sweet_jungle
09-24 03:12 PM
Applying to a top MBA program is quite intense, especially if you come from a competitive applicant pool. eg: laid off investment banker (plenty of those headed to B-school), Indian-engineer, Chinese-anything, etc. Are you sure you want to go through the effort and expense of the application process if you cannot attend? It takes about 3-4 weeks to put a serious application package together - maybe you can put this time to better use by applying to a program that you can actually attend. That can also be a plan-B in case something goes wrong with the GC application.
Think it through and good luck with your decision. Wish you the Best.
thanks for your advice. It is still OK if due to GC screwup, I cannot attend rather than my GC comes through next year, and I fret over why I did not apply. of couse, this is a personal choice. But, this is how I have decided to face the situation. I know of people who have applied 3 times and gone through. Also, deferrals for genuine reasons are allowed by schools, though not all.
Also, MBA process is less stressful than say, applying to MS from India. Being in USA for last few years, we now know better about what is what.
Think it through and good luck with your decision. Wish you the Best.
thanks for your advice. It is still OK if due to GC screwup, I cannot attend rather than my GC comes through next year, and I fret over why I did not apply. of couse, this is a personal choice. But, this is how I have decided to face the situation. I know of people who have applied 3 times and gone through. Also, deferrals for genuine reasons are allowed by schools, though not all.
Also, MBA process is less stressful than say, applying to MS from India. Being in USA for last few years, we now know better about what is what.
wallpaper Happy Birthday, Mark Wahlberg
akhilmahajan
11-15 08:15 AM
New England (MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) folks come forward and lets plan out meeting the lawmakers.
What u say folks? This is the right time to act.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
What u say folks? This is the right time to act.
GO IV GO. TOGETHER WE CAN.
eb_retrogession
01-06 09:32 AM
This is a good effort towards solving the retrogression issue. Like many silent readers, I do have concern about contributing to a new organization.
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
Is there a way to know more details about this effort? Please send me a personal email so I can understand more and contribute with confidence.
Thanks!
Pls check your private message
2011 Mark Wahlberg Galleries
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-08 03:18 PM
As far as I know he was allowed to board the flight. No issues there but there can be issues when he re-enters US. Since he was on B1 (10 year Multiple) he can stay max 6 months in US so he has I 94 till Apr 09 but if he say come in Oct 09 to US again the system might not have checked him off so it might display that he is still in US and he overstayed his Visa and so CBP will call him in for secondary inspection. As far as I know it can be resolved by showing flight ticket stub and arrival stamp in destination country etc. Its more if hassle than anything.
Nothing will happen. They will not have the I-94 record at port of entry. I and many of my friends did not give our I-94's while going to india. I threw away the old ones and came in with my new one.
Nobody will ask you, u don't have to take the pain of going and informing the Port of entry.
Nothing will happen. They will not have the I-94 record at port of entry. I and many of my friends did not give our I-94's while going to india. I threw away the old ones and came in with my new one.
Nobody will ask you, u don't have to take the pain of going and informing the Port of entry.
more...
nixstor
02-24 07:20 PM
Visa stamping is not necessary to remain in the US so wondering why a CPA would consider this a necessary work expense.
Thats correct.
Every one can interpret them to their own way and can decide whether its deductible or not. Any thing related to business expenses, if IRS were to question the tax payer, IRS will ask for written substantiation from the employer. Guess what happens! The same CPA who told all these rosy stories and got a decent percentage on your fattest return simply tells you to get that letter. With out all that documentation, I doubt they will fight the audit.
Thats correct.
Every one can interpret them to their own way and can decide whether its deductible or not. Any thing related to business expenses, if IRS were to question the tax payer, IRS will ask for written substantiation from the employer. Guess what happens! The same CPA who told all these rosy stories and got a decent percentage on your fattest return simply tells you to get that letter. With out all that documentation, I doubt they will fight the audit.
sreenivas11
11-16 10:39 AM
Nov' 07 Processing times are not posted yet
more...
raju123
05-16 12:53 PM
^^^^^ Bumping up
2010 Marky Mark Workout (Video)
permfiling
12-15 02:19 PM
I am the same boat. My wife got her card wheras I got a response to the SR we raised that my card was sent the same day as my 485 approval notice and it might been lost in mail. I was asked to file I-90. I called customer service several times and talked to 2nd level IO and all suggested to file I-90. I took infopass but gave a shot again by talking to 2nd level IO who went over my case and said that my card was never created so she raised a SR.
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
My previous SR was raised by officer at the local uscis office who mentioned non delivery of PR cards which i don't think is the correct request. Now I have to pray and hope they create the card or have to file I-90
more...
hemanth22
07-21 09:24 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
This is a very unfortunate happening.
