dummgelauft
09-11 08:36 AM
Thanks dummgelauft
My priority date is not current yet. There is a chance that my priority date will not be current even by the time my TN visa expires. So, that was the main problem I had. I know there is no way I can renew my TN visa ( since I-140 shows intent to immigrate). But, a HUGE misunderstanding I had, which you clarified for me, is that the 6 years
H1B restriction will not apply on me once I have approved I-140. So, if my priority date is current before my TN expires, I will get my EAD. If my priority date is not current by the time my TN expires, I will have the option of getting H1B and continue to work until I adjust my status.
What a relief !!!
Thank you so much again !!!!
Theo
just make sure that you allow sufficient time for you h1b processing. these can take upto 120 days.
My priority date is not current yet. There is a chance that my priority date will not be current even by the time my TN visa expires. So, that was the main problem I had. I know there is no way I can renew my TN visa ( since I-140 shows intent to immigrate). But, a HUGE misunderstanding I had, which you clarified for me, is that the 6 years
H1B restriction will not apply on me once I have approved I-140. So, if my priority date is current before my TN expires, I will get my EAD. If my priority date is not current by the time my TN expires, I will have the option of getting H1B and continue to work until I adjust my status.
What a relief !!!
Thank you so much again !!!!
Theo
just make sure that you allow sufficient time for you h1b processing. these can take upto 120 days.
SunnySurya
08-14 10:55 PM
USCIS is sick of active IVian and they want them to suffer. These active IVian have PD earlier than 2006. I am one of them.
How come most of the 2006 PD holders getting approved? I do not have any grudge against who have 2006 PD and got their AOS approved. I am just wondering as to what is making USCIS to choose only 2006 PD ? Definitely, the low hanging fruits theory does not seem to be working here. Anybody has any idea about that ? I am just frustrated.
How come most of the 2006 PD holders getting approved? I do not have any grudge against who have 2006 PD and got their AOS approved. I am just wondering as to what is making USCIS to choose only 2006 PD ? Definitely, the low hanging fruits theory does not seem to be working here. Anybody has any idea about that ? I am just frustrated.
meridiani.planum
04-17 01:18 AM
This is Off-Topic, sorry about that, but this is the best forum i could think of to ask this:
My father-in-law is visiting us from India, and he is thinking of driving a car here. He drives in India and I think in a couple of weeks (with maybe 2-3 classes with some instructor) he should get the hang of driving. Are there any risks that anyone knows of with this? (if he makes a mistake and ends up in an accident I understand that we end up being personally liable and can even be sued if there is an injured party).
Edit: This is in California
My father-in-law is visiting us from India, and he is thinking of driving a car here. He drives in India and I think in a couple of weeks (with maybe 2-3 classes with some instructor) he should get the hang of driving. Are there any risks that anyone knows of with this? (if he makes a mistake and ends up in an accident I understand that we end up being personally liable and can even be sued if there is an injured party).
Edit: This is in California
roseball
02-11 05:32 PM
Hi everyone,
Today i got an alert form USCIS that the pending 485s (for my wife and myself) have been transferred from NSC to TSC. Wanted to see if others with 485s pending at NSC have seen similar action.
My priority date is Oct 2005 and my 485 has been pending at NSC since July 2007.
Since TSC is almost current in processing I-485 applications, it could be that NSC might be transferring some applications to lower their I-485 pending case load.
Today i got an alert form USCIS that the pending 485s (for my wife and myself) have been transferred from NSC to TSC. Wanted to see if others with 485s pending at NSC have seen similar action.
My priority date is Oct 2005 and my 485 has been pending at NSC since July 2007.
Since TSC is almost current in processing I-485 applications, it could be that NSC might be transferring some applications to lower their I-485 pending case load.
more...
WTFever
12-03 12:54 AM
I have been thru K-1 crap and finally got my wife here from vietnam. I only have one last thing to say to you all......you should ALL be working for the red tape system. No one willing to take a second and offer ANY useful advice, which was my query. Instead I have not filled out the proper form, crossed all the T's and dotted the I's and can't get any help...form rejected....NEXT!
sanju_dba
07-17 11:03 AM
can you tell these...
