ksrk
06-15 07:17 PM
So the dates are moving ahead but what does this really imply ? With priority dates retrogessed to around 2000 and no visa numbers availble for EB3. Who is getting the GC. Is it only the Eb2 with PD around 2000 or any one else.
Does anyone has more info to better understand what these dates imply ?
While there is some debate reg. what these dates refer to, the USCIS, on this page, clearly states that these are receipt dates (RD) on your receipt notice (for I-485 or whichever document you are checking processing times for).
[The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS Service Center.]
Based on your EB-category and country of chargeability, if your PD is current AND your RD is earlier than the one indicated in this "Processing Times" page, then you should already have your GC - if you don't you MUST contact NSC.
Since both you and I belong EB-2 and our PD's are past Jan 01, 2000 (per the June visa bulletin), there is no visa number to give either of us, even if our RD for I-485 is before Aug. 17, 2007.
The (current) problem isn't USCIS's processing pace - it is lack of sufficient visa numbers.
Does anyone has more info to better understand what these dates imply ?
While there is some debate reg. what these dates refer to, the USCIS, on this page, clearly states that these are receipt dates (RD) on your receipt notice (for I-485 or whichever document you are checking processing times for).
[The processing dates shown below represent the receipt dates of petitions and applications currently being processed by the USCIS Service Center.]
Based on your EB-category and country of chargeability, if your PD is current AND your RD is earlier than the one indicated in this "Processing Times" page, then you should already have your GC - if you don't you MUST contact NSC.
Since both you and I belong EB-2 and our PD's are past Jan 01, 2000 (per the June visa bulletin), there is no visa number to give either of us, even if our RD for I-485 is before Aug. 17, 2007.
The (current) problem isn't USCIS's processing pace - it is lack of sufficient visa numbers.
MerciesOfInjustices
03-25 09:09 AM
TOI is the champion of these kind of nonsense, after S.1932 was passed by the senate they published an article saying 'Good news, A bill for Green card increase, H1B increase ..... have been passed by U.S. lawmakers' with no mention of house hurdle etc. I fail to digest that the reporter who is writing the article doesn't know, after the bills get passed in the Senate they go to Congress. But it's TOI they can do that.
Write to TOI, the article is from a news agency but they should be talking about legal immigration issues more.
Write to TOI, the article is from a news agency but they should be talking about legal immigration issues more.
ubetman
08-05 08:50 AM
guyz,
Did I make sense in my previous post...suggestions plz...thanks...
Did I make sense in my previous post...suggestions plz...thanks...
GCcomesoon
05-12 08:49 AM
Great Job.I heard your call & I think you tried your best to explain our issues.I'm sure that something will surely change for the legal community in coming months.We have taken enough s..... till now.
Once again, nice job buddy
Keep up the spirits,we will get there
Thanks
GCcomesoon
Once again, nice job buddy
Keep up the spirits,we will get there
Thanks
GCcomesoon
more...
sujith1
07-30 12:41 PM
Same situation happened to me - My status shows as card production ordered while hers have no update.
The sad part is that I m continuing on H1 while she is working on her EAD and needs it approved soon
The sad part is that I m continuing on H1 while she is working on her EAD and needs it approved soon
looivy
02-26 04:04 PM
Can a legal expert provide advice as to whether I can use EAD/AP to get in?
more...
wahab_be
02-07 07:13 PM
UK requires an advance parole while coming back to the US. We recently travelled to India on an expired H1 and H4 visa (I have H1 extention approved but the passport has the old expired visa) via London. We did not had any issues. But while coming back we were re-routed to Frankfurt as we did not had the transit visa.
I recommend going via Frankfurt. You can double check the transit visa requirements with German Embassy as well.
I recommend going via Frankfurt. You can double check the transit visa requirements with German Embassy as well.
MatsP
February 5th, 2008, 05:56 AM
Hey, I didn't know you've seen my cameras, Mats! ;)
Actually, I've seen my old EOS 1n, which was a bit beaten up when I bought it used several years ago - and it's no better after I have had it for a while. The 1-series bodies do tolerate quite a bit of abuse and still take good shots. I just wish I had the money to get a 1Dmk2 [or Mk3...].