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Among the senators with presidential ambitions only McCain voted in favor of the bill
I am for , contacting the local sentators who have voted nay for this bill
Are there any established methods of doing so
hair here - Mark Wahlberg only
myeb2gc
02-24 08:43 PM
How long did you get extension for without purchase order or letter from client ?
Hi, i got it for 2 years 10 months, but not 3 years even after having approved 140.But it seems ok...
Hi, i got it for 2 years 10 months, but not 3 years even after having approved 140.But it seems ok...
more...
cahaba
04-14 12:31 AM
Thanks all for your responses.
I will get the ONET job codes and post them over here.
Also, how do you guys feel about the self employed option? My friend or his spouse can start a company (LLC) and he can part-time and remotely work on some projects while pursuing his current Marketing Manager job. Does anybody have experience or know somebody who has used the self-employed option.
Thanks.
I will get the ONET job codes and post them over here.
Also, how do you guys feel about the self employed option? My friend or his spouse can start a company (LLC) and he can part-time and remotely work on some projects while pursuing his current Marketing Manager job. Does anybody have experience or know somebody who has used the self-employed option.
Thanks.
hot markymark_drama.JPG
waitnwatch
04-21 02:37 PM
It is generally a good idea to go to any CBP and get the date put in. It is a pretty easy process. When the CBP folks say that an exit in 6 months in fine I guess they are correct in the sense that you have to stay illegally for over 180 days to be barred from reentry.
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
more...
house Mario recreates Marky-Mark
dentist1
03-09 01:07 PM
Hi I am very new to this forum and actually to all the Immigration related forums. Here is what my situation is.
I was working for a company A, got my PERM and I140 approved on EB3 and filed my I485 on with PD August 2007. I have also have the EAD and AP and am working on EAD as my H1 got voided after getting laid off from Company A on 2009. I am working with a company B with a higher salary than company A. This company didnt want to deal with USCIS and my agreement with this company does not allow me to discuss immigration matter with them. Now I got a new offer from company C with similar or slightly higher salary. Company C is ready to do my paper work.
Now I need to know what are the things that I can do.
1. Do I need to file PERM, I140 again on EB2?
2. Do I need to file for H1 again and complete the entire process?
3. What is and how to do EB3 to EB2 porting? is that all I need to do?
Please give me some advice. Thanks in advance.
KM
What is so urgent about this post.Please change the title.
I was working for a company A, got my PERM and I140 approved on EB3 and filed my I485 on with PD August 2007. I have also have the EAD and AP and am working on EAD as my H1 got voided after getting laid off from Company A on 2009. I am working with a company B with a higher salary than company A. This company didnt want to deal with USCIS and my agreement with this company does not allow me to discuss immigration matter with them. Now I got a new offer from company C with similar or slightly higher salary. Company C is ready to do my paper work.
Now I need to know what are the things that I can do.
1. Do I need to file PERM, I140 again on EB2?
2. Do I need to file for H1 again and complete the entire process?
3. What is and how to do EB3 to EB2 porting? is that all I need to do?
Please give me some advice. Thanks in advance.
KM
What is so urgent about this post.Please change the title.
tattoo marky mark wahlberg.
eb3_nepa
04-13 11:01 AM
Can ammendments be made to the bill in the 180 day waiting period? It was mentioned here before that ammendments can be made during that period.
more...
pictures Mark Wahlberg March 16,
v2neha
04-25 11:26 AM
hello folks,
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
Even if online address change thru AR-11 has not taken effect, post office will forward your mail to your new address for 12 months - make sure you fill out change of address form with postal dept immediately
I am switching jobs after an approved I140 and over 180 days from 485 receipt.
I am expecting no problems when leaving my current company. but just incase they decide to revoke my 140,
- is it ok to file AC21 after i receive the NOID if some thing happens or is it better to file AC21 now?
one other complication is i will be changing address too. how long does it take for USCIS to update my new address in their records? the reason i am asking is if they send me RFE or NOID, i will totally miss the boat if they send it to the wrong address. i am sure they will send a copy to my attorney, but he works form my current employer and I will assume he is less likely to help. Does it help if i file G28 with my own name and my new address?
I need to join my new job in 10 days and i hev give my crrent company a notice so it is a bit urgent. Please help.
Thank you
Rex
Even if online address change thru AR-11 has not taken effect, post office will forward your mail to your new address for 12 months - make sure you fill out change of address form with postal dept immediately
dresses Mark Wahlberg.
jayz
07-15 01:39 PM
Congrats!
How did you get this link? The Chennai website still shows dates for July 2008?
All,
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
How did you get this link? The Chennai website still shows dates for July 2008?
All,
Chennai Consulate has released the August appointment schedule on their site.
http://chennai.usconsulate.gov/uploads/images/K4oeM-zL_hPooV2orVvylA/ivappoint0808.pdf
I got an appointment too.. yahoooooooooo...
more...
makeup Donnie Wahlberg and Mark
kondur_007
09-17 09:38 PM
I dont want to duplicate, but I think following "cut and paste" from my previous post may be a fair thing to do; just for the information.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
I am not a lawyer; but this is what I believe to the best of my knowledge:
1. If you never used AC21 (still working with the employer who sponsored I 140); your obligation at the time of GC approval is to have a "good faith intention to work with the same employer permanently". It is not clear in the law as to how would you prove that intention...most people say that you should work for some duration (6 months or 12 months at least...or something like that) after GC is approved to "show" your good faith intention.
2. If you ported to employer B using AC 21 (before the approval of GC); you have the same obligation to the new employer B and NO obligation to original I 140 sponsoring employer. (this is especially true if you informed USCIS of your porting and also true if you did not inform USCIS but law is less clear in the later scenario)
There is really no law that specifies the duration.
All it says is :"you should have intention to work for the GC sponsoring employer (or AC21 employer if you ported) permanently."
Intention is a state of mind and it can change!! also all these employments are at will, and so it is possible that you may not like that job! Or on the other hand employer may not like you and fire you in a week.
Bottomline: You will be fine under most circumstances. However, if the issue is raised at the time of naturalization, it would be much easier for you to explain/show that you did have intention to work for the employer if you actually work for the sponsoring employer for some duration (6 months, 1 year...all these are arbitrary numbers).
If you never worked for the sponsoring employer, you may not have a lot of grounds to show that entire GC was not a fraud...
Again, there is no clear law on this...
followup post:
I think there is a mix up here between two things:
180 day clock does start on the first day after filing 485, but that is for the purpose of AC21. Once you use AC21, then the next employer assumes the role of "your future permanent employer" and you should have "intent to permanently work for that(new, not the sponsoring) employer" AT the time of GC approval.
If you use change the employers 7 times using AC21 before your GC gets approved; you should have "intent to work permanently for the latest employer".
You are not bonded slaves. The only issue is that the "burden of proof" of proving the intent to work for such and such employer is on the GC beneficiary and not on USCIS. So in future, if USCIS questions (or CBP questions), it is YOU who has to prove that intent.
One scenario where you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE IT: if you never worked for the sponsoring employer.
One scenario where you WILL NOT HAVE A PROBLEM PROVING IT: if you worked with sponsoring (or latest AC21) employer after GC approval for some duration (60 days?? 90 days?? 6 months?? 1 year??)...no law on this.
This is the whole purpose of Labor Certification process and I140. And it applies to the categories of EB2 (except NIW) and EB3--any category that requires LC.
This is from my discussion in following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3305&page=2
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20403
Hope this helps.
Good Luck.
girlfriend In other words, Marky Mark
Beta_mle
02-21 09:23 AM
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Thanks Desi. That helps peace of mind. Do you have a link to the regulation concerning out of status applying only to applicants 17 and older?
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
Thanks Desi. That helps peace of mind. Do you have a link to the regulation concerning out of status applying only to applicants 17 and older?
hairstyles delicious Mark Wahlberg
gk_2000
01-26 09:41 PM
Can he add an amendment to divide spillover equally between EB2 and EB3 India. This will help a lot.
Seeing the number of reds of this kind of views, I feel IV should split into two camps, red and green. Then I will also start expressing these views and embrace red....
Seeing the number of reds of this kind of views, I feel IV should split into two camps, red and green. Then I will also start expressing these views and embrace red....
raydhan
02-14 02:17 PM
Thanks for that Iptel.
Will include it in our lawmaker materials list right away and incorporate it into our presentation as soon as I can.
best,
Berkeleybee
Iptel,
Superb find. Great job. Among other things, this report talks accurately about the current Green Card delays and solutions and how LEGAL HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS add to the economy and innovativeness in the U.S.
Selected sections can definitely be used to enlighten the lawmakers.
Keep 'em coming!!!
Will include it in our lawmaker materials list right away and incorporate it into our presentation as soon as I can.
best,
Berkeleybee
Iptel,
Superb find. Great job. Among other things, this report talks accurately about the current Green Card delays and solutions and how LEGAL HIGH-SKILLED IMMIGRANTS add to the economy and innovativeness in the U.S.
Selected sections can definitely be used to enlighten the lawmakers.
Keep 'em coming!!!
truthinspector
01-28 08:12 PM
Although it does not feature in this article, Bush is using the word 'Guest Worker' more often these days. Any opinions about the emphasis on the word 'Guest' these days in Bush's speeches? Is there a covert message there?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_wants_more_young_Indian_minds_in_United_State s/articleshow/1461553.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_wants_more_young_Indian_minds_in_United_State s/articleshow/1461553.cms
No comments:
Post a Comment