sprash
01-30 02:35 PM
Wow! Thanks a lot for posting such detailed RFE information. This really helps a lot in understanding what I may be asked.
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
My GC sponsoring employer revoked my H1 last year itself. I could see the change in status back then itself within a month of having left them. Nothing happenned after that. I got a new H1 from my (then) new employer and things continued as before. This employer has not yet revoked my H1 (from what I can see) and its probably because they are almost going under. There are less than 25 people left in the company so I doubt that they will have spent the money to go and revoke all the H1s of the folks they laid off.
Maybe its like someone suggested - USCIS is pre-processing my 485 based on received date since I mailed my app very early on in July 2007.
Yes, I believe thats what they might be doing - preprocessing. There was no obvious 'trigger' event that caused RFE on my case either. They raised these RFEs even though I had not changed my sponsoring employer or transferred my h1b. I have a feeling they preprocessed mine too.
I don't mean to scare you (just prepare you for the worst) --- you might want to talk to some desi consultants and make an arrangement that in case the RFE is employment verification, they give you pay stubs from the time you were laid off. As you can see from my RFE, you might need to show your recent paystubs and employment verification. Yes, it will be a financial loss for you, but without these I believe your case can get rejected (gurus correct me if I'm wrong!).
Again I am is just hypothesizing your situation, your case might be entirely different. This is 'just in case'.....
wallpaper Cathay Pacific Business Class
feedfront
10-13 01:57 PM
feedfront, the receipt date on my I-485 receipt notice is October 5, 2007.
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Here is the link to a post by 'mchatrvd ' to contact director..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599351-august-2010-approvals-tracker-58.html#post1982324
My attorney had inquired with USCIS but hasn't received any response. As I mentioned earlier neither a SR, senator/congressman inquiry has helped!
I'd also send an email to NSC but got an generic message.
How can I write to USCIS director?
thank you!
thecipher5
Here is the link to a post by 'mchatrvd ' to contact director..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/1599351-august-2010-approvals-tracker-58.html#post1982324
abhijitp
07-25 12:43 PM
I think its arguable. The 6 months clock is defined by law. After that even if they issue an RFE on the old employer, assumption is ofcourse that your with a new employer, you can send the new employer's offer letter / AC21 invoked. so it shouldn't be an issue. USCIS can ask about the offer letter from the old employer as intial evidence, so have it available and send it later + new employment letter.
Thanks everyone for replying.
Good point, it is worthwhile pursuing the matter and getting the EVL as initial evidence. All I ask for is transparency, so if they tell me to sign a bond for this purpose, I am happier than if they beat around the bush and evade the issue!
Thanks everyone for replying.
Good point, it is worthwhile pursuing the matter and getting the EVL as initial evidence. All I ask for is transparency, so if they tell me to sign a bond for this purpose, I am happier than if they beat around the bush and evade the issue!
2011 Cathay Pacific Business Class
indianindian2006
07-14 06:29 PM
The fundamental rule (for getting GC) is the longterm intent of having permanent employment relationship between employer and employee at the time of filing 140 and 485 (see the Q&A). The intet has to be "at the time of filing" only. The employee has worked 3 years in H1B for thr sponser. It clearly establishes the both party's intent at the time of filing. So, even if the employer revokes his approved 140, he is 100% safe.
What I have read is that it is critical that his 140 remain valid upto 180 days after filing 485 or the 485 is dead.Correct me if I am wrong.