--
Mats
Actually, I've seen my old EOS 1n, which was a bit beaten up when I bought it used several years ago - and it's no better after I have had it for a while. The 1-series bodies do tolerate quite a bit of abuse and still take good shots. I just wish I had the money to get a 1Dmk2 [or Mk3...].
--
Mats
more...
knowDOL
08-23 09:44 AM
I think you can port your PD, even if the employer revokes I-140 and uses the underlying labor to someone else. Even then you retain your PD. Just wanted to correct.
See this Q&A from Mathew Oh:
# Q8(07-30-06): I and my wife are Indins. I am a software engineer and my wife is a M.D. I started a EB-3 labor certification through an Indian IT consulting company in Texas on March 2, 2001. Both of us are in H-1B status. We filed concurrent I-140 petition and I-485 application. in April 2005. However, the employer was angry at me for my intent to work with another employer and withdrew my approved I-140 petition. Based on the withdrawal, the Texas Service Center revoked my I-140 and denied our pending I-485 applications. My MD wife started a EB-2 labor certification in September 2005 which was approved in November 2005. I am still within H-1B six year limit and my wife also maintains her own H-1B. EB-2 visa number has been retrogressed from October 2005 and from day after tomorrow, EB-2 number will be completely unavailable. We are so frustrated. We have two children born in the U.S. Her medical practice has been working well and she is really looking foward to her medical career in the U.S. I understand that the priority date is locked and backpacked by the alien beneficiary once I-140 petition is approved. I do not see why my wife can not use this priority date of March 2, 2001 and we file I-485 applications again. What do you think, sir?
A. It is true that a priority date is locked and backpacked by the alien beneficiary once I-140 petition is approved unless the approved I-140 petition is revoked for fraud, revoked by invalidation of the underlying labor certification application or revoked by the Department of State for failure to apply for the immigrant visa within one year from the notice of immigrant visa application by the agency. Otherwise, the alien carries the prioriy date for life in his backpack. Accordingly, the priority date is controlled by the employer until the I-140 petition is approved, but once the I-140 petition is approved, the employer loses control over the priority date and the alien keeps the priority date. Accordingly, if you start a PERM application now and quickly obtain a EB-3 I-140 petition based on the approved PERM, you may be able to file I-485 applications again soon as the USCIS is poised to launch the Premium Processing Services of EB-3 I-140 petitions next month. However, the priority date is not transferrable to your MD spouse and you cannot file I-485 application as a derivative beneficiary of your wife's EB-2 petition based on your priority date. The PERM labor certification nowadays takes a little bit longer, but it is do-able in a fairly limited period of time. Unfortunately, in your case, you cannot extend H-1B beyond six years as one-year increment extension is not available because your I-485 denial became "final." Once denial of labor certification or I-140 or I-485 becomes final, your cannot apply for the H-1B extension beyond six year limit in one-year increment. You cannot apply for H-1B extension in three-year increment because your I-140 petition has been revoked and there is no longer adjustment of status proceeding pending for you and your family. Besides, the Indian EB-3 visa number is availalbe and when you are not suffering from the visa retrogression, you cannot apply for the three-year increment H-1B petition using the AC-21 Act. It appears that your new employer should run fast to develop and file a PERM application. For your purpose, you do not have to be bothered by the issue of EB-2 or EB-3 as the visa number is available for your EB-3 India. Good luck.
The PD shows up on the approval notice of I140. I don't know if it shows up on the 485 as I haven't seen one and won't see one for years. But it makes sense to have the PD on the I140 as once the I140 is approved you can port that PD (if employer does not revoke it)
See this Q&A from Mathew Oh:
# Q8(07-30-06): I and my wife are Indins. I am a software engineer and my wife is a M.D. I started a EB-3 labor certification through an Indian IT consulting company in Texas on March 2, 2001. Both of us are in H-1B status. We filed concurrent I-140 petition and I-485 application. in April 2005. However, the employer was angry at me for my intent to work with another employer and withdrew my approved I-140 petition. Based on the withdrawal, the Texas Service Center revoked my I-140 and denied our pending I-485 applications. My MD wife started a EB-2 labor certification in September 2005 which was approved in November 2005. I am still within H-1B six year limit and my wife also maintains her own H-1B. EB-2 visa number has been retrogressed from October 2005 and from day after tomorrow, EB-2 number will be completely unavailable. We are so frustrated. We have two children born in the U.S. Her medical practice has been working well and she is really looking foward to her medical career in the U.S. I understand that the priority date is locked and backpacked by the alien beneficiary once I-140 petition is approved. I do not see why my wife can not use this priority date of March 2, 2001 and we file I-485 applications again. What do you think, sir?
