Ask them, "What if I pay for the charges incurred for GC process if they agree to initiate right away and when s/he finishes one year of employment, reimburse the charges"
This has worked in many cases as doing such bothe employer and employee gets best of both worlds.
Great advice, I sincerely thank you for your time.
Before LC PERM process started, people didn't change jobs as LC could take any where from 2 to 4 years and re-starting the GC process was just no brainer. Now, as it takes 45days or less (theoraticaly) people easily change jobs and get H-1 transferred as well as get new GC process started and get LC in 45 days and then I-140 approved (with premium processing) in another 2 weeks.
So you once you change jobs you can get to the same stage where you are in two months if you start GC process right-away.
For tips to the other readers.
Some employers has company policy where they support the H-1 transfer (financially also) and then one has to wait for 1 or 2 years before they initiate GC process. The mostly the excuse is "Budget is fixed for a year".
One can propose a solution to this. Ask them, "What if I pay for the charges incurred for GC process if they agree to initiate right away and when s/he finishes one year of employment, reimburse the charges"
This has worked in many cases as doing such bothe employer and employee gets best of both worlds.
Great advice, I sincerely thank you for your time.
grupak
03-01 10:20 AM
Time to send in the monthly contributions.
I just mailed mine online.
I just mailed mine online.
2011 Fiat Idea MY 2008 BlackStar
mach1343
01-26 11:18 AM
Minneapolis has the best education for children. Weather wise we have to compromise when it comes to children.
more...
jmafonseca
November 9th, 2004, 10:02 AM
Hi Mats, thanks for the ellaborate reply.
I do believe it's a software problem, at least I'm hoping it is because I can't believe Nikon's hardware broke down with not much use and only after 6 months.
1) I've reset the camera in the 2 ways explained on the manual. The 2-button reset which is a "soft" reset and the hard one through the small hidden button underneath the camera. Both failed.
2) I left it without the main battery for a couple of days, no luck. I don't know if the D70 has another hidden battery, I'd be glad to test removing it though if someone does know where.
3) This is the most likely scenario IMHO. There must be a way to reprogram the camera, reset it completely and it'll probably work after this.
Or there could be a keylock function that is keeping me from accessing the camera completely, but this does not seem to be a feature.
Thanks for your reply. If anyone else has any ideas it'll be truly appreciated.
I do believe it's a software problem, at least I'm hoping it is because I can't believe Nikon's hardware broke down with not much use and only after 6 months.
1) I've reset the camera in the 2 ways explained on the manual. The 2-button reset which is a "soft" reset and the hard one through the small hidden button underneath the camera. Both failed.
2) I left it without the main battery for a couple of days, no luck. I don't know if the D70 has another hidden battery, I'd be glad to test removing it though if someone does know where.
3) This is the most likely scenario IMHO. There must be a way to reprogram the camera, reset it completely and it'll probably work after this.
Or there could be a keylock function that is keeping me from accessing the camera completely, but this does not seem to be a feature.
Thanks for your reply. If anyone else has any ideas it'll be truly appreciated.
MArch172008
06-05 01:20 PM
My labour got approved on May 23rd .
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
Is it possible to switch company and use this labour whihc got approved by this company?
Thanks for all your support and sharing for knowledge.
more...
saint_2010
06-25 02:01 PM
Wow...we have a winner...HOME DIGITAL photos are way to go...
I have already used this for my Indian passport renewal...they never objected...Thanks for the input guys.
I have already used this for my Indian passport renewal...they never objected...Thanks for the input guys.
2010 FIAT Idea 1.9 MJT Dynamic
felix31
06-05 08:19 AM
well, something similar is going on with my case,though mine is not i-485...
I am waiting for H4 extension (7th year). Attorney had replied to RFE long time ago and I noticed that online message changed at one point last week, wording is not the same, but no LUD.
Now the message says that they will notify of a decision in writing.
No time-line any more...
Have no idea what that means, but I hope they will soon mail the approval. It has been almost a month since they received response to RFE.:mad:
I am waiting for H4 extension (7th year). Attorney had replied to RFE long time ago and I noticed that online message changed at one point last week, wording is not the same, but no LUD.
