sirinme
07-29 10:29 AM
This second point is not true. Either that, or the USCIS is not enforcing that requirement consistently. I renewed my EAD 3 times so far, but never had to provide any salary statements with my renewal applications.
Two other issues could be:
2. You need recent salary statements for EAD renewal every year.
Two other issues could be:
2. You need recent salary statements for EAD renewal every year.
wallpaper 1920 x 1080 wallpapers.
supers789
07-15 12:12 AM
When PERM was applied.
I was audited on 6/09 and Fragommenr responded on 6/30...No response so far and I have emailed my Fragommen paralegal the following questions;
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
I was audited on 6/09 and Fragommenr responded on 6/30...No response so far and I have emailed my Fragommen paralegal the following questions;
1. Typically how long does DOL take to respond to an Audit?
2. What kind of response can I expect? Will it be an approval or a further Audit?
3. What % of cases get a further audit after a response is filed to an initial Audit?
I will send out a response when I hear from him.
Side question: Is my Priority date the date when PERM was applied or the date the PERM will be approved?
Thanks.
vasired
08-10 03:47 PM
u can read it on http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/ or for complete press release
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1186757867585.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1186757867585.shtm
2011 HD 1920 x 1080 Wallpaper Mix 6
jfredr
08-10 03:29 PM
Reforms To Visa Programs For Highly Skilled Workers.
IMPROVING EXISTING IMMIGRATION
22. The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security. The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.
23. The President Is Directing The Department Of Homeland Security And The Social Security Administration To Study The Technical And Recordkeeping Reforms Necessary To Guarantee That Illegal Aliens Do Not Earn Credit In Our Social Security System For Illegal Work. Currently, aliens who make Social Security payments while working here legally can continue to accrue credits even if they overstay their visa. Improved data-sharing can lay the foundation for eventual Congressional action to eliminate this practice (which proved an obstacle to comprehensive reform). The relevant agencies are ordered to report to the President with a detailed plan for eliminating the problem.
IMPROVING EXISTING IMMIGRATION
22. The Administration Will Reform And Expedite Background Checks For Immigration. Current mechanisms for conducting immigration background checks are backed up, slowing processing times and endangering national security. The Administration is investing substantial new funds to address the backlog, and the FBI and USCIS are working together on a variety of projects designed to streamline existing processes so as to reduce waiting times without sacrificing security.
23. The President Is Directing The Department Of Homeland Security And The Social Security Administration To Study The Technical And Recordkeeping Reforms Necessary To Guarantee That Illegal Aliens Do Not Earn Credit In Our Social Security System For Illegal Work. Currently, aliens who make Social Security payments while working here legally can continue to accrue credits even if they overstay their visa. Improved data-sharing can lay the foundation for eventual Congressional action to eliminate this practice (which proved an obstacle to comprehensive reform). The relevant agencies are ordered to report to the President with a detailed plan for eliminating the problem.
more...
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
desi3933
06-18 04:30 PM
Under Part 3.
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
Mr. EndlessWait -
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
Mr. EndlessWait -
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
more...
chaks7
01-19 04:10 PM
My wife's co. provides health insurance for both of us. We are both on H1-B.
If my wife quits her job, can we still be eligible for COBRA because at that point she will be doing COS to H4. If someone has any experience or knowledge about this please reply. It will help us deal things better as we are better prepared with what could be our options.
Does COBRA depend on H1-B status? Also recently Obama administration has worked a plan where the payments on COBRA are less than the usual amounts, COBRA subsidy? Can you provide details regarding that?
If my wife quits her job, can we still be eligible for COBRA because at that point she will be doing COS to H4. If someone has any experience or knowledge about this please reply. It will help us deal things better as we are better prepared with what could be our options.
Does COBRA depend on H1-B status? Also recently Obama administration has worked a plan where the payments on COBRA are less than the usual amounts, COBRA subsidy? Can you provide details regarding that?
2010 Black Wallpaper 1920x1080 by
hpandey
07-08 11:25 AM
There is also a possibility that in future you marry a person who is already here .. maybe on H1 or GC or a citizen . Since you are already going through a divorce I am sure if you marry again you would want to meet and understand your next future spouse thoroughly before marrying .
I can understand your situation . My personal advise is take it as it comes. Get the current situation over with first . As for your questions it has already been answered above.
I can understand your situation . My personal advise is take it as it comes. Get the current situation over with first . As for your questions it has already been answered above.
more...
cheg
07-26 08:18 PM
EAD Benefits Thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10817
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10817
hair direction of the latest
rolrblade
07-27 02:21 PM
You can't write 01/01/1995. In that case your check will be invalidated. Check expires after 180 days. :D :D
But you are correct for RD :)
I disagree. If his check has a date of less than 180 days, it will be cashed. He simply said the forms to be signed as of 1995.
:D :D :D
But you are correct for RD :)
I disagree. If his check has a date of less than 180 days, it will be cashed. He simply said the forms to be signed as of 1995.
:D :D :D
more...
shankar_thanu
08-03 10:01 PM
I applied in July, RD Jul 2nd. TSC
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
hot 60 Pics | JPG | 1920 x 1080
taxila
10-17 03:10 PM
Hi ArunAntonio,
I recently booked a visa appointment for my daughter at Chennai consulate. You need to fill both I-156 and I-157. The problem you are facing may be due to pop up blocking. Disable the pop up blocker for the vfs site. It may work. It worked for me.
All the best.
I recently booked a visa appointment for my daughter at Chennai consulate. You need to fill both I-156 and I-157. The problem you are facing may be due to pop up blocking. Disable the pop up blocker for the vfs site. It may work. It worked for me.
All the best.
more...
house Wallpapers 1920 X 1080;
vin13
01-16 11:52 AM
Yes, it would be part of the lottery system (for company C)
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
Yes, there is a chance of H1 not going through.
It is as good as you applying for the H1-B for the first time.
tattoo suicide-girls-hd-wallpaper-
gcloner
03-28 02:46 AM
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
more...
pictures 150 JPG | 1920 X 1080 Px
satya1234
03-27 05:35 PM
Thanks for the reply.
Looks like i would have mis communicated. I am sorry for that.
I94 rejected which is applied by my New Employer NOT the one which is applied by current employer (applied for extension) . So whatt i was told is "I can stay and work with my old employer for 240 days " . So currently am working on my current employer extension .
Still it is not legal to stay here..??
Looks like i would have mis communicated. I am sorry for that.
I94 rejected which is applied by my New Employer NOT the one which is applied by current employer (applied for extension) . So whatt i was told is "I can stay and work with my old employer for 240 days " . So currently am working on my current employer extension .
Still it is not legal to stay here..??
dresses 20 Colorful HD Wallpapers 1920
logiclife
03-28 03:39 PM
Yes Bheemi.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
I dont want this to be an an implied guarantee, but that is the plan for now. Things can change depending on whose bill is debated on Senate floor - SJC or Frist's S. 2454.
Jay.
more...
makeup 1920 x 1080 wallpapers dowland
casper21
07-27 11:14 AM
Hey ags,
Sorry for asking many question, when you are trying to find answers to your problem.
I'm trying to figure out my situation, you have replied "As long as marriage is before 485 it can be applied." : before 485 means the day of filling the I 485 or the day of I 485 Approval ?
Which means I can do just the registration of the marriage in my desi (legal) before the I485 approval, then come back to USA, apply for Counsular processing (I485) for my spouse with in 180 days, once spouse's application is approved spouse can come to USA?
*** IS this possible?
Sorry for asking many question, when you are trying to find answers to your problem.
I'm trying to figure out my situation, you have replied "As long as marriage is before 485 it can be applied." : before 485 means the day of filling the I 485 or the day of I 485 Approval ?
Which means I can do just the registration of the marriage in my desi (legal) before the I485 approval, then come back to USA, apply for Counsular processing (I485) for my spouse with in 180 days, once spouse's application is approved spouse can come to USA?
*** IS this possible?
girlfriend Art.Wallpaper.1920x1080_084.
gparr
July 15th, 2004, 12:06 PM
Outstanding! Nice capture.
Gary
Gary
hairstyles -wallpaper-1920-x-1080
delhikadesi
01-27 10:44 PM
Hello,
I am from chandler.....
but truly in current economy I am not sure if GC in on priority of anyone's list !!.
I am open for a meet and greet to get the ball rolling for our future plans!!
I am from chandler.....
but truly in current economy I am not sure if GC in on priority of anyone's list !!.
I am open for a meet and greet to get the ball rolling for our future plans!!
eilsoe
10-03 01:48 PM
I have a feeling this could get evil...
gcgreen
08-15 12:45 PM
your description is pretty vague. please provide more details of the precise job description in the labor petition, and the occupational classification code in the application.
Hello Gurus,
This is my first post. I had filed 485/140 in Aug. 2007. 140 got approved this March 2008. I donot have pay stub for last 3 months. I am looking for change. My labor is a substituted one( PD 2004). It has skills mentioned of Oracle EBS. I am working on Java/J2EE. I am looking for a new Job with Java/J2EE skills. I am worried that my new offer letter with Java skills mentioned would create a problem for me.
Please Gurus, can you advice me as to whether I can do that? Will staying on bench create a problem, as I donot get salary on bench.
Please help me.:confused::confused::confused:
Hello Gurus,
This is my first post. I had filed 485/140 in Aug. 2007. 140 got approved this March 2008. I donot have pay stub for last 3 months. I am looking for change. My labor is a substituted one( PD 2004). It has skills mentioned of Oracle EBS. I am working on Java/J2EE. I am looking for a new Job with Java/J2EE skills. I am worried that my new offer letter with Java skills mentioned would create a problem for me.
Please Gurus, can you advice me as to whether I can do that? Will staying on bench create a problem, as I donot get salary on bench.
Please help me.:confused::confused::confused:
No comments:
Post a Comment