bsbawa10
09-29 08:41 PM
Extremely well put together. Can we send it to USCIS director so that it can make some impact ??
ashres11
05-30 09:58 AM
I am going to use AC21 and H1 transfer. Now my situation is with wife status. Any information is appericiated
Wife Came in USA on H4 Visa
Then Convert it t0 H1
Now She activated her EAD and working fulltime.
Can she go back to H4 now. I am a primary applicant for GC.
Wife Came in USA on H4 Visa
Then Convert it t0 H1
Now She activated her EAD and working fulltime.
Can she go back to H4 now. I am a primary applicant for GC.
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
abhijitp
02-14 07:02 PM
A friendly bump from NORCAL;)
more...
mmanurker
12-08 06:38 PM
vet04, Unfortunatly I dont have an answer to your question but if you dont mind can u pls let us know more about your current job so that I can start looking at your current job as an option for me incase if I get a green card. I am serious and not kidding. I want to know who is paying
200k salary in this job market and what is the job requirement for that.
200k salary in this job market and what is the job requirement for that.
illinois_alum
05-27 09:30 PM
I had e-filed for me and my wife on 05/14.
App went to NSC. Sent docs on 05/19 - delivered on 05/21
Soft LUD on 05/17, 05/18 and on 05/24
Got receipts on 05/21
Yesterday (05/25) got ASC notice for FP for my wife.. did not know that FP is needed for EAD.
I thought last time we got FP notice.. it said app type as I-485.. that time.. in July fiasco.. we had applied for 485/EAD/AP all together
Have not got my FP notice yet
I have a Que - my daughter is 7 and initially the attorney had applied for EAD for her too... but then after the first time (2007) I did not apply for her EAD.. I thought no point in wasting $340 every time..
Now since FP notices are coming for my wife and hopefully for me - how about FP notice for my daughter? Do I need to apply for EAD for her.. to get FP notice?
If I don't get FP notice for her - will her Case be ok?
I e-filed for my wife on 5/24 - application was submitted to NSC.
Sof LUDs on 5/25, 5/26 and 5/27
Sent documents on 5/25 - Received by NSC on 5/27
Received Receipt Notice on 5/27
Waiting for FP notice (last FP was ~2 years back at the time of last EAD renewal)
App went to NSC. Sent docs on 05/19 - delivered on 05/21
Soft LUD on 05/17, 05/18 and on 05/24
Got receipts on 05/21
Yesterday (05/25) got ASC notice for FP for my wife.. did not know that FP is needed for EAD.
I thought last time we got FP notice.. it said app type as I-485.. that time.. in July fiasco.. we had applied for 485/EAD/AP all together
Have not got my FP notice yet
I have a Que - my daughter is 7 and initially the attorney had applied for EAD for her too... but then after the first time (2007) I did not apply for her EAD.. I thought no point in wasting $340 every time..
Now since FP notices are coming for my wife and hopefully for me - how about FP notice for my daughter? Do I need to apply for EAD for her.. to get FP notice?
If I don't get FP notice for her - will her Case be ok?
I e-filed for my wife on 5/24 - application was submitted to NSC.
Sof LUDs on 5/25, 5/26 and 5/27
Sent documents on 5/25 - Received by NSC on 5/27
Received Receipt Notice on 5/27
Waiting for FP notice (last FP was ~2 years back at the time of last EAD renewal)
more...
lazycis
05-01 12:52 PM
If I-485 is still pending, you can try to use AC21 and port old I-140 to new employer. Nothing to lose, a lot to gain if it works out. AC21 is not clearly defined and it's not codified in regulations so you have a good chance to prevail. The only problem I see is that the old employer no longer exists. Termination of the employer's business is one of the reasons for automatic revocation of I-140 (see 8 CFR 205.1(a)(iii)(D)). However if old employer was simply merged into another company, you can argue that business was not terminated.
webm
03-19 02:32 PM
RD is also not a reliable predictor since there are people who have been approved who applied for AOS in July 2007 while those who had applied prior to this are still waiting to see the light.
It is a random process for sure.
yes looks like its a random pick..
There are guys which got and not got (waiting) even PD is current and RD not fall under processing dates.Its kind of mixed possibles!!
It is a random process for sure.
yes looks like its a random pick..
There are guys which got and not got (waiting) even PD is current and RD not fall under processing dates.Its kind of mixed possibles!!
more...
BumbleBee
08-23 06:03 PM
Is this category seen as one or is it split into many countries and if so how do you find out about a particular country within ROW?
Thanks
Its one single category(ROW). Otherwise the number won't add up
100/7 = ~15 countries :eek: , and there are well beyond 15 countries in the world(193 countries). I guess they will create a separate country category if that country runs over 7% limit set. otherwise those countries remain in ROW.
Does that sounds right?
BumbleBee
Thanks
Its one single category(ROW). Otherwise the number won't add up
100/7 = ~15 countries :eek: , and there are well beyond 15 countries in the world(193 countries). I guess they will create a separate country category if that country runs over 7% limit set. otherwise those countries remain in ROW.
Does that sounds right?
BumbleBee
addsf345
10-29 02:18 PM
can anyone answer this
I know a person who had to leave his employer only after 60 days of filling his 485(not even 180 days for ac21) and still got GC.
There are thousands who already working for new employer using AC21 after 180 days.
and you are scared to death even after getting GC. Let me ask you this...are you a man or chicken?
I know a person who had to leave his employer only after 60 days of filling his 485(not even 180 days for ac21) and still got GC.
There are thousands who already working for new employer using AC21 after 180 days.
and you are scared to death even after getting GC. Let me ask you this...are you a man or chicken?
more...
priti8888
02-18 06:19 PM
Maintaining legal visa status is not considered a deductible employee business expense. The IRS considers this as a personal expenditure
http://www.neidhartcpa.com/deduct.html
Medical expenses may be deductible but it won't exceed 7.5 % of your AGI so eventually it wont be deductible.
http://www.neidhartcpa.com/deduct.html
Medical expenses may be deductible but it won't exceed 7.5 % of your AGI so eventually it wont be deductible.
Mumbai_girl
12-02 11:22 AM
I would very much appreciate if I could get your input in the following situation.
I have plans to travel on 7th Dec but am still waiting for my AP. The AP was aproved on 6th Nov along with my spouse's AP on the same date. He got his AP (thru lawyer) about 10 days back, but I did not receive it. Chances look bleak that I will get AP before 4th Dec (by which date I need to cancel my tickets to get a refund). However, I have a I-797 which is valid till Mar 2008. I wanted to use that to get H1 stamping in India, but when I spoke to my Lawyer, I was told that I cannot do so beacuse the 797 is expiring in 3 months.
If you have a recent experience of getting H1 stamped with your I797 expiring in a few months please do reply.
I have plans to travel on 7th Dec but am still waiting for my AP. The AP was aproved on 6th Nov along with my spouse's AP on the same date. He got his AP (thru lawyer) about 10 days back, but I did not receive it. Chances look bleak that I will get AP before 4th Dec (by which date I need to cancel my tickets to get a refund). However, I have a I-797 which is valid till Mar 2008. I wanted to use that to get H1 stamping in India, but when I spoke to my Lawyer, I was told that I cannot do so beacuse the 797 is expiring in 3 months.
If you have a recent experience of getting H1 stamped with your I797 expiring in a few months please do reply.
more...
xyzgc
10-13 11:10 PM
how abt dressing up as a mickey? they'll love u for it..;)
singhsa3
07-20 01:37 PM
This may be a serious issue. Consult a lawyer. Receipting may take a while.
I sent in form G-325 for both me and my wife along with my I-485 instead of the G-325A as required on I-485 instructions by oversight. What do you guys recommend I do? Should I send in a new application or just send in the G-325A form with a letter stating the issue? Please help.
I sent in form G-325 for both me and my wife along with my I-485 instead of the G-325A as required on I-485 instructions by oversight. What do you guys recommend I do? Should I send in a new application or just send in the G-325A form with a letter stating the issue? Please help.
more...
GCapplicant
10-12 04:19 PM
I filed on 8th August and havent yet received my notices in mail.. I contacted my lawyer today and he sent copies of my receipts and then he also found out that they had received my FP notice .. I am supposed to go on 27th Oct to Newark USCIS... Anyone coming on same day ..
My application is being processed at Texas..
Not many people who have filed with me has recieved any notices as of yet..
So dont worry guys we all should be fine..
Glad to see a NJ applicant to receive FP.Hope we also receive ours soon.Thanks for the update
My application is being processed at Texas..
Not many people who have filed with me has recieved any notices as of yet..
So dont worry guys we all should be fine..
Glad to see a NJ applicant to receive FP.Hope we also receive ours soon.Thanks for the update
LONGGCQUE
11-06 05:01 PM
Thanks for sharing. This appears to be a good measure for us, if it happens.
more...
snathan
03-28 04:23 PM
As per my tax preparer's advice, I sent both the tax return and W-7 form to IRS ITIN Operation office in Austin, Texas. Is this the correct address?