A. It is true that a priority date is locked and backpacked by the alien beneficiary once I-140 petition is approved unless the approved I-140 petition is revoked for fraud, revoked by invalidation of the underlying labor certification application or revoked by the Department of State for failure to apply for the immigrant visa within one year from the notice of immigrant visa application by the agency. Otherwise, the alien carries the prioriy date for life in his backpack. Accordingly, the priority date is controlled by the employer until the I-140 petition is approved, but once the I-140 petition is approved, the employer loses control over the priority date and the alien keeps the priority date. Accordingly, if you start a PERM application now and quickly obtain a EB-3 I-140 petition based on the approved PERM, you may be able to file I-485 applications again soon as the USCIS is poised to launch the Premium Processing Services of EB-3 I-140 petitions next month. However, the priority date is not transferrable to your MD spouse and you cannot file I-485 application as a derivative beneficiary of your wife's EB-2 petition based on your priority date. The PERM labor certification nowadays takes a little bit longer, but it is do-able in a fairly limited period of time. Unfortunately, in your case, you cannot extend H-1B beyond six years as one-year increment extension is not available because your I-485 denial became "final." Once denial of labor certification or I-140 or I-485 becomes final, your cannot apply for the H-1B extension beyond six year limit in one-year increment. You cannot apply for H-1B extension in three-year increment because your I-140 petition has been revoked and there is no longer adjustment of status proceeding pending for you and your family. Besides, the Indian EB-3 visa number is availalbe and when you are not suffering from the visa retrogression, you cannot apply for the three-year increment H-1B petition using the AC-21 Act. It appears that your new employer should run fast to develop and file a PERM application. For your purpose, you do not have to be bothered by the issue of EB-2 or EB-3 as the visa number is available for your EB-3 India. Good luck.
The PD shows up on the approval notice of I140. I don't know if it shows up on the 485 as I haven't seen one and won't see one for years. But it makes sense to have the PD on the I140 as once the I140 is approved you can port that PD (if employer does not revoke it)
continuedProgress
06-08 02:35 PM
My $50 (3626-8870-3772-9306) for this effort.
more...
jsporn
03-26 04:01 PM
The reason a case would be transferred to the National Benefits Center would be to schedule an interview at a local office.
gconmymind
04-07 03:54 PM
Does it in any way affect my Naturalization Application?
There is another thread on this. Please search. It seems there is a USCIS address in Kentucky where you need to send it.
There is another thread on this. Please search. It seems there is a USCIS address in Kentucky where you need to send it.
more...
rssm10
06-01 02:37 PM
I have got the I-485 denial notice. I am the primary applicant and my wife is dependent application. The denial notice was based on an RFE which was not responded (Basically neither my lawyer nor ourselves received the RFE notice, we directly
received the denial notice). Before we got the 485 denial notice, our status are as follows:
Myself : WOrking on H1 B (Primary Applicant)
Wife : Working on EAD.
Attorney sent the necessary paper work to USCIS 2 weeks back.2 weeks passed away and there is no update from USCIS. The status online still says that the I485 is denied.
1)Can my wife continue to work on EAD ?
2)What is the status of the EAD now ?
3)Should we have to wait for the case to be reopened before she can join work on EAD ?
received the denial notice). Before we got the 485 denial notice, our status are as follows:
Myself : WOrking on H1 B (Primary Applicant)
Wife : Working on EAD.
Attorney sent the necessary paper work to USCIS 2 weeks back.2 weeks passed away and there is no update from USCIS. The status online still says that the I485 is denied.
1)Can my wife continue to work on EAD ?
2)What is the status of the EAD now ?
3)Should we have to wait for the case to be reopened before she can join work on EAD ?
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
more...
yjprakash
10-20 04:08 PM
Can someone also share the NSC fax number please?
Here is the fax number for NSC 4022196344
Here is the fax number for NSC 4022196344
wandmaker
12-19 01:23 AM
Is it true it is must to use EAD to invoke AC 21? I am not sure but people said I cannot use H1 but EAD to invoke Ac 21........
if you invoke AC21 means you have to use EAD not H1B......
AC21: You are letting USCIS know that you will not be working for GC sponsoring employer as you have found a new similar/same job with some one else.
EAD/H1B: EAD is an work authorization, which allows to you work for any one. H1B is allows to you work for an sponsoring employer. If your new employer agrees you take you on board then do an H1 transfer, your title will be "similar/same position".
if you invoke AC21 means you have to use EAD not H1B......
AC21: You are letting USCIS know that you will not be working for GC sponsoring employer as you have found a new similar/same job with some one else.
EAD/H1B: EAD is an work authorization, which allows to you work for any one. H1B is allows to you work for an sponsoring employer. If your new employer agrees you take you on board then do an H1 transfer, your title will be "similar/same position".
more...
vikrantp
01-22 09:17 AM
You have waited very long and I think you deserve to get the green card. But under EB3 India, that wont happen for another 4-6 years to be conservative. If you were qualified for EB2 as of Nov 2001 (you held a MS or had BS + 5 yrs as of Nov 2001, you should not have any problem with retaining the old priority date while filing under EB2). Ask your client to file Perm LC under EB2 & do the I140 using the Nov 2001 PD. Then join them.If you don't qualify, do in EB3. Dont join the client if they are not stable.. better to wait with your current employer under EB3 than go EB3 with an unstable employer and risk losing it all in the worst case scenario. If they really want you that badly, they will do this under premium processing and you could be in your current state with them in a matter of a couple of months.
Don't you need to be on their payroll before they file PERM? I am exploring a similar option but I thought you need to be on their payroll before the apply for PERM/I140?
Don't you need to be on their payroll before they file PERM? I am exploring a similar option but I thought you need to be on their payroll before the apply for PERM/I140?
CatsintheCraddle
05-04 04:59 PM
No, the I-130 was never denied, I don't think it was ever approved either though. I have receipt notices for everything we applied for but on the website, I can only check updates for my EAD (forgot the # of form) and my I-485.
The letter of denial states it's my I-485 that has been denied, there is no mention of the I-130. Of course it then goes on to mention that any EAD's travel docs. etc have been revoked. I can not appeal the decision but I'm allowed to reapply or file for motion to have case re-opened.
I am worried about what box to check but I'm going to an info pass meeting tomorrow, I'm hoping they can help me with that.
The letter of denial states it's my I-485 that has been denied, there is no mention of the I-130. Of course it then goes on to mention that any EAD's travel docs. etc have been revoked. I can not appeal the decision but I'm allowed to reapply or file for motion to have case re-opened.
I am worried about what box to check but I'm going to an info pass meeting tomorrow, I'm hoping they can help me with that.
pd052009
09-13 02:51 PM
You save time when you port from one EB category to another EB category and your country of chargeability has a backlog. Switching b/w employers with same EB category will not save any time.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
Hi pd052009,
Thank you for your help. I am just confused about one issue. I thought by porting my PD from and old EB2+ perm case to a new EB2+perm will save me time in waiting for the PD. Now you mentioned that if I port my PD from an old EB2 to a new EB2 (same category), I will not save any time. Please clarify.
Thanks.
a_yaja
07-25 01:41 PM
dont confuse dated dob cert with the registration date...as long as the dob cert has the registraation date within 3 years or less, i believe, then u r ok...
It should be one year or less. That is what my lawyer told me. If the registration date is more than one year after birth, then an affidavit is required.
It should be one year or less. That is what my lawyer told me. If the registration date is more than one year after birth, then an affidavit is required.
singhsa3
10-22 09:05 AM
But I've got two A#s and so as my spouse...
I do not think so, even though you have two application , there will be only 1 A# for each applicant.
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
I do not think so, even though you have two application , there will be only 1 A# for each applicant.
We got only 1 FP notice for each of us. Our case is slightly different. I filed for myself and my wife. My wife filed for herself.
We did not apply for EAD and AP, through my wife. I applied from my side for both of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment