saketkapur
07-06 02:46 PM
Yes, as long as you are working for the same employer that had filed your I-140 then you can maintain your H1B status with them. I had confirmed the same with my attorney. You should confirm the same by your attorney too. I beleive there was a thread at a point of time discussing the same on IV too. Maybe some member might be able to point it to you.
I am now with a different employer and using my EAD since May this year.
Hope this helps......
I am now with a different employer and using my EAD since May this year.
Hope this helps......
wallpaper Foto StarTraks. Kim
nixstor
09-17 11:55 AM
I agree with the confusion part of your post. How ever, the timing should be good for a name change and I am sure atleast it will have some people say "hey, look these guys are waiting in line". But if 100 out of 100 people here are because of issues being faced by EB issues, I dont see anything wrong in associating ourselves to that cause. In fact, if any one comes to the website and reads for a minute its crystal clear that we are trying to alleviate the situation for EB applicants. In the visa bulletin, I see EB and FB categories. Am I missing some categories in Legal Immigration? (excluding getting enlisted)
austingc
12-24 10:32 PM
H1b extensions can be done based on approved Labor alone. You need i140 only if you need 3 year extensions.
You mentioned the extension filed is based on approved labor. You I140 status does not matter for 1 year renewals. This is my own experience.
Best of luck on your 140
Cheeers !
Varumo_varatho,
Your 140 is filed based on your labor and it is denied now. How will USCIS allow you to extend your H1B with a denied I-140? Technically once you filed I-140 then the labor has no value and you have to take action based on I-140. The rule is you can extend your H1B based on your pending labor or pending I-140 or approved I-140. That means once you file I-140 then do not hold your breath to file an H1B extension based on your labor.
Can you tell us your personal experience that how you got your H1B extended with your I-140 denial?
If you don�t know anything please do not give your 2 cents here. Nobody asked your wrong opinion and no one is longing for you to post some false information here.
I would suggest you to change your screen name to Thriyumo_Thriyatho
You mentioned the extension filed is based on approved labor. You I140 status does not matter for 1 year renewals. This is my own experience.
Best of luck on your 140
Cheeers !
Varumo_varatho,
Your 140 is filed based on your labor and it is denied now. How will USCIS allow you to extend your H1B with a denied I-140? Technically once you filed I-140 then the labor has no value and you have to take action based on I-140. The rule is you can extend your H1B based on your pending labor or pending I-140 or approved I-140. That means once you file I-140 then do not hold your breath to file an H1B extension based on your labor.
Can you tell us your personal experience that how you got your H1B extended with your I-140 denial?
If you don�t know anything please do not give your 2 cents here. Nobody asked your wrong opinion and no one is longing for you to post some false information here.
I would suggest you to change your screen name to Thriyumo_Thriyatho
2011 Michael copon images
dilbert_cal
04-30 12:13 PM
One of my colleague filed his 140 in third week of March. Will update when it gets cleared.
more...
arihant
04-30 12:20 PM
I140 filed @ Texas center
Category: EB2- PD Dec 03
Type: Premium
Receipt date: April 17th
Approval date: April 19th
As you can see I got mine in 2 days through Premium. I had to do the premium to avail of the 3 year H1 extension. So, if any of you have your extension coming up, then do switch over to premium by paying the additional amount and you will probably get your approval in less than a week.
Category: EB2- PD Dec 03
Type: Premium
Receipt date: April 17th
Approval date: April 19th
As you can see I got mine in 2 days through Premium. I had to do the premium to avail of the 3 year H1 extension. So, if any of you have your extension coming up, then do switch over to premium by paying the additional amount and you will probably get your approval in less than a week.
zCool
05-21 03:33 PM
There no hard and fast rule.. so long as you can prove the intent to work permanantly.. some will say 6 months .. some will say 1 yr.
more...
Templarian
11-20 02:57 PM
So just curious if you were going to put this up for the weekend.
