purplehazea
06-11 01:00 PM
This is a weak president making rhetorics which never pan out. He knows his time has come to step out and this is only an attempt to use his left over strength. Honestly the president no longer enjoys support of his own party members and this is only rhetoric. There is just not enough time to move this through senate, house and then agree on it all.
wallpaper Stars - Aircraft Wallpaper
cyclone_p
06-25 01:45 PM
I guess it depends on the employer, but usually the employer put the employee on a "Loss Of Pay" status and the employee cannot work or earn until s/he has the renewed EAD card in her/his possession.
Approvals or Receipt Notices don't work. One must have the renewed EAD card with her/him to work.
Approvals or Receipt Notices don't work. One must have the renewed EAD card with her/him to work.
dc4opera
05-18 11:27 PM
I need some advice from the people on this board.
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
My labor certification was recently approved via PERM. My employer will soon be signing the paperwork to file the I-140 with INS. My contract with him expires in February 2007, and he wants me to continue working for him beyond that. I, however, have expressed my desire NOT to stay with him any longer than I need to. Obviously, I will need to stay until 6 months have passed from the filing of my I-485 for portability to kick in.
Because of this, he wants me to WAIT until January 2007 to file my I-485. This way he is assured that I will be working for him until June 2007. My question is, does he have any right to coerce me to wait until January 2007 to file the I-485?
I initially agreed to this delay in filing because I was under the impression that BOTH the I-140 and I-485 were to be filed by the employer, and that I-485 processing took about 6 months. Now that I have learned that the I-485 is to be filed by me and that I-485 processing can take more than a year, are there any downsides to me filing the I-485 earlier than January 2007 WITHOUT MY EMPLOYER KNOWING?
I realize that "honesty is the best policy" but the situation is truly untenable for me and I feel that he is purposely delaying the processing of my INS papers to keep me at his mercy. Another factor to consider is that the lawyer we will be using for the I-140 will be the same one who will file my I-485. Can I invoke attorney-client privilege with regards to the I-485 so that they cannot tell my employer that I filed it earlier than he wanted? For that matter, can I use a different lawyer to file the I-485 that the one who filed the I-140?
Any opinions and suggestions regarding this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much and good luck to all!
2011 Military - Aircraft Wallpaper
nashim
09-03 09:01 AM
Yes, medical forms been changed. Please refer USCIS site for correct form. It is valid for one year but form should be correct.
Here are the details:
http://immigration-law.com/
07/13/2008: USCIS Changes Old Medical Form, I-693, Invalid Date from 07/14/2008 to 08/01/2008
� Medical form which the USCIS designated civil surgeon is required to use was initially revised on 04/08/2008, followed by the USCIS announcement that any I-693 form version earlier than 04/08/2008 should not be used by the civil surgens from May 1, 2008. In the middle of June, the USCIS released again new version form dated 06/05/2008 and announced that the old version other than 06/05/2008 should not be used effective 07/14/2008. July 14, 2008 is tomorrow. However, without a news release, the USCIS form site extended invalid date of forms earlier than 06/05/2008 to 08/01/2008. Please now note that "Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition," according to the form site instruction.
� There was a confusion in June 2008 on the validity of older version form I-9 because the USCIS form site instructed that the older version was not acceptable from certain date. In Vancouver, the USCIS authority confirmed that the form instruction was an error and the USCIS form instruction has since been corrected. It will help tremendously if the USCIS releases an announcement that the current I-693 form instruction is indeed correct and the civil surgeons can use the I-693 forms which are older than 06/05/2008 version can still be used. In the meantime, the civil surgeons and the immigrants should check on the date of the medical examination with the I-693 form site to protect themselves from any changes. The form site indicates that the information was updated on June 26, 2008. One wonders whether the civil surgeons may be better off to start using the 06/05/2008 version form from even now just to avoid any confusion in the future. For the new form instruction as of today, please click here.
� There was a report one time that the USCIS was experiencing a problem in notifying all the USCIS certified civil surgeons on the form changes by email or other means because some civil surgeons did not have email addresses or proper means to receive such notices quickly. When the 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons was implemented by the Center for Disease Control and Prevension of HHS in such a notice on May 1, 2008, it could have been practically impossible for the USCIS to notify such medical form changes timely to every single USCIS certified civil surgeons. Well, doctors, you now have until August 1, 2008 to comply with the new medical form!
