kumargn
11-24 05:23 PM
you can use any of the consulates in india.
but usually dates opens up if any cancellation. check vfs site often. nowadays it is easier to get appt than it used to be.
disclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so consult one for your situations as laws/procedures are changing often.
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
but usually dates opens up if any cancellation. check vfs site often. nowadays it is easier to get appt than it used to be.
disclaimer: I'm not an immigration attroney, so consult one for your situations as laws/procedures are changing often.
Thanks arnet ,
As you mentioned i kept checking the chennai consulate, and it opened up like a blessing in disguise, with slots again and i was able to get my dates .Only problem was it forced me to cancel my earlier appointment and redo all the application again .That was because i had booked an appointment with Mumbai consulate in distress of not finding any with chennai .
sdrblr
10-07 10:59 PM
Since they came to your work location, can you not contact your HR/ Payroll dept and get the payroll journal?
How can they come to your desk randonmly and ask for pay stubs? Nobody carries paystubs to work everyday.Are these raids authorized by USCIS. Is there a memo that mentions this from USCIS.
How can they come to your desk randonmly and ask for pay stubs? Nobody carries paystubs to work everyday.Are these raids authorized by USCIS. Is there a memo that mentions this from USCIS.
gee_see
10-19 12:06 PM
As i mentioned in my first post, new job offer salary is more than prevailing wages for that location.
My concern is how USCIS will interpret AC21 cases where the salary is more than prevailing wages for the new location but less than specified in LC.
Does it help if we include a letter explaining salary difference and prevailing wage information for the new location from DOL site
Please advise
My concern is how USCIS will interpret AC21 cases where the salary is more than prevailing wages for the new location but less than specified in LC.
Does it help if we include a letter explaining salary difference and prevailing wage information for the new location from DOL site
Please advise
wait4ever
11-09 05:44 PM
What is wrong with people here ?
The UK Doctors WON the case on Appeal - the UK courts ruled that the actions by the UK Governments were unlawful.
People - please no doomsday expressions on these forums if you are so unhappy look elsewhere - I read a post where one poster (Invincibleasian) mentioned that "I hope that they dont flood the US from UK" - well you came here and no one said anything so why this "pull up the ladder" mentality.
Folks - Remember United we stand ! we are immigrant Employment based workers and in this flat world we are all impacted by legislation equally irrespective of which country enforces them.
Enough said :mad:
The UK Doctors WON the case on Appeal - the UK courts ruled that the actions by the UK Governments were unlawful.
People - please no doomsday expressions on these forums if you are so unhappy look elsewhere - I read a post where one poster (Invincibleasian) mentioned that "I hope that they dont flood the US from UK" - well you came here and no one said anything so why this "pull up the ladder" mentality.
Folks - Remember United we stand ! we are immigrant Employment based workers and in this flat world we are all impacted by legislation equally irrespective of which country enforces them.
Enough said :mad:
more...
gcsucks
06-01 02:28 PM
But I dont think this allows for filing for 485 without visa numbers for people with no Masters/PHD from US ?I am not sure but the SKIL bill may be one such initiative. Check out
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/skilintroducedmay22006.pdf
http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/skilintroducedmay22006.pdf
mhathi
02-25 02:51 PM
The processing date listed is the received date of the oldest case that they have not adjudicated or pre-adjudicated yet (maybe due to some problem). It does not mean that cases filed after April 2007 are or will not be adjudicated.
more...
Friend
02-15 10:51 AM
Best thing is call the customer service and explain step by step.
also take an infopass appointment and explain.
What it means Inforpass? Can you explain in detail. Sorry I don't have any Idea on Infopass.
also take an infopass appointment and explain.
What it means Inforpass? Can you explain in detail. Sorry I don't have any Idea on Infopass.
rockstart
01-09 11:53 AM
As far as I know he was allowed to board the flight. No issues there but there can be issues when he re-enters US. Since he was on B1 (10 year Multiple) he can stay max 6 months in US so he has I 94 till Apr 09 but if he say come in Oct 09 to US again the system might not have checked him off so it might display that he is still in US and he overstayed his Visa and so CBP will call him in for secondary inspection. As far as I know it can be resolved by showing flight ticket stub and arrival stamp in destination country etc. Its more if hassle than anything.
more...
maine_gc
02-01 12:48 PM
Thank you all.
PD is Nov 2004 - EB2
PD is Nov 2004 - EB2
forever_waiting
04-13 12:14 PM
Why was this thread bumped up again? This bill was introduced in Jan and has been sitting in a committee since early feb and might never see light of day.
more...
abhi_022001
01-10 06:08 PM
I lost my job in november end ...I was working with one of the top most company in IT consulting in US(EDS/HP/CSC) like....in SAP field .Company was loosing pojects and bench was getting bigger...
I was lucky enough though to get another job within a month in somewhat stable industry in oil & gas..
I was lucky enough though to get another job within a month in somewhat stable industry in oil & gas..
arihant
10-26 10:42 AM
I have a question: How many months in advance should you apply for H1 extension? Do you get extension from the date you applied or from date when your H1 expires?
1) You can apply up to 6 months before your H1 expires.
2) You get extension from the date your previous H1 expires.
1) You can apply up to 6 months before your H1 expires.
2) You get extension from the date your previous H1 expires.
more...
meridiani.planum
08-12 05:40 PM
if your applications are pending for over 6 months (approvable and your PD isc urrent for this long), file a writ of mandamus. Thats the only thing I have seen that moves USCIS to approve such old applications that are hiding behind the 'under background check' flag. Note that FBI namecheck is also now required to be completed within 180 days, so there is no excuse for an application to remain approvable but not approved beyond those timelines. talk to a good lawyer and pursue your case aggressively.
starscream
09-16 04:24 PM
There is a separate original thread for calls in support of HR5882
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21393
people who are calling please post replies on that thread....so that we can get a good count..instead of having 2 separate threads
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21393
people who are calling please post replies on that thread....so that we can get a good count..instead of having 2 separate threads
more...
Madhuri
07-11 11:02 PM
If this is true it's really horrible and scary that this gov. agency is handling our applications.
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
This is beginning to look more and more like a organized and deliberate attempt to block people from filing for AOS.If the mysterious "knowledgeable official" quoted on the website can be summoned in court- that would be game over for the USCIS right there......
http://www.usimmlaw.com/current_information.htm
Copying the contents of the website below :
Visa numbers WERE available July 2nd!!
We have confirmed with a knowledgeable official in the Department of State Visa Office that USCIS was requesting visa numbers on Sunday July 1st, and Monday morning July 2nd - and that visa numbers were still being issued as late as the morning of July 2nd!
In fact, close to 30,000 visa numbers were requested and issued in July - through the morning of July 2nd. And we believe that many - if not most - of the requests made in the first two days of July were for applicants whose priority dates were not current in June!
So how can USCIS refuse to accept I-485 filings received BEFORE the State Department issued its notice that all visa numbers had been used???? We have not yet confirmed the return of any I-485s filed in July. But we do know that applications were reaching the USCIS before the State Department announcement - and while the USCIS was frantically working to use up the entire year's allocation.
USCIS did not use all visa numbers before July 2nd.
Did USCIS actually use the visa numbers it requested????
Historically, the USCIS doesn't request a visa number from the Department of State until it is ready to grant the adjustment of status application. US Consuls overseas request visa numbers the month before they intend to issue the immigrant visa. This is the reason why consuls return about ten percent of the visa numbers requested - and why USCIS does not generally return any numbers.
In fact, in making allocations of visa numbers, the Department of State factors in an expected return rate for consuls - but not for the USCIS. And the USCIS - before this June - used about 85% of the total immigrant visa numbers available.
However, already this month, the USCIS has been returning visa numbers. This confirms our earlier suspicion that the only way the USCIS could request 68,000 visa numbers in a matter of weeks was to request them in advance of adjudicating cases.
We believe USCIS exhausted the visa numbers by simply requesting them - not by using them. If so, and for reasons we will post shortly, we believe that over 30,000 visa numbers requested by USCIS will go unused - and will be wasted this year!
reddy_h
08-14 04:04 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am really sorry for you, buddy. This is a stupid mistake by USCIS. Atleast they rejected your wife's application before Aug 17th so now you can refile. But I would advise you to send separate checks now. Even if EAD or AP applications are not properly filed, they will atleast accept I-485 if you send separate checks.
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
I am really sorry for you, buddy. This is a stupid mistake by USCIS. Atleast they rejected your wife's application before Aug 17th so now you can refile. But I would advise you to send separate checks now. Even if EAD or AP applications are not properly filed, they will atleast accept I-485 if you send separate checks.
more...
va_dude
03-09 01:21 PM
To port from EB3 to EB2, you will need an approved EB2 labor.
You can't just randomly convert your EB3 to EB2 just because you are more qualified, etc. Besides the category, Eb1,2,3 is determined by the job requirements, not your qualification. So you could be a PhD from MIT, but if the job requires only a Bachelor's for example, you can't do an Eb2.
So in your case, your new employer C would need to file for a new labor in EB2 and then do the 140 after labor approval.
I'm not a 100% sure if you can do the porting while filing the new 140 or only after its approval. For that you might need to confirm with an attorney consult.
My advice - spend the 100/200 bucks and get a 1 hour consult with a reputed attorney or the attorney that employer C works with.
You can't just randomly convert your EB3 to EB2 just because you are more qualified, etc. Besides the category, Eb1,2,3 is determined by the job requirements, not your qualification. So you could be a PhD from MIT, but if the job requires only a Bachelor's for example, you can't do an Eb2.
So in your case, your new employer C would need to file for a new labor in EB2 and then do the 140 after labor approval.
I'm not a 100% sure if you can do the porting while filing the new 140 or only after its approval. For that you might need to confirm with an attorney consult.
My advice - spend the 100/200 bucks and get a 1 hour consult with a reputed attorney or the attorney that employer C works with.
alterego
10-27 12:15 PM
It is precisely this type of ignorance and reluctance to address the real issues by both sides of the issue that makes our predicament so difficult to fix(as with many other policy issues that need fixing in this country). It is an almost insurmountable feat to get the policy makers and even the debaters on this issue to distinguish between the issues of illegal immigration and legal immigration in this country. This obfuscation is not by accident but by clear intent to serve each their specific interests.
Were that not the case, why don't these "we need to stand by the rule of law" enforcement types, call for an improvement in the situation for those "who have followed the law", simply put, it is only convenient for them to say that when they are speaking about the illegals, but alas they are against us legals as well................. so how can they ask anyone to believe that they are anything but anti immigrant period.
The pro immigrant guys blur the distinction specifically because they consider us a sweetener in the deal no less and no more they really don't consider the way we came any better or worse than the way others arrived, it is simply either all or none for them.
A rational policy that the American people can be asked to accept IMHO would involve, strict enforcement both at the border and interior at multiple sites including workplace, policies to alleviate the plight of the legals to demonstrate that way is rewarded and finally a strict case by case evaluation of illegals where some are given amnesty(if they have US children, spouse, lived here over X number of years and can prove it etc) Some will have to be made to have to leave to demonstrate that illegal behavior is not condoned or rewarded, be they Mexicans, Indians or Irish.
Alas, this cannot and will not be done due to the cowardice OF BOTH SIDES of this debate. Cowardice is sadly now changing to outright disdain for immigrants and that is sad in this great country of immigrants. Now the obfuscation will see a backlash emerging against us legals as well.
Were that not the case, why don't these "we need to stand by the rule of law" enforcement types, call for an improvement in the situation for those "who have followed the law", simply put, it is only convenient for them to say that when they are speaking about the illegals, but alas they are against us legals as well................. so how can they ask anyone to believe that they are anything but anti immigrant period.
The pro immigrant guys blur the distinction specifically because they consider us a sweetener in the deal no less and no more they really don't consider the way we came any better or worse than the way others arrived, it is simply either all or none for them.
A rational policy that the American people can be asked to accept IMHO would involve, strict enforcement both at the border and interior at multiple sites including workplace, policies to alleviate the plight of the legals to demonstrate that way is rewarded and finally a strict case by case evaluation of illegals where some are given amnesty(if they have US children, spouse, lived here over X number of years and can prove it etc) Some will have to be made to have to leave to demonstrate that illegal behavior is not condoned or rewarded, be they Mexicans, Indians or Irish.
Alas, this cannot and will not be done due to the cowardice OF BOTH SIDES of this debate. Cowardice is sadly now changing to outright disdain for immigrants and that is sad in this great country of immigrants. Now the obfuscation will see a backlash emerging against us legals as well.
gcformeornot
01-09 04:03 PM
Is this survey for only "those who lost a job while waiting for GC" or does it include anyone and everyone?
applies to general legal immigrant population.
applies to general legal immigrant population.
snathan
04-29 10:05 PM
Not fair, Mr. GC Vivek. Debunking based on personal outlook. Do you watch out for Indian start-ups for a living? I doubt. Start-ups are just start-ups. None will be famous, until years later, when some of them slowly start getting some success. Do you expect every 10 person company to get mention in timesofindia.com? HA! What you say above, is what is nonsense.
May be 10% might have become entrepreneurs...? Definitely not everyone has started a 10person or even 1 person company....People are doing good but they just work as programmers or so called project managers...you know its not a big deal to become a Project manager in India..
But 150K entrepreneurs...:p
May be 10% might have become entrepreneurs...? Definitely not everyone has started a 10person or even 1 person company....People are doing good but they just work as programmers or so called project managers...you know its not a big deal to become a Project manager in India..
But 150K entrepreneurs...:p
sandy_anand
11-09 03:27 PM
Filled out the form...
No comments:
Post a Comment