2010 KOMU CRUSH: MICHAEL COPON
priti8888
12-20 07:57 PM
Posted by 3 hours ago
"Both kurup65 and rathna1 registered from the same IP address within 29 and both posted I-485 approvals with PD dates out of whack. Don't trust them. We'll delete these users in due time."
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/78889113/
"Both kurup65 and rathna1 registered from the same IP address within 29 and both posted I-485 approvals with PD dates out of whack. Don't trust them. We'll delete these users in due time."
http://www..com/discuss/485eb/78889113/
more...
Trinity79
04-08 05:00 PM
May 2011 Bulletin is out
Employment- Based Category
INDIA EB2 July 2006 (from May 2006)
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5424.html[/IMG]
I received an email from NVC on Mar 31st with invoice of 794$. My lawyer says that means nothing to me if I don't go for Consulate Processing. But dont they know when they send the email that we didn't opt for CP in I-140. I am confused.
For those of you who received the letter from NVC are you EB2?
Employment- Based Category
INDIA EB2 July 2006 (from May 2006)
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5424.html[/IMG]
I received an email from NVC on Mar 31st with invoice of 794$. My lawyer says that means nothing to me if I don't go for Consulate Processing. But dont they know when they send the email that we didn't opt for CP in I-140. I am confused.
For those of you who received the letter from NVC are you EB2?
hair packing on michael copon,
hindu_king
04-23 11:49 AM
I am planning to change my apartment next week. Its same city same zip code just different apartment complex (got a better deal). I am working the same job, same profile no changes since filing my 485 in Aug 2007. I also received a RFE in July 2008 (at that time my PD was current) it was for BC for which I had submitted an affidavit from my parents since the original was in local language. For the RFE I did an notarized translation of the doc and submitted it. They had also asked for updated EVL with supporting paystubs W2. I sent that and the application has been pending since.
The question I have is will this address change trigger another RFE?. Does any one have any such experience?
I changed my address twice recently in a short period of time. Same state but different zip codes. I did not get any RFE's. I already got an RFE in Oct 2008 before I moved. There were Soft LUDs on my applications both the times but no RFEs. I dont think change of address will trigger RFEs.
The question I have is will this address change trigger another RFE?. Does any one have any such experience?
I changed my address twice recently in a short period of time. Same state but different zip codes. I did not get any RFE's. I already got an RFE in Oct 2008 before I moved. There were Soft LUDs on my applications both the times but no RFEs. I dont think change of address will trigger RFEs.
more...
njboy
06-09 11:35 AM
bottom line is guys..they've figured out a cash cow, and will milk it..can a person on H1B afford 5 months of waiting for renewal/job change extension? What if there is an emergency at home? there's always a solution, beg the company to pay $1000.00 and convert it into premium process. What if the company does not want to? You are sc***ed! The waste products are going to hit the overhead air circulation device once they start processing the 13 mil. illegal immigrants.
hot photo michael sowell copon
vicky007
05-10 12:16 PM
Sorry, the link is not working anymore.
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
But here is the complete report of the proposed measure:
WASHINGTON - Employers would have to check Social Security numbers and the immigration status of all new hires under a tentative Senate agreement on toughening sanctions against people who provide jobs to illegal immigrants.
Those who don't and who hire an illegal immigrant would be subject to fines of $200 to $6,000 per violation.
Employers found to have actually hired illegal immigrants once an electronic system for the checks is in place could be fined up to $20,000 per unauthorized worker and even sentenced to jail for repeat offenses.
What to do with people who hire illegal immigrants has been one of the stumbling points in putting together a broad immigration bill that tightens borders, but also addresses the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.
Congress left it to employers to ensure they were hiring legal workers when they passed an immigration law in 1986 and provided penalties for those who didn't. But the law was not strictly enforced and the market grew for fraudulent documents.
Senate Republicans and Democrats are hoping this week to reach a compromise on more contentious parts of the immigration bill so they can vote on it before Memorial Day.
The employer sanctions were negotiated separately from other parts of the broader bill after some senators raised concerns about privacy of tax information, liability of employers and worker protections.
Employers are wary of the system Congress wants them to use and say it would be unreliable.
"What's going to happen when you have individuals legally allowed to work in the United States, but they can't confirm it?" asked Angelo Amador, director of immigration policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Critics say expanding a Web-based screening program, now used on a trial basis by about 6,200 employers, to cover everyone might create a version of the no-fly lists used for screening airline passengers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Infants and Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts were among people barred from boarding a plane because names identical to their own were on a government list of suspected terrorists.
"This will be the no-work list," predicted Tim Sparapani, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Last year, employers in the trial screening program submitted names and identifying information on more than 980,000 people. Of them, about 148,000 were flagged for further investigation. Only 6,202 in that group were found to be authorized to work.
U.S. citizens could come up as possible illegal workers if, for example, they change their last names when they marry but fail to update Social Security records.
All non-citizens submitted to the system are referred to the Homeland Security Department, even if their Social Security number is valid.
A bill passed by the House would impose stiff employer sanctions, but does not couple them with a guest worker program, drawing opposition from business. The bill also would give employers six years to screen all previously hired employees still on the payroll as well as new hires — altogether, about 140 million people.
The Senate agreement proposes screening all new hires but only a limited number of people hired previously _specifically, those who have jobs important to the nation's security.
Negotiating the Senate agreement are Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana.
Their plan would give employers 18 months to start using the verification system once it is financed. It would create a process for workers to keep their jobs and be protected from discrimination while contesting a finding that they are not authorized to work.
To check compliance and fight identity theft, the legislation would allow the Homeland Security Department limited access to tax and Social Security information.
The Social Security Administration, for example, would give homeland security officials lists of employers who submit large numbers of employees who are not verified as legal workers. The Internal Revenue Service would provide those employers' tax identification numbers, names and addresses.
Social Security also would share lists of Social Security numbers repeatedly submitted to the verification system for different jobs.
The senators also want to increase the number of work site investigators to 10,000, a 50-fold increase.
President Bush asked Congress in January to provide more than $130 million to expand the trial system. That's not expected to be enough.
Once the above plan is agreed to , the senators will be able to come to a way out of the present CIR impasse.
"Report indicates that the Senate leaders have been working on contentious parts of the comprehensive immigration reform proposal as separate from the whole bill to crack the logjam. For instance, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Max Baucus of Montana formed a team to negotiate the Senate agreement on the employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and successfully reached an agreement".
more...
house Michael Copon ( Twitter Girl )
hopefulgc
05-26 06:57 PM
I can confirm that .. i have been trying for the past 4 weeks and NOTHING... always says "no dates available".
Now, the VFS site is giving the error "No dates available" for visitor visa. Even if you opt for an emergency appointment option, you still get the same error.
Are others facing the same issue? Is something wrong with this site?
Now, the VFS site is giving the error "No dates available" for visitor visa. Even if you opt for an emergency appointment option, you still get the same error.
Are others facing the same issue? Is something wrong with this site?
tattoo un attore Michael+copon
rockstart
03-01 07:28 PM
Were you working all the time in 2006 or were you on vacation? In case you were on vacation or medical leave or overseas for personal visit you can be on leave without pay. I am assuming 2006 was your 1st year so you definately did not have paid vacations. My advice is please document all your off time well this will help you.
Hey Tiger,
Dont take my words or advise for granted if one year you had less than your prevailing wage on W2 it may be ok as you have 2 more years of W2 with equal or more than prevailing wage.
Honestly I cannot say for sure your extension will be denied. But it helps for you to pay a couple of hundred dollars and talk over the phone to experienced attorneys like Sheela Murthy and get advise on your situation and options and whether there are chances of denial. I would assume you are OK but again I am no LAWYER :) I really wish you luck in your extension
Hey Tiger,
Dont take my words or advise for granted if one year you had less than your prevailing wage on W2 it may be ok as you have 2 more years of W2 with equal or more than prevailing wage.