� This change can be important that because of the EB-2 visa number progression for the Chinese and Indians, a large number of these foreign professionals must have already scheduled or even completed a medical examination for themselves and their family members using the older versions. Under the new instruction, these medical report should be valid and filed with the I-485 coming August 2008. However, those who schedule their 485 medical examination on or after August 1, 2008 should make it sure that the doctor uses the new version dated 06/05/2008.
Here are the details:
http://immigration-law.com/
07/13/2008: USCIS Changes Old Medical Form, I-693, Invalid Date from 07/14/2008 to 08/01/2008
� Medical form which the USCIS designated civil surgeon is required to use was initially revised on 04/08/2008, followed by the USCIS announcement that any I-693 form version earlier than 04/08/2008 should not be used by the civil surgens from May 1, 2008. In the middle of June, the USCIS released again new version form dated 06/05/2008 and announced that the old version other than 06/05/2008 should not be used effective 07/14/2008. July 14, 2008 is tomorrow. However, without a news release, the USCIS form site extended invalid date of forms earlier than 06/05/2008 to 08/01/2008. Please now note that "Previous editions will be accepted only for medical exams conducted before August 1, 2008. Medical exams conducted on or after August 1, 2008, require use of the 06/05/08 edition," according to the form site instruction.
� There was a confusion in June 2008 on the validity of older version form I-9 because the USCIS form site instructed that the older version was not acceptable from certain date. In Vancouver, the USCIS authority confirmed that the form instruction was an error and the USCIS form instruction has since been corrected. It will help tremendously if the USCIS releases an announcement that the current I-693 form instruction is indeed correct and the civil surgeons can use the I-693 forms which are older than 06/05/2008 version can still be used. In the meantime, the civil surgeons and the immigrants should check on the date of the medical examination with the I-693 form site to protect themselves from any changes. The form site indicates that the information was updated on June 26, 2008. One wonders whether the civil surgeons may be better off to start using the 06/05/2008 version form from even now just to avoid any confusion in the future. For the new form instruction as of today, please click here.
� There was a report one time that the USCIS was experiencing a problem in notifying all the USCIS certified civil surgeons on the form changes by email or other means because some civil surgeons did not have email addresses or proper means to receive such notices quickly. When the 2008 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons was implemented by the Center for Disease Control and Prevension of HHS in such a notice on May 1, 2008, it could have been practically impossible for the USCIS to notify such medical form changes timely to every single USCIS certified civil surgeons. Well, doctors, you now have until August 1, 2008 to comply with the new medical form!
� This change can be important that because of the EB-2 visa number progression for the Chinese and Indians, a large number of these foreign professionals must have already scheduled or even completed a medical examination for themselves and their family members using the older versions. Under the new instruction, these medical report should be valid and filed with the I-485 coming August 2008. However, those who schedule their 485 medical examination on or after August 1, 2008 should make it sure that the doctor uses the new version dated 06/05/2008.
more...
jonty_11
01-16 04:43 PM
Yes , I am planning to take the test too......
chanduv23
01-24 10:39 PM
Come on folks, volunteering and support is the need of the hour - silence is not the solution
more...
sundeep14
07-23 10:09 AM
as folks mentioned above it is totally ok to not renew AP...do it if u travellin in the next few months...
on a side note...do people here know the average time it is takin to renew AP nowdays....TSC......paper and/or electronic..?
I had put in EAD renewal at TSC and got the approved EAD in hand within a month ...that was really good speed...anyone has info on AP approval timelines???
on a side note...do people here know the average time it is takin to renew AP nowdays....TSC......paper and/or electronic..?
I had put in EAD renewal at TSC and got the approved EAD in hand within a month ...that was really good speed...anyone has info on AP approval timelines???
2010 Stars - Aircraft Wallpaper
maddipati1
08-13 07:01 PM
It makes predicting when our applicatios will be done a little harder :)
what the hell r u trying to say :D
what the hell r u trying to say :D
more...
Lisap
02-25 02:18 PM
Hello All,
I was wondering if someone could please explain what the processing dates mean.... For Texas 485 processing date is April 2007. Does this mean they are adjucating 485 applications received in April 2007? I am confused- does this mean that anyone who applied for AOS after april 2007 will not get their GC even if their PD is current? I am just trying to understand the process. Thanks in advance!