I am still using H1 ( valid thru sept 09 ), and have EAD ( AOS pending ) under EB3 ( PD is Oct 2003). Still with same company.
Over years my responsibilities increased, ( DBA to DataArchitect ) and 1 new employee reporting to me. Will these factors help me move to EB2 ? what will be the procedure?
Please advice.
Thanks
I am still using H1 ( valid thru sept 09 ), and have EAD ( AOS pending ) under EB3 ( PD is Oct 2003). Still with same company.
Over years my responsibilities increased, ( DBA to DataArchitect ) and 1 new employee reporting to me. Will these factors help me move to EB2 ? what will be the procedure?
Please advice.
Thanks
more...
tikka
06-07 04:28 PM
please Contribute.
Iv Needs Funds
Iv Needs Funds
harivenkat
05-05 12:16 PM
Immigration bill would bring Arizona-style law to Pa. - Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_15017379)
Rep. Scott Perry supports a proposal that would give police the power the check immigration status. An immigration lawyer said its overly simple.
By JEFF FRANTZ
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 05/04/2010 10:43:28 PM MDT
A state representative proposed legislation Tuesday -- backed by several local lawmakers -- that was inspired by a controversial law passed last week in Arizona to combat illegal immigration.
If passed, the bill by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, would charge local law enforcement with checking immigration status, investigating businesses suspected of knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring businesses to verify a potential employee's legal status.
The proposal came a day after state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a bill in direct opposition to Arizona's law.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, supports Metcalfe's effort and said he will likely join as bill co-sponsor.
The federal government has failed to enforce the nation's immigration laws, Perry said, which is now forcing states to act because illegal immigration fosters crime, lowers wages and puts an added burden on taxpayers.
"What do we gain having cheaper tomatoes in the short term to sell out our security and sovereignty in the long term?" Perry said.
Both Perry and Metcalfe said the proposal doesn't target any one ethnic or immigrant group.
Jos� Colon, president of the board for the Centro Hispano Jos� Hern�ndez, said much of York's Hispanic community agrees too many illegal immigrants abuse the system. He said he supports people stopped for violating the law having to prove who they are, saying it only makes sense in an age of terror.
But Colon said the necessary immigration laws already exist, and the federal government needs to better enforce them. The federal government is more equipped to properly deal with the issue than states or municipalities, he said.
Colon was also bothered by the rhetoric Metcalfe used introducing his proposal, when he spoke of murders and rapists. The vast majority of people here illegally came to work, Colon said, and it makes it harder to have the serious, necessary discussion of the issue with such inflamed rhetoric. And, he added, such talk could create friction between the Hispanic community and others.
Craig Trebilcock, a local immigration attorney, said the federal government has failed to create a working immigration policy.
But Metcalfe's policy is "still ridiculous," Trebilcock said. "The people pressing these laws don't understand how complex it is to determine the immigration status of someone."
There are 42 types of visas, Trebilcock said, and that's before counting those granted asylum and others. Local law enforcement, no matter how well meaning, are not trained or equipped to become primary immigration enforcement officers, Trebilcock said.
"You'll end up with a bunch of lawsuits," Trebilcock said. "A bunch of municipalities getting sued because of the thousands of people getting stopped, there's going to be a couple problems."
Instead, he said, the law will discourage legal immigrants -- doctors, scientists, laborers, students -- that the country needs from every coming here.
About the bill
If passed, House Bill 2479, would:
# Require an employer to verify a prospective employee's immigration status. Lying about immigration status would be a second-degree misdemeanor.
# Require a law enforcement officer to verify a person's immigration status if the officer reasonably suspects that a person legally stopped, detained or arrested is in the country illegally. An officer could not inquire about people's immigration status if they were not first stopped for another offense.
# Require county district attorneys to investigate companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Companies caught knowingly doing so could lose access to state grants and their licenses to operate.