Honestly I cannot say for sure your extension will be denied. But it helps for you to pay a couple of hundred dollars and talk over the phone to experienced attorneys like Sheela Murthy and get advise on your situation and options and whether there are chances of denial. I would assume you are OK but again I am no LAWYER :) I really wish you luck in your extension
more...
pictures +the+break+michael+copon
amitjoey
11-21 05:23 PM
While going out staple all of them together and give it it Airlines.
Airline has no problem in taking any of one (valid dates or expired dates), but the moment they see more than one, they will take all and staple it together. It is sent back for records (I am not sure where/how that is maintained and what is impact of giving in bits and pieces or loosing it, while having multiples).
But my lawyer as well as airline told me clearly to give all of the I94 together.
If you lost one (even to airlines), it may be worth informing USCIS, to avoid any inconveniences later. (Note: I am not legal expert and this is not a legal advise)
Thanks
Airline has no problem in taking any of one (valid dates or expired dates), but the moment they see more than one, they will take all and staple it together. It is sent back for records (I am not sure where/how that is maintained and what is impact of giving in bits and pieces or loosing it, while having multiples).
But my lawyer as well as airline told me clearly to give all of the I94 together.
If you lost one (even to airlines), it may be worth informing USCIS, to avoid any inconveniences later. (Note: I am not legal expert and this is not a legal advise)
Thanks
dresses Kim Kardashian And Michael
tonyHK12
10-04 02:21 PM
I contribute no more than 10% of my pay towards my 401K. I would not contribute more than this because I don't intend to stay here for a very long time. .
I contribute just 2-4% as I don't get company match. Regardless if you get a match, I know some friends who prefer to put it in India/mother's fixed deposit accounts for 8-10% interest, or if you have a PF account still open its an option. Property prices there too may shoot up in some areas, giving a good return, while here they may stay stagnant for many years.
Some banks allow NRIs to trade stocks or mutual funds in India too.
The only reason for 401K is if you plan to retire here.
Liquidity is a big problem as you have to quit the company for withdrawal from 401K. Some 401Ks give you loan at 2-3% interest. Its kind of strange because its your own money.
I contribute just 2-4% as I don't get company match. Regardless if you get a match, I know some friends who prefer to put it in India/mother's fixed deposit accounts for 8-10% interest, or if you have a PF account still open its an option. Property prices there too may shoot up in some areas, giving a good return, while here they may stay stagnant for many years.
Some banks allow NRIs to trade stocks or mutual funds in India too.
The only reason for 401K is if you plan to retire here.
Liquidity is a big problem as you have to quit the company for withdrawal from 401K. Some 401Ks give you loan at 2-3% interest. Its kind of strange because its your own money.
more...
makeup wooden toys, Michael+copon
redgreen
08-05 10:23 PM
As far as I know there is a Malayalam IPTV service available for North American viewers. It is called "BomTV" (Best of Malayalam TV) with Asianet (4 channels), Jeevan, Jaihind, Shalom, Powervision, etc. You don't need dish or cable or computer and you get HD transmission on your TV. You need high speed internet. You may check for more details at:
BoMTV (http://sites.google.com/site/bomtvboston)
BoMTV (http://sites.google.com/site/bomtvboston)
girlfriend Michael Copon And Kim
morchu
05-12 12:06 PM
Greg,
The Original poster mentioned that he filed 485 on 08/06/2007 (and I believe he is employment based). Please note that all employment based categories were unavailable as per bulletin#109 (for august 07). So any EB 485 filer filed in August of 2007 was eligible for that only because of the bulletin 107 & further "July Fiasco events". Which means even if they filed 485 after July 31st, they in fact used the old fee structure.
So ANY EB 485 filers between 08/01/2007 to 08/15/2007, still has to keep on paying fees for EAD (even though the rules change happened for filings after 07/31/2007). This is a special category of filers created by "July Fiasco".