What I have read is that it is critical that his 140 remain valid upto 180 days after filing 485 or the 485 is dead.Correct me if I am wrong.
more...
jkays94
07-10 02:39 AM
It seems several persons are already discrediting the lawsuit and from the comments I have seen, it is apparent that some have not read the entire complaint.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
In order to understand how a civil lawsuit works one needs to understand that in a complaint, one makes no legal arguments, does not cite case or precedent law but only cites the simple facts. The other side can respond to the complaint and deny or accept the allegations in part or in whole. Many cases do not go to trial, they end up in settlements or are decided through summary judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment) (for the plaintiff or the defendants) if the case has undisputable matters of facts and one of the parties petitions for it. Several processes also take place ie Discovery long before an actual trial. I recommend reading the following wikipedia entry to familiarize one at a high level with the processes and rules involved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rule_of_Civil_Procedure
To get to the core legal arguments behind the case, one needs to read the counts (they are only stated and not argued/expounded on starting pg 13). Namely those are:
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) (constitutional rights issue)
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedures_Act)
COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00036.htm)
COUNT IV: EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (http://www.hhs.gov/dab/guidelines/eaja.html)
COUNT V: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)
There are several laws cited above, its thus puzzling to see requests for one to cite the laws USCIS/DOS is accused of violating when its all there in the lawsuit. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the counts they have stated at the appropriate time and not in the complaint. One does not play all their cards in the initial complaint.
Even more puzzling is the persistent fear that there would be retributory action from USCIS. Judges do not take kindly to such behavior and USCIS would have no chance defending itself on charges of retaliatory actions.
new2gc
06-10 04:23 PM
done.. and fwd to other friends as well.
more...
lost_in_migration
08-15 04:24 PM
That was my day-dream while sitting @ office ;)
They should have continued down to EB3 w/ those dates..!
They should have continued down to EB3 w/ those dates..!
2010 Cathay Pacific#39;s new usiness
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
06-10 12:50 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
What should we do. I am in tell me what I need to do?
more...
snathan
07-28 08:38 PM
Guys,
Hope this thread will be useful for somebody who is looking for american company for green card processing. They wont get into the trap. So I am giving out the information from the known source(friends).
Company1: Deloitte
Company2: Chase
These two companies promised doing green card cards,they filed h1s, but did not file green card.Whatever reason (bad economy) may be, they did not sponsor green cards for those they promised to do. So be careful. It is not gaurantee.
Also, you can list the companies you know whoever promised, but did not file.
A sure invitation for defamation suit. Good luck.
Hope this thread will be useful for somebody who is looking for american company for green card processing. They wont get into the trap. So I am giving out the information from the known source(friends).
Company1: Deloitte
Company2: Chase
These two companies promised doing green card cards,they filed h1s, but did not file green card.Whatever reason (bad economy) may be, they did not sponsor green cards for those they promised to do. So be careful. It is not gaurantee.
Also, you can list the companies you know whoever promised, but did not file.
A sure invitation for defamation suit. Good luck.
hair cathay pacific business class.
praveenat11
09-24 01:31 PM
Hi,
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
Appreciate ur quick response.
so i need to get the affidavit from notary signed that it is a true translation from telugu to english so this is a replacement of English DOB Certificate.
more...
bostonqa
04-24 01:33 PM
I also got my "Card production ordered" status few days back.
however I also received a mail for biometrics appointment of 05/02?
the biometrics letter date is 4/14 and my "Card production" status change was on 04/21.
why would they send me a biometrics appointment and then approve my 485 and issue me a GC? is this common?
should I still go for the biometrics appointment or just ignore it, I'm assuming that i'd have my physical GC in had before 05/02
---------------------------------------------
PD - JULY 2003 EB2 RIR
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No (I-140 Approved Earlier)
Mailed From State: MA
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Transferred to TSC (state Yes/No): Yes
485 Receipt Date : June 14th 2007
485 Notice Date : July 2nd 2007
MY FP Completed : 08/02
485 LUD - 08/02, 08/02
however I also received a mail for biometrics appointment of 05/02?
the biometrics letter date is 4/14 and my "Card production" status change was on 04/21.
why would they send me a biometrics appointment and then approve my 485 and issue me a GC? is this common?
should I still go for the biometrics appointment or just ignore it, I'm assuming that i'd have my physical GC in had before 05/02
---------------------------------------------
PD - JULY 2003 EB2 RIR
Concurrent I-140/I-485: No (I-140 Approved Earlier)
Mailed From State: MA
Mailed to (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Received at (state NSC/TSC): NSC
Transferred to TSC (state Yes/No): Yes
485 Receipt Date : June 14th 2007
485 Notice Date : July 2nd 2007
MY FP Completed : 08/02
485 LUD - 08/02, 08/02
hot the flight time. Linda in
desi3933
01-31 06:00 PM
desi3933,
Please correct me if I'm wrong but after reading this thread and from what I know ,what I understand is:
From the time one applies 485 we should have W2 amount close to what is mentioned in LC.
There is nothing like out of status thing from the time we apply for 485.
But from the last entry to US on non-immigrant visa to the date of applying 485 once should be in status and if they are out of status for less than 180 days it is considered ok.
My question is how do we show we were in status from the last entry to U.S on non-immigrant visa to the date 485 was filed ?
Will the W2 be sufficient or do we have to show our monthly pay stubs.
You mentioned in your 'Pandit' example about the H1 LC amount...how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
I would highly appreciate response.Thank you.
>> how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
Your employer should provide you a copy of LCA for H1. In addition, your employment letter should mention salary, along with employment terms, and job profile.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Please correct me if I'm wrong but after reading this thread and from what I know ,what I understand is:
From the time one applies 485 we should have W2 amount close to what is mentioned in LC.
There is nothing like out of status thing from the time we apply for 485.
But from the last entry to US on non-immigrant visa to the date of applying 485 once should be in status and if they are out of status for less than 180 days it is considered ok.
My question is how do we show we were in status from the last entry to U.S on non-immigrant visa to the date 485 was filed ?
Will the W2 be sufficient or do we have to show our monthly pay stubs.
You mentioned in your 'Pandit' example about the H1 LC amount...how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
I would highly appreciate response.Thank you.
>> how do we know what our H1 LCA amount is?
Your employer should provide you a copy of LCA for H1. In addition, your employment letter should mention salary, along with employment terms, and job profile.
____________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
more...
house Business Class Breakfast
drirshad
08-07 07:26 AM
Guys does RD change every time we get a I-485 notice. The first receipt I got shows correct RD as July 02, 2007 then the second notice that was send Oct 07 to say my case has been transferred to Lincoln has an RD of Sep 08, 2007 does this RD change every time the receipt notice is sent. Does it matter if it changes.
tattoo Cathay Pacific#39;s business
manishcp
09-26 10:02 AM
I did send E-mail
more...
pictures cathay-pacific-usiness-class-
haifromsk@yahoo.com
02-21 02:28 PM
bump
dresses Cathay Pacific Business Class
meera_godse
01-31 02:48 PM
My brother had horror stories when he was working in CA. His close friend cousin owns a company and he blindely trusted him. They forced my brother to sign a contract in the amount of $10000 if he leaves the company. He spent there for 6 months and found it horrible.
Thanks.
if its not a problem, can you please share the name of this contrator. it can help people like me stay away from them.
also can someone respond to the travel query i posted. thnx
Thanks.
if its not a problem, can you please share the name of this contrator. it can help people like me stay away from them.
also can someone respond to the travel query i posted. thnx
more...
makeup Cathay Pacific Business Class
Indirant
01-27 12:20 PM
Hi varsha,
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
I think sanjay or Rajeev was suppose to work with Ajay in metropark
Sekar
girlfriend THE WING CATHAY PACIFIC LOUNGE
485Mbe4001
08-03 06:31 PM
Nope, he was against outsourcing big time. he is a ratings guy, emailing him will be counter prodductive..just mui dos pesos...
PCS:
Lou Hates ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION NOT LEGAL IMMIGRATION. if we can explain him about our problem then beleive me he is the only one who can talk everday about SKIL BILL.
Try it.