# Create a third-degree felony for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens into Pennsylvania. Police would be able to impound smugglers' vehicles.
According to the office of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, Ron Miller , R-Jacobus; Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County; and Seth Grove , R-Dover Township, are co-sponsors. Rep. Scott Perry has said he will likely also be a co-sponsor.
Click here to read the full proposal.
Political outlook
In 2007, state Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Scott Perry were part of a group that introduced a series of bills that would have changed some of Pennsylvania's immigration laws. Those never made it out of committee.
Metcalfe said Tuesday his proposal has bipartisan support but is not likely to receive much support from House Democratic leadership or Gov. Ed Rendell. However, he said, with a budget fight looming and representatives up for election in November, there could be an opportunity to muster the political will necessary for passage.
But Metcalfe's bill isn't the only piece of immigration legislation now in Harrisburg.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a proposal that would reinforce current laws and, in the event of future changes to federal law, stop local law enforcement to serve as immigration officers.
"It is very important that we make it clear that Pennsylvania does not support racial profiling," Leach said.
Rep. Scott Perry supports a proposal that would give police the power the check immigration status. An immigration lawyer said its overly simple.
By JEFF FRANTZ
Daily Record/Sunday News
Updated: 05/04/2010 10:43:28 PM MDT
A state representative proposed legislation Tuesday -- backed by several local lawmakers -- that was inspired by a controversial law passed last week in Arizona to combat illegal immigration.
If passed, the bill by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, would charge local law enforcement with checking immigration status, investigating businesses suspected of knowingly employing illegal immigrants and requiring businesses to verify a potential employee's legal status.
The proposal came a day after state Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a bill in direct opposition to Arizona's law.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, supports Metcalfe's effort and said he will likely join as bill co-sponsor.
The federal government has failed to enforce the nation's immigration laws, Perry said, which is now forcing states to act because illegal immigration fosters crime, lowers wages and puts an added burden on taxpayers.
"What do we gain having cheaper tomatoes in the short term to sell out our security and sovereignty in the long term?" Perry said.
Both Perry and Metcalfe said the proposal doesn't target any one ethnic or immigrant group.
Jos� Colon, president of the board for the Centro Hispano Jos� Hern�ndez, said much of York's Hispanic community agrees too many illegal immigrants abuse the system. He said he supports people stopped for violating the law having to prove who they are, saying it only makes sense in an age of terror.
But Colon said the necessary immigration laws already exist, and the federal government needs to better enforce them. The federal government is more equipped to properly deal with the issue than states or municipalities, he said.
Colon was also bothered by the rhetoric Metcalfe used introducing his proposal, when he spoke of murders and rapists. The vast majority of people here illegally came to work, Colon said, and it makes it harder to have the serious, necessary discussion of the issue with such inflamed rhetoric. And, he added, such talk could create friction between the Hispanic community and others.
Craig Trebilcock, a local immigration attorney, said the federal government has failed to create a working immigration policy.
But Metcalfe's policy is "still ridiculous," Trebilcock said. "The people pressing these laws don't understand how complex it is to determine the immigration status of someone."
There are 42 types of visas, Trebilcock said, and that's before counting those granted asylum and others. Local law enforcement, no matter how well meaning, are not trained or equipped to become primary immigration enforcement officers, Trebilcock said.
"You'll end up with a bunch of lawsuits," Trebilcock said. "A bunch of municipalities getting sued because of the thousands of people getting stopped, there's going to be a couple problems."
Instead, he said, the law will discourage legal immigrants -- doctors, scientists, laborers, students -- that the country needs from every coming here.
About the bill
If passed, House Bill 2479, would:
# Require an employer to verify a prospective employee's immigration status. Lying about immigration status would be a second-degree misdemeanor.
# Require a law enforcement officer to verify a person's immigration status if the officer reasonably suspects that a person legally stopped, detained or arrested is in the country illegally. An officer could not inquire about people's immigration status if they were not first stopped for another offense.
# Require county district attorneys to investigate companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Companies caught knowingly doing so could lose access to state grants and their licenses to operate.
# Create a third-degree felony for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens into Pennsylvania. Police would be able to impound smugglers' vehicles.
According to the office of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, Ron Miller , R-Jacobus; Will Tallman, R-Reading Township, Adams County; and Seth Grove , R-Dover Township, are co-sponsors. Rep. Scott Perry has said he will likely also be a co-sponsor.
Click here to read the full proposal.
Political outlook
In 2007, state Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Scott Perry were part of a group that introduced a series of bills that would have changed some of Pennsylvania's immigration laws. Those never made it out of committee.
Metcalfe said Tuesday his proposal has bipartisan support but is not likely to receive much support from House Democratic leadership or Gov. Ed Rendell. However, he said, with a budget fight looming and representatives up for election in November, there could be an opportunity to muster the political will necessary for passage.
But Metcalfe's bill isn't the only piece of immigration legislation now in Harrisburg.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, introduced a proposal that would reinforce current laws and, in the event of future changes to federal law, stop local law enforcement to serve as immigration officers.
"It is very important that we make it clear that Pennsylvania does not support racial profiling," Leach said.
more...
muthukmk
08-03 04:25 PM
Are u sure that we have to withdraw old EB3 case. My understanding is that u can file a fresh EB2 and use the old EB3 priority date.
Experts please clarify
Experts please clarify
bondgoli007
09-29 07:57 PM
Hi,
Don't fret about the PERM time lines. It can take anywhere from 1 month to more than 6 months (for Fragomen clients) for PERM approvals/denials. Mine was filed in May and I also had to reply to an audit.
In your case because your PERM was applied more than 365 days before your 6th year H1 expires, even if you PERM approval doesn't come until Jun 09, your employer can file for a 1 year extension.
Now, I am not very sure about this scenario in case of a PERM denial. Maybe someone else can comment on that one.
Thanks.
Don't fret about the PERM time lines. It can take anywhere from 1 month to more than 6 months (for Fragomen clients) for PERM approvals/denials. Mine was filed in May and I also had to reply to an audit.
In your case because your PERM was applied more than 365 days before your 6th year H1 expires, even if you PERM approval doesn't come until Jun 09, your employer can file for a 1 year extension.
Now, I am not very sure about this scenario in case of a PERM denial. Maybe someone else can comment on that one.
Thanks.
more...
shantak
04-09 07:21 AM
Hi,
I am E-filing my EAD thru online. There is a dropDown where it asks for "Current Immigration Status"...
My Situation:
1. Entered into USA using H1B Visa
2. Changed the job and now working using EAD
3. In othyer words, my status would be AOS Pending...
Now question is there is no "AOS Pending" status in that dropdown. SO, I am confused about chosing the correct status...
The nearest ones that I am thinking are "parolee" or "UNKNOWN"
Has anyone faced the situation? Could you please help me?
This is an interesting question, gurus please help, I think I will be facing the same question in a couple of months. I have seen that many people have successfully received their EAD using the e-file. Hopefully they will answer this question
I am E-filing my EAD thru online. There is a dropDown where it asks for "Current Immigration Status"...
My Situation:
1. Entered into USA using H1B Visa
2. Changed the job and now working using EAD
3. In othyer words, my status would be AOS Pending...
Now question is there is no "AOS Pending" status in that dropdown. SO, I am confused about chosing the correct status...
The nearest ones that I am thinking are "parolee" or "UNKNOWN"
Has anyone faced the situation? Could you please help me?
This is an interesting question, gurus please help, I think I will be facing the same question in a couple of months. I have seen that many people have successfully received their EAD using the e-file. Hopefully they will answer this question
GoneSouth
04-18 05:52 PM
Contact the federal elected representative in your employer's district. If they are not immigrant friendly, try the elected representative in your district (if different). There is a congressional liason inquiry process that can be leveraged to expedite your LC application. My application was pending for 8 months with no new status from DoL. I contacted my employer's congressman, explained the situation, and supplied a letter from my attorny, and my LC was approved within 3 weeks.
more...
smartboy75
08-14 12:26 PM
Well...that's one thing I have never figured out....I have friends who have paper filed their EAD and they have received it too....no questions asked....they did need to send additional paperwork..like photos and passport copy.....but if you e-file you don't have to mail in photos or passport copies...but u do have to have ur biometric taken....
I guess they just want to verify ur identity....u r who u say u r.....my wierd guess...
I guess they just want to verify ur identity....u r who u say u r.....my wierd guess...
OLDMONK
07-08 08:49 PM
you can file 2 i140's.. ( I Have 4 in total)
I filed 2 (EB2 Eb3) based on my perm (already approved) and another set of EB2 EB3 based on my old labor (in process)
I filed 2 (EB2 Eb3) based on my perm (already approved) and another set of EB2 EB3 based on my old labor (in process)
more...
abheja
12-21 07:29 PM
I don't want you to freak out because my case is probably a very small fraction of the visa applications BUT since this thread is specifically related to PIMS, I thought I'd give you my example. Good news for you is, you are going to India. I was stuck in Canada not knowing long it might take for the PIMS to get updated. I ended up touring North Canada but I wish I could've traveled with a peace of mind.
immilaw
09-14 02:23 PM
me: F1->OPT->H1 (same company all thru)->PERM-> I 140 ->retrogressed
what if i never went and got my h1 stamped and now in 6 months i have to get a renewal h1b. u guys think i will have any issues getting it stamped in canada?
what about stamping in a place like Dubai.. anyideas?
I would go to Canada instead of Dubai.
what if i never went and got my h1 stamped and now in 6 months i have to get a renewal h1b. u guys think i will have any issues getting it stamped in canada?
what about stamping in a place like Dubai.. anyideas?
I would go to Canada instead of Dubai.
more...
wellwishergc
03-01 04:15 PM
Logiclife,
That makes perfect sense.
My question is - Is it possible that all clauses related to illegal immigration will be striked off, while legal will go through? To my understanding, the main objective of this bill is to solve the issue of illegal immigration. Legal immigration is just an additional section.. My fear again is - will the whole bill be discarded just because of the contentious illegal immigration aspects in the bill?.. Is there a way to pass the legal immigration relief measures without a bill?.. something like an amendment to the existing law?
Thanks for taking the interest and posting the comment.
What you mean is change the content of the webfax,not the format.
Anyways, the current draft of Specter bill would lead to numbers flowing downward(unused numbers due to 7% or 10% per country limit). When they flow downwards from EB2, EB3 and EB4, they go to EB5 where there is no mention of per country limit(by omission).
You know what this means? After all the gains, the country limit on India and China will cause the overflow of all visa numbers to EB5(Unskilled labor, gardeners, cooks, maids) WHERE THERE IS NOT COUNTRY LIMIT and unlimited demand. And over there, in absence of no country limit, immigrants from Mexico will consume all EB5 unskilled numbers and there wont be anything like "UNUSED" numbers.(read the thread posted by STUCKLABOR for that analysis and legalese. : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=241 )
Coming back to proposals of Specter, the idea that there is so much relief that we dont need to worry about this or that...here is the thing...Current markup is a proposal. Not even a final version of Judiciary committee markup. From there you lose some things when it goes to the full floor of senate and then A LOT OF THINGS when the hawks from the HOUSE of REPS like Tancredos and Smiths slither their tentacles on the Senate version in the CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. That's the reason we dont want to lose one thing even if we are gaining 10 things because those 10 things might be reduced to 2 by the time its negotiated in the conference committee between the house and the senate.
However, if you want to provide more input on this issue, you are most welcome to email Sandeep who is leading the content-prep team that writes these webfaxes and letters. His email is sandeep@immigrationvoice.org
Thanks for taking interesting and sharing your view.
--logiclife.
That makes perfect sense.
My question is - Is it possible that all clauses related to illegal immigration will be striked off, while legal will go through? To my understanding, the main objective of this bill is to solve the issue of illegal immigration. Legal immigration is just an additional section.. My fear again is - will the whole bill be discarded just because of the contentious illegal immigration aspects in the bill?.. Is there a way to pass the legal immigration relief measures without a bill?.. something like an amendment to the existing law?
Thanks for taking the interest and posting the comment.
What you mean is change the content of the webfax,not the format.
Anyways, the current draft of Specter bill would lead to numbers flowing downward(unused numbers due to 7% or 10% per country limit). When they flow downwards from EB2, EB3 and EB4, they go to EB5 where there is no mention of per country limit(by omission).
You know what this means? After all the gains, the country limit on India and China will cause the overflow of all visa numbers to EB5(Unskilled labor, gardeners, cooks, maids) WHERE THERE IS NOT COUNTRY LIMIT and unlimited demand. And over there, in absence of no country limit, immigrants from Mexico will consume all EB5 unskilled numbers and there wont be anything like "UNUSED" numbers.(read the thread posted by STUCKLABOR for that analysis and legalese. : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=241 )
Coming back to proposals of Specter, the idea that there is so much relief that we dont need to worry about this or that...here is the thing...Current markup is a proposal. Not even a final version of Judiciary committee markup. From there you lose some things when it goes to the full floor of senate and then A LOT OF THINGS when the hawks from the HOUSE of REPS like Tancredos and Smiths slither their tentacles on the Senate version in the CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. That's the reason we dont want to lose one thing even if we are gaining 10 things because those 10 things might be reduced to 2 by the time its negotiated in the conference committee between the house and the senate.
However, if you want to provide more input on this issue, you are most welcome to email Sandeep who is leading the content-prep team that writes these webfaxes and letters. His email is sandeep@immigrationvoice.org
Thanks for taking interesting and sharing your view.
--logiclife.
fromnaija
01-11 02:58 PM
What would happen if the labor is approved and I-140 is pending and you have to apply for your 7th/8th year extension? I think this could happen to many people who are getting yearly extensions as nowadays it is usually taking 6 months to get your H1 approval/I-140 approval.
As msp1976 pointed out above, attached your 140 receipt and ask for three year extension.
As msp1976 pointed out above, attached your 140 receipt and ask for three year extension.
srt57
02-14 06:21 PM
In the RIR system EB2 was MS + 3 and BS+5.
If BS+5 is still the norm in PERM...how come MS+0 is acceptable under PERM. Did they change the rule....I think this a loophole
It isn't a loophole. That's how the PERM Jobzone/SVP system works.
If BS+5 is still the norm in PERM...how come MS+0 is acceptable under PERM. Did they change the rule....I think this a loophole
It isn't a loophole. That's how the PERM Jobzone/SVP system works.
pani_6
07-03 11:12 AM
EB-3-I is stuck in 01...not likely to move till Oct and then in OCT08..it will move by couple three months for the next 12 months till OCT 09..What are the option for EB-3 stuck here..from 01, 02, 03 ....
1) Convert to EB-2 ?.
2) wait for legislation from Logfren to pass
3) wait another 3 years...already in the Queue from 01..
If I choose to convert to EB-2..I have to put in a PERM and then I-140..what is the time line for getting my LC thro PERM and then my I-140 in EB2 cleared?? based on the current processing times..
Do I wait to see if Logfren's legislation goes thro ..if doesnt go with the conversion to EB-2...???
Please help me decide...
thanks
1) Convert to EB-2 ?.
2) wait for legislation from Logfren to pass
3) wait another 3 years...already in the Queue from 01..
If I choose to convert to EB-2..I have to put in a PERM and then I-140..what is the time line for getting my LC thro PERM and then my I-140 in EB2 cleared?? based on the current processing times..
Do I wait to see if Logfren's legislation goes thro ..if doesnt go with the conversion to EB-2...???
Please help me decide...
thanks
j751
10-24 01:41 PM
BTW what does Murthy charge?