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
The Original poster mentioned that he filed 485 on 08/06/2007 (and I believe he is employment based). Please note that all employment based categories were unavailable as per bulletin#109 (for august 07). So any EB 485 filer filed in August of 2007 was eligible for that only because of the bulletin 107 & further "July Fiasco events". Which means even if they filed 485 after July 31st, they in fact used the old fee structure.
So ANY EB 485 filers between 08/01/2007 to 08/15/2007, still has to keep on paying fees for EAD (even though the rules change happened for filings after 07/31/2007). This is a special category of filers created by "July Fiasco".
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
hairstyles Michael+copon+power+ranger
k_usa
12-16 10:52 AM
I got mine renewed in July'08 based on EAD in Lodi, NJ (Bergen county).
They renewed until EAD expiry date + 3 months.
They renewed until EAD expiry date + 3 months.
sidbee
06-10 01:47 PM
Sidbee,
thank you sidbee and i would pray that you would never be in this position. Its hard to stay home without at job and secondly, with H1B laidoff its even tougher.
I was laidoff recently and i know the stress one goes through. That's the reason i am trying to help by making a IVjobhunters group. I have found my job and i have nothing to gain.
Sidbee if you cannot talk good or help please shut your mouth. . If someone is asking for help ( Laidoff means Was terminated from work for no reason of yours).
You have the right to ask your employer for one way return ticket to your home town. Its not just the international airport but till your home town, Its a law and you should get it.
I was laidoff and i took unemployment benifits, Sidbee, Give me a lecture.
J thomas
You took me wrong.
I meant , that if i was illegaL (laid of for 5 months) , i would just leave without making noises.
I was giving my point of view.
And yes if i was laid off today , i would fight to get my return tickets. But if i choose to be illegal for 5 months, than i wont.
I have full sympathy, with whoever gets laid of on H1B, But thats the law, and i know it , and still i prefer to work on H1B.
thank you sidbee and i would pray that you would never be in this position. Its hard to stay home without at job and secondly, with H1B laidoff its even tougher.
I was laidoff recently and i know the stress one goes through. That's the reason i am trying to help by making a IVjobhunters group. I have found my job and i have nothing to gain.
Sidbee if you cannot talk good or help please shut your mouth. . If someone is asking for help ( Laidoff means Was terminated from work for no reason of yours).
You have the right to ask your employer for one way return ticket to your home town. Its not just the international airport but till your home town, Its a law and you should get it.
I was laidoff and i took unemployment benifits, Sidbee, Give me a lecture.
J thomas
You took me wrong.
I meant , that if i was illegaL (laid of for 5 months) , i would just leave without making noises.
I was giving my point of view.
And yes if i was laid off today , i would fight to get my return tickets. But if i choose to be illegal for 5 months, than i wont.
I have full sympathy, with whoever gets laid of on H1B, But thats the law, and i know it , and still i prefer to work on H1B.
deepimpact
09-18 08:53 PM
that is the part of the problem...... uscis has never provided correct and complete size of the backlog..... if backlog size were to be 190,000 then the dates should get current in all of the eb1, eb2 and eb3 categories in around 1 year.... how many here expect the dates to be current for all categories in around 1 year? probably close to zero.... nevertheless, most people think that the size of the backlog is equal to the number of applicants ahead of them..... which is to say that those ahead in line for each one of us is the cause of the backlog and not part of the backlog.... and those behind us do not deserve to be counted with us..... perhaps they should just wait period...... this is the formula most people here seem to use to derive at the size of the backlog.... hence difference versions and different numbers for the size of the backlog.....
USCIS admits to a backlog of 190K but most are in EB2-I/C and EB3 with a PD earlier than Aug 2007. No one knows how many people are waiting in these categories with approved I-140s from Aug2007-Sep2010. It could be another 150-200K. S0 even if the backlog is not 800K, but its around 400K.
USCIS admits to a backlog of 190K but most are in EB2-I/C and EB3 with a PD earlier than Aug 2007. No one knows how many people are waiting in these categories with approved I-140s from Aug2007-Sep2010. It could be another 150-200K. S0 even if the backlog is not 800K, but its around 400K.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق