morchu
06-01 04:54 PM
1. Indian passport holders are exempt from the 6-month rule. Link.... I will search when I get time and post.
2. Regarding intention of permanent residence, see "greg siskind" s explanation on a similar topic (after GC) here: http://www.visalaw.com/06feb1/2feb106.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=344473#post344473
Greg mentioned that....
"There are no black and white tests for what will be deemed to be an abandonmnet of permanent residency. Rather, USCIS will look at a variety of factors to determine a person's intent. Financial ties to the US, maintain a US employer, maintaining a residence in the US, keeping a car registered in the US, family remaining behind, etc. can all be evidence."
Hi Morchu,
I searched travel.state.gov with 'six-month rule', but couldn't come up with anything specific to this. Can you please post me the link? And I have an Indian Passport.
Ok, so how can one prove his intention at the POE for GC?
....would appreciate your reply.
2. Regarding intention of permanent residence, see "greg siskind" s explanation on a similar topic (after GC) here: http://www.visalaw.com/06feb1/2feb106.html
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=344473#post344473
Greg mentioned that....
"There are no black and white tests for what will be deemed to be an abandonmnet of permanent residency. Rather, USCIS will look at a variety of factors to determine a person's intent. Financial ties to the US, maintain a US employer, maintaining a residence in the US, keeping a car registered in the US, family remaining behind, etc. can all be evidence."
Hi Morchu,
I searched travel.state.gov with 'six-month rule', but couldn't come up with anything specific to this. Can you please post me the link? And I have an Indian Passport.
Ok, so how can one prove his intention at the POE for GC?
....would appreciate your reply.
wallpaper Looney Tunes Wallpaper
Googler
02-14 04:24 PM
"Based on a review of the facts and bedrock principles of administrative agency law, the Court finds that USCIS�s name check requirement has
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
(1) never been authorized by Congress;
(2) is not mentioned or contemplated by any fair reading of the current USCIS regulations; and
(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions..."
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Mocanu%202-8-08.pdf
What a fabulous ruling this is.
One question for Lazycis:
# (3) actually reads "(3) may not, without USCIS initiating notice and comment procedures, be used to delay action on Plaintiffs petitions for naturalization, particularly because Plaintiffs have already undergone a name check in order to achieve LPR status and will clear the �fingerprint check� described in the Memorandum of January 25, 2008.10 The fingerprint check will show whether an LPR who is applying for naturalization has had any contact with the criminal justice system that would warrant denial of the petition."
As far as I can tell even (1) and (2) only apply to Naturalization applicants.
So the question of the hour is: are (1) and (2) true for AOS cases? I am asking this question because to argue a case for compelling recapture you need an AOS version of Baylson's ruling + the Galvez-Howerton decision (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=223315&postcount=121). Only then can you say that there was affirmative misconduct in 2003 and hence compel recapture.
pointlesswait
09-10 09:16 AM
find another job..and restart ur GC..
apply for perm...by the time it gets approved..u may be eligible for 140 premiuim..as per the new rule...
but there is a catch...your labor shoudl be in process for atleast a year..for you to apply for H1 extension....hmmm...Gurus on this board may shed some light on it...
i think you are cutting it tooo close..pal!
Currently on H1B 8th year extension which will expire on 25th June, 2009.
Labor PD: 9th August, 2004
Labor cleared: 11th September, 2007.
I-140 (approval pending) filed on 4th October, 2007. Received at USCIS on 5th October, 2007.
Can�t file for I-485 since the EB3 date for India is unavailable.
There is a high chance that I might be laid off at my current employer in the next 2-3 weeks.
Can I transfer my H-1 upto June 25th, 2009 (or later) as well as start a new PERM case in EB2 category?
In case of the above H-1 transfer, will the new H-1 be valid for 1 year from the filing or will it be upto 25th June, 2009?
What are my other options not to go out of status or leave the country?
apply for perm...by the time it gets approved..u may be eligible for 140 premiuim..as per the new rule...
but there is a catch...your labor shoudl be in process for atleast a year..for you to apply for H1 extension....hmmm...Gurus on this board may shed some light on it...
i think you are cutting it tooo close..pal!
Currently on H1B 8th year extension which will expire on 25th June, 2009.
Labor PD: 9th August, 2004
Labor cleared: 11th September, 2007.
I-140 (approval pending) filed on 4th October, 2007. Received at USCIS on 5th October, 2007.
Can�t file for I-485 since the EB3 date for India is unavailable.
There is a high chance that I might be laid off at my current employer in the next 2-3 weeks.
Can I transfer my H-1 upto June 25th, 2009 (or later) as well as start a new PERM case in EB2 category?
In case of the above H-1 transfer, will the new H-1 be valid for 1 year from the filing or will it be upto 25th June, 2009?
What are my other options not to go out of status or leave the country?
2011 Here is another Looney Tunes
pcs
07-02 03:16 PM
I will sign up but HOW TO ????
more...
uumapathi
08-19 08:59 AM
My wife just got her EAD yesteday and it was for 2 years. I am expecting mine today and I hope it will be for 2 years as well and interestingly, my I140 is still pending.
lazycis
01-15 11:15 AM
Finally, I found it in the federal regulations. So it's the federal law.
20 CFR Ch. V. � 655.731
...
except that the deduction may not recoup a business expense(s) of the employer (including attorney fees and other costs connected to the performance of H–1B program functions which are required to be performed by the employer, e.g., preparation and filing of LCA and H–1B petition);
20 CFR Ch. V. � 655.731
...
except that the deduction may not recoup a business expense(s) of the employer (including attorney fees and other costs connected to the performance of H–1B program functions which are required to be performed by the employer, e.g., preparation and filing of LCA and H–1B petition);
more...
dhirajs98
04-09 10:27 AM
I have registered an LLC on wife's EAD. She is the sole owner of the company and working as a contractor for another company and getting salary on her company's name. Before she registered this company she never used her EAD. She is/was on H4 visa.
What needs to be done to make sure she in on her EAD now and not on H4 anymore?
How she can become an employee of her own company and get payed every 15 days.
What needs to be done to run a payroll and pay herself salary on monthly or bi-monthly basis?
Please advise.
What needs to be done to make sure she in on her EAD now and not on H4 anymore?
How she can become an employee of her own company and get payed every 15 days.
What needs to be done to run a payroll and pay herself salary on monthly or bi-monthly basis?
Please advise.
2010 Looney Tunes Cartoon Photos
phigi
03-28 12:35 PM
your payroll should be run against the place of your work and not your employer's state!
This is important!!!
This is important!!!
more...
waitnwatch
05-25 07:40 PM
Here is my reading of the amendment.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
If you look at the original bill (S2611) Section 508 reads
SEC. 508. VISAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH ADVANCED DEGREES.
(a) Aliens With Certain Advanced Degrees Not Subject to Numerical Limitations on Employment Based Immigrants-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)), as amended by section 505, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) Aliens who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math and have been working in a related field in the United States under a nonimmigrant visa during the 3-year period preceding their application for an immigrant visa under section 203(b).
`(H) Aliens described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 203(b)(1)(A) or who have received a national interest waiver under section 203(b)(2)(B).
`(I) The spouse and minor children of an alien who is admitted as an employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).'.
**************************************************
Bingaman Amendment 4181 and 4182 on the other hand state
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act the language in Title V Sec. 501 under the heading ``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN'' is null and void and the following shall be applicable in lien thereof.
``(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).
``(B) NUMERICAL LIMITATION.--The total number of visas issued under paragraph (1)(A) and paragraph (2), excluding such visas issued to aliens pursuant to section 245B or section 245C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, may not exceed 650,000 during any fiscal year.
************************************************** ****
Reading S2611 Section 508 in conjunction with SA4811 and SA4812 specifically shows that STEM + 3 applicants as well as their spouses and children are not subject to any caps. On the other had the troubling part is that those not covered by STEM+3 will have 450,000 principal applicant slots and therefore only 200,000 spouse and children slots. This discrepancy arises from the fact that Bingaman multiplied 290,000 by 1.2 to arrive at his figure while S2611 allows for 450,000 principal applicants in the 1st 10 years to remove backlog.
SA 4188 is not currently available for reading and it will be interesting to see what change has been made to the language in 508(a)(1)(G) to allow all STEM +3 to be exempt. It would also be interesting to see whether language in Sec 508(b)(3)(III) has been changed to reflect the changes in 508(a)(1)(G)
Note that if both these sections are changed to allow all STEM+3 then labor certification too becomes easier. Hopefully changes here can provide some relief from Bingaman's torpedo.
I would appreciate comments as my analysis may be wrong.
hair Looney Tunes Wallpaper
easygoer
05-14 02:32 PM
Shujaat,
Your lawyer is right. You need one single degree evaluation that match your labor requirements for education. Experience not included for education requirements.
Your lawyer is right. You need one single degree evaluation that match your labor requirements for education. Experience not included for education requirements.
more...
chanduv23
06-05 08:50 AM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this thread but I could not find anywhere else to post it on this website.
I filed for my initial H-1B document and the H-1B adjustment document (from full time to part time) with an immigration lawyer last year. The two processes went relatively smooth. Thinking that this lawyer was someone I could trust, I also started the PERM process with her and had my company pay half of the PERM lawyer fee up front and signed whatever paper that I was required to sign.
After she was paid, I noticed that her replies to my emails were slower and some were even neglected. I'm extremely frustrated with her change of behavior as the immigration process is really important to me as it is to every immigrant. I tried emailing her again about 3 days ago with some questions, and she neglected it again. I tried to be as understanding as possible, but I personally think this is ridiculous and I'm getting very upset. She is the only person that works at the office and she has no paralegals or office staff. So I always have to talk to her directly for everything.
Today, I actually emailed her with another email account pretending I'm someone else interested in the H-1B process, and I received a reply from her within 40 minutes. So I know she's neglecting my emails on purpose. I'm not sure if she just doesn't take care of her "paid" clients or she just has something personal against me for whatever reason. (I was always respectful to her in every way so I don't believe it's something I did)
Since I signed the paper which states that I have to pay for a large termination fee if I were to request termination of contract for whatever reason, I can't just hire a new lawyer either. What would be a good approach to resolve this situation? I thought about talking to her directly face-to-face and let her know how upset I'm about her change of behavior (which she may charge me for her time) but I don't want her to screw with my immigration documents at the same time.
First things first. Don't get stressed out. You have hired an Attorney to represent you - u r a client for the Attorney and it is their duty to work with you.
It is very common - people are very receptive before you pay and after that, they tend to slow down on you because they are spending time to bait in the next potential client.
You can report this lawyer to the bar or to AILA or probably to better Business Bereau. Folks here can guide you.
Some Attorneys are very receptive, they value and treat you well. They try their best to get back to you in a day or two. I have seen Attroneys responding to queries late night - probably thats the time they set for email responses or so.
My message to Attorneys - do please value your client. These days, immigrants have a lot of platform and power and are better informed so don't take your clients for granted. t
The better you treat your client, the better business for you.
I filed for my initial H-1B document and the H-1B adjustment document (from full time to part time) with an immigration lawyer last year. The two processes went relatively smooth. Thinking that this lawyer was someone I could trust, I also started the PERM process with her and had my company pay half of the PERM lawyer fee up front and signed whatever paper that I was required to sign.
After she was paid, I noticed that her replies to my emails were slower and some were even neglected. I'm extremely frustrated with her change of behavior as the immigration process is really important to me as it is to every immigrant. I tried emailing her again about 3 days ago with some questions, and she neglected it again. I tried to be as understanding as possible, but I personally think this is ridiculous and I'm getting very upset. She is the only person that works at the office and she has no paralegals or office staff. So I always have to talk to her directly for everything.
Today, I actually emailed her with another email account pretending I'm someone else interested in the H-1B process, and I received a reply from her within 40 minutes. So I know she's neglecting my emails on purpose. I'm not sure if she just doesn't take care of her "paid" clients or she just has something personal against me for whatever reason. (I was always respectful to her in every way so I don't believe it's something I did)
Since I signed the paper which states that I have to pay for a large termination fee if I were to request termination of contract for whatever reason, I can't just hire a new lawyer either. What would be a good approach to resolve this situation? I thought about talking to her directly face-to-face and let her know how upset I'm about her change of behavior (which she may charge me for her time) but I don't want her to screw with my immigration documents at the same time.
First things first. Don't get stressed out. You have hired an Attorney to represent you - u r a client for the Attorney and it is their duty to work with you.
It is very common - people are very receptive before you pay and after that, they tend to slow down on you because they are spending time to bait in the next potential client.
You can report this lawyer to the bar or to AILA or probably to better Business Bereau. Folks here can guide you.
Some Attorneys are very receptive, they value and treat you well. They try their best to get back to you in a day or two. I have seen Attroneys responding to queries late night - probably thats the time they set for email responses or so.
My message to Attorneys - do please value your client. These days, immigrants have a lot of platform and power and are better informed so don't take your clients for granted. t
The better you treat your client, the better business for you.
hot looney toons wallpaper.
pooja_34
01-15 07:07 AM
I e-filed my AP application on Dec 29 at TSC and got the approval email yesterday ... Got approved in 2 weeks.
more...
house Looney Tunes Christmas
Uthar
11-01 10:15 PM
Hey there,
I thought your second version was improved a fair bit, it's nice to have some additional colours and gradient blends to act as a background for your image.
lata,
Uth :nerd:
I thought your second version was improved a fair bit, it's nice to have some additional colours and gradient blends to act as a background for your image.
lata,
Uth :nerd:
tattoo Looney Tunes.
no-tec
10-23 06:51 PM
dope!
more...
pictures Looney tunes wallpaper 39
sanjay
09-08 03:30 PM
I had an update on my 485 application today and its say's
On September 8, 2010, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Don't know what does this mean to my case and it is good or bad.
Does any one had been through this ?
On September 8, 2010, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, please use our Change of Address online tool to update your case with your new address or call our customer service center at 1-800-375-5283.
Don't know what does this mean to my case and it is good or bad.
Does any one had been through this ?
dresses PSP Wallpaper 640x480
FredG
January 31st, 2005, 07:05 AM
Not sure I'd crop solitary much ... the more empty space there is around him, the more it reinforces the illusion that he is in fact alone.
more...
makeup looney tunes wallpapers.
uimv
03-13 02:25 AM
Hello,
For case where GC and H1b sponsoring employer is same, please tell (as per USCIS rules/guidelines):
1. When switching from H1b to EAD (while working for GC sponsoring employer) does GC/H1b sponsoring employer have to cancel H1b ?
2. If on AP/EAD WITHOUT work, is there any liability to GC/H1b sponsoring employer ? Does he have to cancel H1b ?
Than You.
For case where GC and H1b sponsoring employer is same, please tell (as per USCIS rules/guidelines):
1. When switching from H1b to EAD (while working for GC sponsoring employer) does GC/H1b sponsoring employer have to cancel H1b ?
2. If on AP/EAD WITHOUT work, is there any liability to GC/H1b sponsoring employer ? Does he have to cancel H1b ?
Than You.
girlfriend Looney Tunes Wallpaper02
Chris Rock
08-12 01:27 AM
IV core,
Thanks very much for your tireless work.
I have some serious questions to you. Hope you will answer them. I fully understand that you are all volunteers. I am not demanding anything; rather this is a request...
1) Does IV working on any temprory EB visa fix for people waiting for 8 years? Or IV is waiting for CIR to happen?
2) A simple one line amendment (that is easily acceptable by the lawmakers) in a must pass bill will fix the problems of long time sufferers. Does IV have anything in its agenda?
3) Does IV beleive in bringing releif to IV members in steps or do you want to solve all members problem in one shot? If the second case is true, is it possible in this economy?
4) Recently many immigration related amendments are debated in congress; not for one bill but during two bills. There was no single amendment that helps the heavily retrogated categories. Why IV is not successful in requesting the lawmakers to bring up an amendment? Is there a single soul (lawmaker) sympathetic to our cause? If money is the only issue, I will donate first and persuade my friends to do the same.
We (me and many of my friends) were once active members right from the early days of IV. We contributed and involved in every IV initiative before. Now we are in the sidelines. I strongly beleive, members like me will be active again once we see any hope. Right now there is none.
Thanks very much for your tireless work.
I have some serious questions to you. Hope you will answer them. I fully understand that you are all volunteers. I am not demanding anything; rather this is a request...
1) Does IV working on any temprory EB visa fix for people waiting for 8 years? Or IV is waiting for CIR to happen?
2) A simple one line amendment (that is easily acceptable by the lawmakers) in a must pass bill will fix the problems of long time sufferers. Does IV have anything in its agenda?
3) Does IV beleive in bringing releif to IV members in steps or do you want to solve all members problem in one shot? If the second case is true, is it possible in this economy?
4) Recently many immigration related amendments are debated in congress; not for one bill but during two bills. There was no single amendment that helps the heavily retrogated categories. Why IV is not successful in requesting the lawmakers to bring up an amendment? Is there a single soul (lawmaker) sympathetic to our cause? If money is the only issue, I will donate first and persuade my friends to do the same.
We (me and many of my friends) were once active members right from the early days of IV. We contributed and involved in every IV initiative before. Now we are in the sidelines. I strongly beleive, members like me will be active again once we see any hope. Right now there is none.
hairstyles 77%. Looney
ramus
05-30 09:00 PM
Bostn_gc, please help us..
While other members helping you can you also help IV and send some web-faxes..
Thanks.
While other members helping you can you also help IV and send some web-faxes..
Thanks.
HV000
01-15 12:51 PM
$1000 is a lot for Premium Processing and VSC is profiting a lot from this. They are running a business for sure....
Its only extensions which are a long time.
Its only extensions which are a long time.
MetteBB
05-12 02:07 AM
Why thank you! Looks nice and fresh doesnt it? Like you just wanna take a big bite out of them. :drool:
/mette
/mette
No comments:
Post a Comment