PCS:
Lou Hates ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION NOT LEGAL IMMIGRATION. if we can explain him about our problem then beleive me he is the only one who can talk everday about SKIL BILL.
Try it.
hairstyles Cathay Pacific First Class:
sprash
02-02 01:42 PM
Out of status is usually checked until date of I-485 filing. One exception being working without valid and active EAD when I-485 is pending.
H1 status, one should be paid what is mention in H1 LCA and it is not related to LC Salary for green card. LC Salary comes into picture for ability-to-pay issues.
Thanks for your inputs Desi.
I have been following this thread with great interest. I'm the guy who posted the RFE scans on Pg1.
In my case the RFE was issued 1.5 years after filing for AOS (I filed in July 07 and this RFE was on Oct 08). Also, I'm not the only person who got this. I know many folks who work for big companies like Intel etc, who got such an RFE.
Also if I remember correctly, Belle on Murthy Forums (who also seems in the know) mentioned that one must be employed at all times on EAD. I didn't find any specific timeframe -- most people said you could get into trouble if an RFE (such as mine) is raised and you're out of a job. On the other hand, it is might be safe till such an RFE is issued (???)
I tried to look for that thread, but couldn't find it. However I did find another similar thread on which she (he?) has said the same thing:
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=9941019581&r=3791069581#3791069581
In tumultuous times such as these, I would expect USCIS to raise many more such RFEs.
H1 status, one should be paid what is mention in H1 LCA and it is not related to LC Salary for green card. LC Salary comes into picture for ability-to-pay issues.
Thanks for your inputs Desi.
I have been following this thread with great interest. I'm the guy who posted the RFE scans on Pg1.
In my case the RFE was issued 1.5 years after filing for AOS (I filed in July 07 and this RFE was on Oct 08). Also, I'm not the only person who got this. I know many folks who work for big companies like Intel etc, who got such an RFE.
Also if I remember correctly, Belle on Murthy Forums (who also seems in the know) mentioned that one must be employed at all times on EAD. I didn't find any specific timeframe -- most people said you could get into trouble if an RFE (such as mine) is raised and you're out of a job. On the other hand, it is might be safe till such an RFE is issued (???)
I tried to look for that thread, but couldn't find it. However I did find another similar thread on which she (he?) has said the same thing:
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=9941019581&r=3791069581#3791069581
In tumultuous times such as these, I would expect USCIS to raise many more such RFEs.
coopheal
03-19 05:34 PM
Before EB2 moves faster, every EB3 guy will get a new LC and jump in to EB2 line. Then EB3 line will be little lighter and moves a little faster. Then people will start asking like this - "Can we go back to EB3 line ? Can we have 3rd EB3 LC ( like LC sells in walmart) and another 485 ?" . Pretty much everyone wants to have 2 LC , 2 I-140 and 2 I-485 at any time. That way whichever category moves faster they will beat the system.
Then we come to this forum and wonder why there is so much backlog or why USCIS is so slow ( my favorite one).
This madness has to stop !
What is your point?? You stop your madness?
Then we come to this forum and wonder why there is so much backlog or why USCIS is so slow ( my favorite one).
This madness has to stop !
What is your point?? You stop your madness?
satishku_2000
12-27 01:50 AM
I travelled in last november thru hongkong. You dont need a transit visa but I felt humiliated with the treatment. Hope you know what I mean.
And on another note My sis and her husband have been Bank Of America customers for a long time and they have decent amount of funds in their account .Their mortgage application was rejected by BOA because they dont have a GC only to be accepted by other lender and better APR on their loan :)
I like this country and capitalism ...God bless America.
And on another note My sis and her husband have been Bank Of America customers for a long time and they have decent amount of funds in their account .Their mortgage application was rejected by BOA because they dont have a GC only to be accepted by other lender and better APR on their loan :)
I like this country and capitalism ...God bless America.
Post a Comment