For any reason if your ITIN application is separated from your Tax return, most likely they would deny the ITIN...the reason would be - You reqested the ITIN for tax filing and there is no tax return papers attached.
I dont have any idea why it happened.
For any reason if your ITIN application is separated from your Tax return, most likely they would deny the ITIN...the reason would be - You reqested the ITIN for tax filing and there is no tax return papers attached.
I dont have any idea why it happened.
Raju
02-22 06:06 PM
Hello everyone,
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
Why don't we sell some advertising space on immigrationvoice.org
I have a question abt the recent contributions. Of late i have seen a SHARP drop in contributions. Have we reached a plateau now, or are the contributions not updated live?
Also i have a question abt what the agreement is with QGA. Do they do nothing till we pay the $200k or do they do things in installments (like our immigration lawyers ;)). A lot of non members, but possibly potential contributors keep asking me abt the same. If the board can answer this question i would appreciate it. If you do not want to post that info on here, please send me a Private Message.
Why don't we sell some advertising space on immigrationvoice.org
hnordberg
November 26th, 2005, 05:58 PM
I prefer the dark one. It is more interesting and would work well in a gallery. Well done!
GotFreedom?
07-22 05:38 PM
Hi guys,
I bet this question must have been asked before but I couldn't find the relevant thread so I'm asking again. Apologies if its a repeat.
I am maintaining my H1-B while my AOS is pending. Last year my wife went to India while she had valid H4 (not stamped in passport) and AP documents. She did not get her visa stamped and reentered the country using the AP with no issues. He I-94 said Parolled till Some date, March 2009. I totally forgot about it and never renewed her AP or mine. Does it pose any kind of threat to her legal status in the US and AOS?
I am still working on H1 and she is a parolee.
Thanks in advance fopr the responses.
I bet this question must have been asked before but I couldn't find the relevant thread so I'm asking again. Apologies if its a repeat.
I am maintaining my H1-B while my AOS is pending. Last year my wife went to India while she had valid H4 (not stamped in passport) and AP documents. She did not get her visa stamped and reentered the country using the AP with no issues. He I-94 said Parolled till Some date, March 2009. I totally forgot about it and never renewed her AP or mine. Does it pose any kind of threat to her legal status in the US and AOS?
I am still working on H1 and she is a parolee.
Thanks in advance fopr the responses.
gc_chahiye
09-23 02:11 AM
Gurus,
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
1. we also only have the copies of our receipts. Lawyers say the originals are property of the employer. Does not matter I think, as what we needed were the receipt numbers to track status, and a copy in case we communicate with USCIS (if we communicate with USCIS for something, we'll only include a copy of the receipt, dont need original). If you ever feel you need the original receipt (esp. of the 485) you can point them to the regulation that says you need original 485 receipt if you travel when you have AOS pending. there was a thread earlier on IV, and also lots of Google references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+in+possession+of+the+original%22+tr avel+adjustment&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS230US230
2. people have got receipts (even fingerprinting notices, appointments) weeks apart from their co-applicant. I would say hang on a week before you contact uscis.
3. our receipt also had the PD field blank. Apparently thats normal
Yesterday my lawyer received receipts for my spouse and kids (485/EAD/AP) but not for myself. Now my lawyer is insisting upon sending me the copies of the receipts and do not want to send me the originals. With respect to that I have following questions:
1) Is that o.k having copies only or we should have originals? If we do not
have originals what bad may happen?
2) Either my lawyer or I have not received any of my receipts but we
received all receipts of my family. Is this normal? How long should we wait
for my receipts before contacting USCIS? By the way USCIS already gave
me my all numbers for teh receipts and according to USCIS my receipts
already mailed on Sept 14th. What would be advisable action for me in
this case?
3) None of the receipts of my family contain Priority Date. PD field is blank on all receipts. Is this O.K.?
Thanks.
- BharatPremi
1. we also only have the copies of our receipts. Lawyers say the originals are property of the employer. Does not matter I think, as what we needed were the receipt numbers to track status, and a copy in case we communicate with USCIS (if we communicate with USCIS for something, we'll only include a copy of the receipt, dont need original). If you ever feel you need the original receipt (esp. of the 485) you can point them to the regulation that says you need original 485 receipt if you travel when you have AOS pending. there was a thread earlier on IV, and also lots of Google references:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22is+in+possession+of+the+original%22+tr avel+adjustment&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS230US230
2. people have got receipts (even fingerprinting notices, appointments) weeks apart from their co-applicant. I would say hang on a week before you contact uscis.
3. our receipt also had the PD field blank. Apparently thats normal
No comments:
Post a Comment