Now the message says that they will notify of a decision in writing.
No time-line any more...
Have no idea what that means, but I hope they will soon mail the approval. It has been almost a month since they received response to RFE.:mad:
more...
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.
hair fiat idea adventure 2008:
eb3retro
10-29 10:04 AM
lazycis,
i sent you a pm..could u pls respond. thanks.
i sent you a pm..could u pls respond. thanks.
more...
gmpa
04-30 03:47 PM
I-140, TSC
EB-3 regular
Received date: 12/12/2006
Notice date: 12/27/06
Status: Pending
EB-3 regular
Received date: 12/12/2006
Notice date: 12/27/06
Status: Pending
hot Ypsilon and Fiat Idea.
Roger Binny
05-12 10:05 PM
First trying infopass is the right idea, even if you contact congress man and senators they may ask you to go through info pass first.
Google your statename and senators you should get the list, its not hard to find their home pages.
These are my opinons.
By the ways what is the reason they cited when the EB2 I-140 was denied?
Google your statename and senators you should get the list, its not hard to find their home pages.
These are my opinons.
By the ways what is the reason they cited when the EB2 I-140 was denied?
more...
house Fiat Idea Adventure Chevy S10
axp817
06-16 12:21 PM
They say we (includes me and my wife) were missing G325A (boigraphic information sheets).
And that caused a denial? Wow.
Anyway, IV might be able to help. Please consider participating in this action item.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=354157#post354157
And that caused a denial? Wow.
Anyway, IV might be able to help. Please consider participating in this action item.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=354157#post354157
tattoo Fiat Idea 2003-2008 - Workshop
njboy
06-08 09:14 PM
There is a big difference between first class and economy class travel, and preventing a spouse who has already exhibited intent to immigrate from working for a very long time if they dont pay $1000.00 for premium processing of I-130. This is the reason I quoted the examples. Im not saying this from a "commie" point of view that everyone should own a Lada. While it is true that the employers should pay for premium processing, many people end up paying for it themselves, maybe in the form of reduced bonuses, or something else. Imagine what will happen when BCIS is swamped. We, desperate for a resolution for our problems, will end up cajoling our employers to drop a thousand dollars here for I-130 premium processing, another 1000 dollars for H1B premium processing because it already takes 5-6 months during regular processing. All Im saying is, fix the problem instead of finding band-aids.
more...
pictures CD Changer for Fiat IDEA,
furiouspride
01-12 10:50 PM
This is a serious matter my friend. You should consult a good immigration attorney ASAP.
dresses Fiat IDEA 1. 9 Multijet JTD
LegallyGC
08-11 04:13 PM
Ghost
Nice to see that u did start a new thread for this..
I think we all should get together now and make sure 2011 will be a great year for all the immigrant community.
Nice to see that u did start a new thread for this..
I think we all should get together now and make sure 2011 will be a great year for all the immigrant community.
more...
makeup Fiat Idea – мафиозные ценности
sheela
04-16 03:48 PM
This is my first post here but I am silent reader for past two years. I got my GC approved couple of weeks ago. A week before that, I applied for EAD and AP renewal. Is there any way to ask USCIS to refund the money back since they have debited the money from my account and also received the receipt notice for me and my wife as well? I need your valuable suggestion here,
Thanks
While at J1-visa, my employer applied for H1B for me. After 3-months of no response from uscis, we sent a check for $1000 for 'premium processing'. My H1B was approved 4 days after check was mailed out. A week after approval Uscis 'REFUNDED' the check with a note the 'case was approved in regular process' hence the refund.
You can hope to get the refund and if not write to uscis and they are honest about these things.
Thanks
While at J1-visa, my employer applied for H1B for me. After 3-months of no response from uscis, we sent a check for $1000 for 'premium processing'. My H1B was approved 4 days after check was mailed out. A week after approval Uscis 'REFUNDED' the check with a note the 'case was approved in regular process' hence the refund.
You can hope to get the refund and if not write to uscis and they are honest about these things.
girlfriend Fiat Idea 1.4 16V 95cv
nousername
06-01 01:50 PM
Pay stub is secondary .. In the given market getting an offer letter should be your priority. Once you have an offer letter (job) you can apply for your H1 transfer. Worst case USCIS will ask you to go back to your home country and re-enter with a fresh I-94 BUT all this will only happen is you have a new offer.