I was wondering if someone could please explain what the processing dates mean.... For Texas 485 processing date is April 2007. Does this mean they are adjucating 485 applications received in April 2007? I am confused- does this mean that anyone who applied for AOS after april 2007 will not get their GC even if their PD is current? I am just trying to understand the process. Thanks in advance!
hair aircraft wallpapers
jonty_11
01-22 12:01 PM
Thank you JAPS19 - This Helps - Thank you.
I dont have H1B for the new company, just employment letter and pay stubs.
Can you please advise why you were sent to downtown? for what verification?
Which airport was your port of entry?
I dont have a lawyer anymore as I got laid off from the sponsoring company and working on a new company with EAD.
Guys, take it easy, if they deport you from the port of entry the world will not come crashing down....Always keep your head up high and walk upright....we are more educated and learned than most of the folks around the world...so why be afraid....Just be honest and tell the truth...and let time take its course...NO FEAR and HONESTY should be our motto in these times of trial!!!!
I dont have H1B for the new company, just employment letter and pay stubs.
Can you please advise why you were sent to downtown? for what verification?
Which airport was your port of entry?
I dont have a lawyer anymore as I got laid off from the sponsoring company and working on a new company with EAD.
Guys, take it easy, if they deport you from the port of entry the world will not come crashing down....Always keep your head up high and walk upright....we are more educated and learned than most of the folks around the world...so why be afraid....Just be honest and tell the truth...and let time take its course...NO FEAR and HONESTY should be our motto in these times of trial!!!!
more...
EB3June03
06-18 01:08 PM
From:- http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/civil_surgeon_ltr.pdf
Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons
A new TB classification (Class B: Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment) should be used for all applicants who are recent arrivals to the United States (less than 5 years) from countries with a high TB prevalence, with a Mantoux TST reaction of 10 mm or greater of induration, and no evidence of TB disease. See Section V of the TB Technical Instructions for other conditions for which referral for evaluation for treatment of latent TB infection is recommended. The civil surgeon should pro-actively contact the TB Control Program of the local health department to identify specific sources of treatment for latent TB infection and make the appropriate referral.
What if the applicant is NOT a recent arrival in US and does NOT have any evidence of TB disease? I hope there is another category for that (which might be exempt from treatment).
Technical Instructions for Civil Surgeons
A new TB classification (Class B: Latent TB Infection Needing Evaluation for Treatment) should be used for all applicants who are recent arrivals to the United States (less than 5 years) from countries with a high TB prevalence, with a Mantoux TST reaction of 10 mm or greater of induration, and no evidence of TB disease. See Section V of the TB Technical Instructions for other conditions for which referral for evaluation for treatment of latent TB infection is recommended. The civil surgeon should pro-actively contact the TB Control Program of the local health department to identify specific sources of treatment for latent TB infection and make the appropriate referral.
What if the applicant is NOT a recent arrival in US and does NOT have any evidence of TB disease? I hope there is another category for that (which might be exempt from treatment).
hot wallpaper aircraft wallpapers
AirWaterandGC
05-12 10:14 AM
This is what I received :
Thank you for taking action on AILA's Contact Congress website. If you'd like to get more involved in our advocacy efforts, please contact AILA's Manager of Grassroots Advocacy, Jenny Levy.
Your message was sent to:
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Representative Keith M. Ellison (D-MN 5th)
Thank you for taking action on AILA's Contact Congress website. If you'd like to get more involved in our advocacy efforts, please contact AILA's Manager of Grassroots Advocacy, Jenny Levy.
Your message was sent to:
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Representative Keith M. Ellison (D-MN 5th)
more...
house Space Ship One Wallpaper 175
martinvisalaw
06-25 02:12 PM
1. My view on pre-adjudication is that they processing is done on the application and is put in an approvable status. once the PD is current and the immigrant visa number is available, then such an application can be approved. but it has to be noted that these applications can be reviewed again before approving and can be denied at that time.
2. when an AOS application is being adjudicated, if the underlying terms of the 485 application are not satisfied, then it can be denied. it does not matter if the PD is current. the 485 is based on the 140, which in turn is based on a bonafide job. using ac21, you can change employers, but i still feel that you need to be employed in a similar position and not looking for a similar position.
any thoughts anyone?
I agree. The argument that the AOS applicant doesn't need to have a job now is very aggressive and should only be used if absolutely necessary. If there is any chance of finding a new job soon, the first step would be to ask for more time to respond to the RFE.
2. when an AOS application is being adjudicated, if the underlying terms of the 485 application are not satisfied, then it can be denied. it does not matter if the PD is current. the 485 is based on the 140, which in turn is based on a bonafide job. using ac21, you can change employers, but i still feel that you need to be employed in a similar position and not looking for a similar position.
any thoughts anyone?
I agree. The argument that the AOS applicant doesn't need to have a job now is very aggressive and should only be used if absolutely necessary. If there is any chance of finding a new job soon, the first step would be to ask for more time to respond to the RFE.
tattoo aircraft Wallpaper
se_vnt3
02-24 03:41 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
more...
pictures Aircraft-Wallpaper-46.jpg
DallasBlue
08-01 11:53 PM
Is there a real need of seperate group other than IV.
Just curious.
we just want to group together locally to meet local lawmakers. Most importantly Senator Cornyn's office in near future and push for our goals.
And it is not any seperate group. join the yahoo group to find out who is doing what in their local cities in Texas.
Just curious.
we just want to group together locally to meet local lawmakers. Most importantly Senator Cornyn's office in near future and push for our goals.
And it is not any seperate group. join the yahoo group to find out who is doing what in their local cities in Texas.
dresses Aircraft Carrierb Wallpaper
hibworker
03-28 01:30 PM
Can anyone please respond? What should I do?
You really need to provide the contract letter that has been asked for. I can't think of any work around to this. It is becoming increasingly common to reject H1 for consultants working at client site where they are not managed by their employer.
You really need to provide the contract letter that has been asked for. I can't think of any work around to this. It is becoming increasingly common to reject H1 for consultants working at client site where they are not managed by their employer.
more...
makeup aircraft wallpaper eurocopter
glus
08-21 09:32 AM
I am happy for you. Good luck!!
G
G
girlfriend wallpaper aircraft wallpapers
Siddharta
09-26 04:26 PM
My sincere advice, DO not even think about it ..
So you recommend I stay in the similar position (and company) till 2015. Greattttttttt.....
So you recommend I stay in the similar position (and company) till 2015. Greattttttttt.....
hairstyles Military - Aircraft Wallpaper
TeddyKoochu
01-06 10:11 AM
Hey Teddy,
During you process for porting from EB3 to EB2 did you:
1. Do this within the same organization after getting your advanced degree?
2. Did you have to file for a new PERM and start from the begineeing under EB2?
3. Were you successfully able to port your PD or did you start with a new PD under EB2?
Hi Harry mine was an EB2 case to begin with, no porting. Only this is my timing was not correct and I missed the Jul 07 window, the labor filing took way too long. So kind of in the same boat as you, trying to find legal avenues to upgrade to EB1. Let�s wait for some advice to come by. Looking at your case as well I believe that EB1-A is the only option.
During you process for porting from EB3 to EB2 did you:
1. Do this within the same organization after getting your advanced degree?
2. Did you have to file for a new PERM and start from the begineeing under EB2?
3. Were you successfully able to port your PD or did you start with a new PD under EB2?
Hi Harry mine was an EB2 case to begin with, no porting. Only this is my timing was not correct and I missed the Jul 07 window, the labor filing took way too long. So kind of in the same boat as you, trying to find legal avenues to upgrade to EB1. Let�s wait for some advice to come by. Looking at your case as well I believe that EB1-A is the only option.
mach1343
10-13 03:01 PM
Doesn't matter casuals or formals.
9411b
03-06 12:56 PM
You are not alone.
We have the same problem.
EAD applied in July 07, EAD card received in Oct 07 and the card was made expired 01/01/07 by WAC.
Called USCIS hotline, tried new applications with WAC, TSC and Info pass, still waiting if WAC is going to correct its own mess.
Big headache.
Good luck everyone.
J
PS. concurrently filing with NSC then moved to WAC then to TSC. Now pending!!!!:(:(
We have the same problem.
EAD applied in July 07, EAD card received in Oct 07 and the card was made expired 01/01/07 by WAC.
Called USCIS hotline, tried new applications with WAC, TSC and Info pass, still waiting if WAC is going to correct its own mess.
Big headache.
Good luck everyone.
J
PS. concurrently filing with NSC then moved to WAC then to TSC. Now pending!!!!:(:(
No comments:
Post a Comment