unseenguy
06-19 01:27 AM
Hello All,
I am contacting you regarding an Inquiry of
" H1B Approved without I-94 and to appeal for I-290B.
I applied for H1B Visa on Dec 23rd 2008 or change of status from H4 to H1B, H4 is Valid till Aug 06, 2009.
After filing, i received the receipt number and started working immediately from then onwards.
On May 01st, 2009 there was a query to my company and also on me whether i am maintaining valid non immigrant H1B classification.
On May 21st 2009, i received a letter from USCIS
saying that a response was received in which it included two pay statements for period of Jan 2009 and Feb 2009, they mentioned that the beneficiary was not eligible to work at this time and appears to have been working in United States without permission.
Change of status is denied, how ever your petition is Approved and go to Chennai for processing.Or submit a Motion to Reopen (Form I-290B ).\
Please advice me what should i do.
If i submit Form 1-290B, what are the grounds that i have to justify as it is clearly mentioned that i was not eligible to work at this time, but i am assuming that once you apply for H1 you can start working , then why in my case they have mentioned as illegal.
Second query is after applying for I-290B, can i continue to work or should i stop working until i get the update from USCIS regarding COS.
Third Query is should i apply for a new H1 and continue working.
Please advice me on this issue.
Hoping to hear from you Soon.
Thanks a lot for your help,
You have been working illegally and hence do as directed on the petition. I am not sure 290B is going to help you.
I am contacting you regarding an Inquiry of
" H1B Approved without I-94 and to appeal for I-290B.
I applied for H1B Visa on Dec 23rd 2008 or change of status from H4 to H1B, H4 is Valid till Aug 06, 2009.
After filing, i received the receipt number and started working immediately from then onwards.
On May 01st, 2009 there was a query to my company and also on me whether i am maintaining valid non immigrant H1B classification.
On May 21st 2009, i received a letter from USCIS
saying that a response was received in which it included two pay statements for period of Jan 2009 and Feb 2009, they mentioned that the beneficiary was not eligible to work at this time and appears to have been working in United States without permission.
Change of status is denied, how ever your petition is Approved and go to Chennai for processing.Or submit a Motion to Reopen (Form I-290B ).\
Please advice me what should i do.
If i submit Form 1-290B, what are the grounds that i have to justify as it is clearly mentioned that i was not eligible to work at this time, but i am assuming that once you apply for H1 you can start working , then why in my case they have mentioned as illegal.
Second query is after applying for I-290B, can i continue to work or should i stop working until i get the update from USCIS regarding COS.
Third Query is should i apply for a new H1 and continue working.
Please advice me on this issue.
Hoping to hear from you Soon.
Thanks a lot for your help,
You have been working illegally and hence do as directed on the petition. I am not sure 290B is going to help you.
ganguteli
01-28 06:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Americans
Check our own Aman Kapoor listed
Check our own Aman Kapoor listed
Blog Feeds
10-15 06:30 PM
[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51236-51237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-4]
---------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 41
[Public Notice: 6779]
Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended; Requirements for Aliens in Religious Occupations
AGENCY: State Department.
ACTION: Final rule.
---------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To comply with the Department of Homeland Security regulation requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. This rule establishes the requirement that consular officers ensure that R-1 visa applicants have obtained an approved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I- 129 petition from the Department of Homeland Security before issuance of a visa.
DATES: This rule is effective October 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren A. Prosnik, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603D, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-2951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Why is the Department promulgating this rule?
On November 26, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated regulations requiring sponsoring employers to file petitions for all aliens for whom R-1 nonimmigrant status is sought. 73 FR 72276. As a result, the requirements for an R-1 nonimmigrant visa now include establishing that the applicant is the beneficiary of an approved petition. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has implemented the petition requirement for nonimmigrant religious workers as a way to determine the bona fides of a petitioning religious organization located in the United States and to determine that a religious worker will be admitted to the United States to work for a specific religious organization at the request of that religious organization. This rule amends the Department regulations to ensure consistency with the regulations set forth by DHS.
Regulatory Findings
Administrative Procedure Act
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the rule making procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553.
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business
Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for R-1 nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104- 121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Executive Order 12866
The Department of State has reviewed this proposed rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this final regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider this final rule to be an economically significant action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
[[Page 51237]]
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41
Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Nonimmigrants, Passports and Visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends 22 CFR Part 41 as follows:
PART 41--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C.1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).
2. Revise Sec. 41.58 to read as follows:
Sec. 41.58 Aliens in religious occupations.
(a) Requirements for ``R'' classification. An alien shall be classifiable under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(R) if:
(1) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section; and
(2) With respect to the principal alien, the consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by USCIS of a petition to accord such classification or the extension by USCIS of the period of authorized stay in such classification; or
(3) The alien is the spouse or child of an alien so classified and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien.
(b) Petition approval. The approval of a petition by USCIS does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
(c) Validity of visa. The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of paragraph (a) to this section must not precede or exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(d) Aliens not entitled to classification under INA 101(a)(15)(R). The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving USCIS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien applying for a visa under INA 101(a)(15)(R) is not entitled to the classification as approved.
Dated: September 24, 2009.
Janice L. Jacobs,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-24089 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2009/10/07/dos-final-rule-on-amended-requirements-for-religious-workers.aspx?ref=rss)
kirupa
11-09 02:55 AM
Ah thanks for that reminder. I somehow completely skipped over both of them!
more...
amslonewolf
06-01 06:44 PM
My attorney is taking his sweet ass time.. so mine will be around 10th..
joydiptac
08-17 06:09 PM
Thanks for your reply..
Can anyone else share there views....
"Plan and direct " are the key words here. Being in the same space, I know it is similar. But don't take my word for it.
Can anyone else share there views....
"Plan and direct " are the key words here. Being in the same space, I know it is similar. But don't take my word for it.
more...
desibechara
08-01 07:35 PM
hi:
I am filing my I140 and i485 togther this week. I have had 2 previous employers to the current one.
I wporked for my first employer for nearly 3 years ( some months less) and then other employer for some 4 months and finally switching to the current employer..where I have been working for 6.5 years.
I am getting experience letter from first employer but second employer where I worked for 4 months has no record.
Is it ok to file I140 with just experienced letters from my first and the present employer and let go the one with just 4 months? Please let me now..I did call the former employer who worked there..but she also does not remmeber because it was 7 years back and that too for short time.
Please let me know..is that is risky or will come back with RFE?
DB
I am filing my I140 and i485 togther this week. I have had 2 previous employers to the current one.
I wporked for my first employer for nearly 3 years ( some months less) and then other employer for some 4 months and finally switching to the current employer..where I have been working for 6.5 years.
I am getting experience letter from first employer but second employer where I worked for 4 months has no record.
Is it ok to file I140 with just experienced letters from my first and the present employer and let go the one with just 4 months? Please let me now..I did call the former employer who worked there..but she also does not remmeber because it was 7 years back and that too for short time.
Please let me know..is that is risky or will come back with RFE?
DB
cchaitu
07-24 04:27 PM
Hi,
If I have a permanent offer after 180 days of Receipt date (I 485)...
Is this offer should be in the same location (state) where my labor got filed ???
Please advice...
Thanks
If I have a permanent offer after 180 days of Receipt date (I 485)...
Is this offer should be in the same location (state) where my labor got filed ???
Please advice...
Thanks
more...
reddy_h
08-16 11:03 AM
You should be getting the physical receipt in 2 or 3 days (at most a week). The check is cleared. Thats enough to know if the application is accepted. Relax man!
gcdreamer05
12-12 11:36 AM
Prashanthi was there on chat for 30 min and as no one turned up to ask questions she left. She will be available for chat every Thursday at 9.30 PM EST.
Oh no missed it, i will surely be online next thursday to talk to the attorney.
Oh no missed it, i will surely be online next thursday to talk to the attorney.
more...
simple1
09-25 04:42 PM
may not be eligible for 245(k)
MurthyDotCom : Eligibility under Sections 245(i) & 245(k) for AOS (http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html)
Persons with a petition or LC filed after January 14, 1998, up to April 30, 2001 must also document that they were "physically present" in the U.S. as of December 21, 2000.
not sure if follow 2 join is applicable here.
http://georgetown.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/consular-pdfs/follow-to-join-master-march-2008.pdf
check with attorney immediatly.
She is not out of status but you need to move fast (first 180 days) and talk to some good lawyer.
In 2007 I had a long consultation with a lawyer and told about INS act 245(k)
Google it.
Furthermore. One of my co-worker was approved while his wife's case was not filled in 2007. they used 245(k) and there was no issue.
MurthyDotCom : Eligibility under Sections 245(i) & 245(k) for AOS (http://www.murthy.com/adjsta.html)
Persons with a petition or LC filed after January 14, 1998, up to April 30, 2001 must also document that they were "physically present" in the U.S. as of December 21, 2000.
not sure if follow 2 join is applicable here.
http://georgetown.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/consular-pdfs/follow-to-join-master-march-2008.pdf
check with attorney immediatly.
She is not out of status but you need to move fast (first 180 days) and talk to some good lawyer.
In 2007 I had a long consultation with a lawyer and told about INS act 245(k)
Google it.
Furthermore. One of my co-worker was approved while his wife's case was not filled in 2007. they used 245(k) and there was no issue.
javadeveloper
07-27 03:19 PM
As per my knowledge Labor and I-140 (originals) are company's property.If employer is willing he/she can give you a copy
more...
mambarg
07-26 12:57 PM
This person mailed on June 28 and app received on June 29 and got his notice date on July 24. Today.
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
needhelp!
01-28 05:34 PM
How can we be sure unless we ask them?
Deepak Chopra is a medical doctor, so pretty sure he would have used EB immigration.. you think he was family based?
Sabeer Bhatia is from BITS.. he studied here.. so I guess that would have been F1 first then started working here.
I am not sure if Deepak Chopra and other above are EB immigrants. I was asking for examples of people from EB immigrants community.
Thanks.
Deepak Chopra is a medical doctor, so pretty sure he would have used EB immigration.. you think he was family based?
Sabeer Bhatia is from BITS.. he studied here.. so I guess that would have been F1 first then started working here.
I am not sure if Deepak Chopra and other above are EB immigrants. I was asking for examples of people from EB immigrants community.
Thanks.
more...
LONGGCQUE
03-10 11:12 AM
I have same problem with SBI. Planning to use wellsfargo expresssend from now on.
learning01
03-23 04:22 PM
With a fast and swift response, one of the moderators from IV provided me with a general format.
I modified it and have posted here below. I had already sent to Nedra Pickler (npickler@ap.org) and Elliot Spagat(espagat@ap.org
). I have all the emails of media contacts and in the process of tabulating them alphabetically, so that viewers in a hurry can see them easily, before posting here. Comeback and check again.
Network Program Anchor Email:
MSNBC
Coast to Coast Connected@MSNBC.com
Abrams Report abramsreport@msnbc.com
Hardball Chris Mathews chris.matthews@msnbc.com
Hardball Chris Mathews hardball@msnbc.com
Countdown Keith Olbermann countdown@msnbc.com
Countdown Keith Olbermann KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Scarborough Country Joe Scarborough joe@msnbc.com
The Situation Tucker Carlson tucker.carlson@msnbc.com
News David Shuster dshuster@msnbc.com
News Brian Williams brian.williams@msnbc.com
MSNBC Investigates msnbcinvestigates@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports msnbcreports@msnbc.com
Meet the Press mtp@nbc.com
Viewer Services viewerservices@msnbc.com
Feedback feedback@msnbc.com
Imus in the Morning Don Imus imus@msnbc.com
I modified it and have posted here below. I had already sent to Nedra Pickler (npickler@ap.org) and Elliot Spagat(espagat@ap.org
). I have all the emails of media contacts and in the process of tabulating them alphabetically, so that viewers in a hurry can see them easily, before posting here. Comeback and check again.
Network Program Anchor Email:
MSNBC
Coast to Coast Connected@MSNBC.com
Abrams Report abramsreport@msnbc.com
Hardball Chris Mathews chris.matthews@msnbc.com
Hardball Chris Mathews hardball@msnbc.com
Countdown Keith Olbermann countdown@msnbc.com
Countdown Keith Olbermann KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Scarborough Country Joe Scarborough joe@msnbc.com
The Situation Tucker Carlson tucker.carlson@msnbc.com
News David Shuster dshuster@msnbc.com
News Brian Williams brian.williams@msnbc.com
MSNBC Investigates msnbcinvestigates@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports msnbcreports@msnbc.com
Meet the Press mtp@nbc.com
Viewer Services viewerservices@msnbc.com
Feedback feedback@msnbc.com
Imus in the Morning Don Imus imus@msnbc.com
more...
varshadas
11-08 12:25 PM
I am not sure how you are seeing 14000 EB3 visa in totals. If you look at the table that says India, there are approx 8000 visas or so around Dec 02 for India alone. In addition, I believe the country quota is 7% and not 10% but I could be mistaken on that.
Since you would get approx 3000 EB3 visa's every year, that is why the PD is not moving.
Since you would get approx 3000 EB3 visa's every year, that is why the PD is not moving.
guesswho
03-13 04:58 PM
Why is your lawyer is advising that? If you are maintaining H1/H4 status, you can absolutely go to India, get ur H1/H4 stamped and come back. I did that in Jan 2008 (my I-485 was pending and I had not applied for AP/EAD at that time. The consulate knew I had a pending I-485 application as I indicated that on the visa form), got my visa stamped and came back on H1B.
The drawbacks I can think of -
- ur H1 is delayed pending any kind of checks, then you don't have ur AP to rely on.
- I don't know how it will affect your pending AP application.
HI fellow members..
I duly filed for AP along with my my 485 in OCT 2007. They messed up the photos on the AP. They put my wife's photo on mine and vice versa. We asked for a correction and they interchanged the case nos on the AP issued.
So after 2 years they still have not given me a valid AP document. I refiled again last week.
I have to attend my sisters wedding in June this year. We are still maintaining our H1/H4 status. My H1 is valid till 2011.
Is it ok to leave the country without an AP and re-enter on H1.? I will have to apply for H1visa at the chennai consulate.
My lawyer advises me not to go without an AP. Not going is not an option for me. Has anyone here re-entered in H1 visa after stamping whiel their I485 is pending.
Im so tired of this immigration game. 0 Accountability. ..they told my lawyer they will not issue a correction to the wrong AP issued since it has already been approved till 2010 and I will have wait till 2010 to re-apply for correct AP and I cannot travel outside till 2010..do these people understand what they are doing ??
Pls take a moment to reply
The drawbacks I can think of -
- ur H1 is delayed pending any kind of checks, then you don't have ur AP to rely on.
- I don't know how it will affect your pending AP application.
HI fellow members..
I duly filed for AP along with my my 485 in OCT 2007. They messed up the photos on the AP. They put my wife's photo on mine and vice versa. We asked for a correction and they interchanged the case nos on the AP issued.
So after 2 years they still have not given me a valid AP document. I refiled again last week.
I have to attend my sisters wedding in June this year. We are still maintaining our H1/H4 status. My H1 is valid till 2011.
Is it ok to leave the country without an AP and re-enter on H1.? I will have to apply for H1visa at the chennai consulate.
My lawyer advises me not to go without an AP. Not going is not an option for me. Has anyone here re-entered in H1 visa after stamping whiel their I485 is pending.
Im so tired of this immigration game. 0 Accountability. ..they told my lawyer they will not issue a correction to the wrong AP issued since it has already been approved till 2010 and I will have wait till 2010 to re-apply for correct AP and I cannot travel outside till 2010..do these people understand what they are doing ??
Pls take a moment to reply
cs.0
02-13 06:32 AM
hi.
http://www.immigrationlawgroup.net - IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP LLP
I am dealing with the above attorney group from past 6 years. They r very good and they take very decent fees.
thanks,
http://www.immigrationlawgroup.net - IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP LLP
I am dealing with the above attorney group from past 6 years. They r very good and they take very decent fees.
thanks,
SNLive999
06-16 06:05 PM
When I met IO at the Boston District USCIS, She typed in my 485 receipt # or A # on her system and looked at my file and said they already have my finger prints and she said why did you get FP notices again. She again looked at my file for few seconds and then she has written code 2 on our second(new) set of FP notices and asked us to give code 2 prints on scheduled date. ( Actually uscis requested code 3 on our new FP notices )
She also said If Boston USCIS Application Support Center(ASC) takes our code 2 FP's then it is fine, otherwise if they say they already have our code 3 prints and refuse to take them again, the IO asked me to take a infopass and contact them again, so that boston distric office can make a phone call to ASC and sort out the issue.
I did not apply for online EAD why do they need our code 2 finger prints. ??
She also said If Boston USCIS Application Support Center(ASC) takes our code 2 FP's then it is fine, otherwise if they say they already have our code 3 prints and refuse to take them again, the IO asked me to take a infopass and contact them again, so that boston distric office can make a phone call to ASC and sort out the issue.
I did not apply for online EAD why do they need our code 2 finger prints. ??
dkupadhyay
11-25 01:14 PM
Thanks for all your replies.
My new attorney has all the e-mail communication to the congressman's office and he has replied to USCIS NOID for my I-1485 with all the details. But he believes that our case is not strong enough because we have no proof about the first I-140 filing date (the first I-140 was filed by previous attorney who is not reachable any more). We just have a copy of the first I-140 receipt. Even the first I-140 application (filed by previous attorney) has no date anywhere. My new attorney tried to get the original receipt for first I-140 or even copy of the canceled check for the application fees from the previous attorney. But previous attorney is not responding. I went to the previous attorney's office several times and found his office locked all the time.
Don't know what to do. Hopefully USCIS will pay attention to the e-mail communication with congressman and will find out some way.
Is there any legal step I can take against the previous attorney for not providing me the document? Can I file any consume complaint against him?
My new attorney has all the e-mail communication to the congressman's office and he has replied to USCIS NOID for my I-1485 with all the details. But he believes that our case is not strong enough because we have no proof about the first I-140 filing date (the first I-140 was filed by previous attorney who is not reachable any more). We just have a copy of the first I-140 receipt. Even the first I-140 application (filed by previous attorney) has no date anywhere. My new attorney tried to get the original receipt for first I-140 or even copy of the canceled check for the application fees from the previous attorney. But previous attorney is not responding. I went to the previous attorney's office several times and found his office locked all the time.
Don't know what to do. Hopefully USCIS will pay attention to the e-mail communication with congressman and will find out some way.
Is there any legal step I can take against the previous attorney for not providing me the document? Can I file any consume complaint against him?
No comments:
Post a Comment