You said you are here with your family. I do not know your financial condition but it all depends upon how long you can sustain without a job and what risk level you can take with your family. BTW, you have been out of status for 4 months.. so do whatever you want but quickly.
Thanks once again for your reply.
I want to make myself a little clear. Actually, the company thru which I applied my H1B transfer, withdrew my case recently when some query came. I did apply for premium processing paying more. Now the situation is I am still hunting job but as you know it is hard to get one these days. Nothing has been finalised as yet and I am having paystub till Jan. 2009. The company for which I worked won't like to give any letter for unpaid leave. Your case do give me some hope, but I am worried :
- no new company would like to process my case owing to my 3-4 months back paystub . Is it going to happen like this ? I am here with my family, and in that case I am confused whether I should stick to this place or leave.
Thanks again for your time and advise.
You said you are here with your family. I do not know your financial condition but it all depends upon how long you can sustain without a job and what risk level you can take with your family. BTW, you have been out of status for 4 months.. so do whatever you want but quickly.
Thanks once again for your reply.
I want to make myself a little clear. Actually, the company thru which I applied my H1B transfer, withdrew my case recently when some query came. I did apply for premium processing paying more. Now the situation is I am still hunting job but as you know it is hard to get one these days. Nothing has been finalised as yet and I am having paystub till Jan. 2009. The company for which I worked won't like to give any letter for unpaid leave. Your case do give me some hope, but I am worried :
- no new company would like to process my case owing to my 3-4 months back paystub . Is it going to happen like this ? I am here with my family, and in that case I am confused whether I should stick to this place or leave.
Thanks again for your time and advise.
hairstyles 2008, middot; Fiat Panda Dynamic
njboy
06-09 10:12 AM
Imagine if it takes 3-4 years to process an H1B..the only option we'll have, is to go premium processing. That way, premium processing becomes the rule, not the exception. If they want to be really "capitalistic", they can say, how much is the H1B worker ready to pay out of their salary for the H1? 10,000 dollars a year? Shouldnt they charge us that, if they think they can get away with it? Afterall, its good old capitalism right? Everyone should be concerned about their bottom line..why not the BCIS? Im sure most of these already exploited H1B's will shell out 10K extra per year just to keep their H1's. Does that sound like a good business proposition? It does..to me. Just like people pay extra to get their mail delivered next day Fedex, the BCIS should charge us 1000$ extra if we want the H1B processed in a reasonable time, another $1000.00 to get I-130 processed etc. Why the figure of $1000.00? Was it arrived based on some calculation? Why not..$5000, or even $7000? After all, market pricing should be based on demand supply, and since H1B is marketed as a premium product, this should be reflected in the prices otherwise it will lose its brand image..right?
sammyb
03-14 09:19 PM
check here (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=177937,00.html) for all details on tax rebate plan ...
$600 for individual. $1200 for joint filing (hus & wife), and $600 for each dependent (child). Don't know if parents (dependents) are included.
also there is a ceiling in AGI.
Single - <75K;
Joint - <150K
but the amount gradually decreases as your AGI reaches the ceiling : (
I just got the IRS letter with the info yesterday.
$600 for individual. $1200 for joint filing (hus & wife), and $600 for each dependent (child). Don't know if parents (dependents) are included.
also there is a ceiling in AGI.
Single - <75K;
Joint - <150K
but the amount gradually decreases as your AGI reaches the ceiling : (
I just got the IRS letter with the info yesterday.
lazycis
12-27 04:53 PM
Do you have to use / file AC-21 if your I-140 is approved (long back in 2005) and you have passed 180 days of i485 received date?
You are automatically using AC21 if you are changing employers after 180 days. You may file AC21 letter/employment offer with the USCIS but you do not have to do it. It depends on your circumstances and preferences.
You are automatically using AC21 if you are changing employers after 180 days. You may file AC21 letter/employment offer with the USCIS but you do not have to do it. It depends on your circumstances and preferences.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar