eb3retro
10-29 10:04 AM
lazycis,
i sent you a pm..could u pls respond. thanks.
i sent you a pm..could u pls respond. thanks.
wallpaper En vestidos cortos tiene
MYGCBY2010
07-27 04:21 PM
I had filed FOIA request to USCIS requesting a copy of I140 approval notice. My I140 was approved after which I changed employer. I need I140 approval notice to keep my original priority date.
But after filing G639, I got a response back from USCIS saying the case has been sent to DoS for visa approval and that I should contact DoS directly regarding the case.
Also remember, G639 form is for FOIA request for USCIS only.
You need to file a letter to DoS (google "DOS + foia" and you would see format of the letter)
Other than this,I have also filed Form I824 (Action on approved petition) with $200 filing fees requesting I140 approval from USCIS. I guess looking at the processing time, I will have to wait for another 6 months before I hear back from USCIS
Did you put in your A# OR THE Petition Number 3 in that form. Please respond.
But after filing G639, I got a response back from USCIS saying the case has been sent to DoS for visa approval and that I should contact DoS directly regarding the case.
Also remember, G639 form is for FOIA request for USCIS only.
You need to file a letter to DoS (google "DOS + foia" and you would see format of the letter)
Other than this,I have also filed Form I824 (Action on approved petition) with $200 filing fees requesting I140 approval from USCIS. I guess looking at the processing time, I will have to wait for another 6 months before I hear back from USCIS
Did you put in your A# OR THE Petition Number 3 in that form. Please respond.
krishnam70
08-27 06:04 PM
Krishnam70,
Thanks for the details. I still have some questions and would like to clarify with you.. Was wondering if you could provide me u r contact number or email id.
Thanks
send me a
message will respond to your questions
Thanks for the details. I still have some questions and would like to clarify with you.. Was wondering if you could provide me u r contact number or email id.
Thanks
send me a
message will respond to your questions
2011 Los vestidos de novia XXL son
asterix
02-23 09:50 AM
50,000 visas were recaptured for Schedule A occupations - nurses and physical therapists. That is why both India and Philippines got more numbers in FY 2006.
The # for 2006 excludes schedule A recapture for nurses etc. Here is the breakdown
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 3.7k
EB3 - 3.1K
EB4 - 0.6K
EB5 - 0.02K
Total EB - 10.7K
Schedule A - 6.7K
Am I missing something?
The # for 2006 excludes schedule A recapture for nurses etc. Here is the breakdown
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 3.7k
EB3 - 3.1K
EB4 - 0.6K
EB5 - 0.02K
Total EB - 10.7K
Schedule A - 6.7K
Am I missing something?
more...
yabadaba
06-18 12:44 PM
thanks reno john!
santb1975
04-10 06:02 PM
Together we can accomplish a lot
more...
ramus
05-29 09:12 PM
HI.. Could you please send web-fax.. We want to reach 3000 number tonight..
If core team is doing so much, can we do this for ourself and show them our support.
Thank you so much.
How will the new bill affect the I-485 processing time?
Does anyone know the minimum and maximum times required for I-485 processing?
What type of factors delay the I-485 processing?
Let us say A filed for I-485 on the day 1 of the month when PD becomes current, B on the 15th day and C on the last day. Does this mean that A will get greencard first, B next and C last?
Thank you in advance for your information.
If core team is doing so much, can we do this for ourself and show them our support.
Thank you so much.
How will the new bill affect the I-485 processing time?
Does anyone know the minimum and maximum times required for I-485 processing?
What type of factors delay the I-485 processing?
Let us say A filed for I-485 on the day 1 of the month when PD becomes current, B on the 15th day and C on the last day. Does this mean that A will get greencard first, B next and C last?
Thank you in advance for your information.
2010 Mi futuro vestido de novia
anilsal
06-14 04:54 PM
Hopefully by labor PD. But I have read about cases being approved in no sane logic.
more...
supreet
06-07 04:42 PM
Hi Surpreet,
Did you explore more on ARRA? Is it OK to take that benifit during AOS?
Thanks
Hi Dhundhun,
Sorry for my late response. After thinking long and hard, I have actually taken ARRA for my health insurance. I have decided not to go for Unemplyment. I read about a specific case somewhere online where an applicant got a RFE on his 485 after applying for unemployement. I am not sure if RFE was because of unemployement, but on that forum a lot of people suspected that applying for umpl could be one of the reasons.
For me, I was really running out of options, without ARRA, health insurance would have costed me over $1500 so I went for it.
Thanks
Did you explore more on ARRA? Is it OK to take that benifit during AOS?
Thanks
Hi Dhundhun,
Sorry for my late response. After thinking long and hard, I have actually taken ARRA for my health insurance. I have decided not to go for Unemplyment. I read about a specific case somewhere online where an applicant got a RFE on his 485 after applying for unemployement. I am not sure if RFE was because of unemployement, but on that forum a lot of people suspected that applying for umpl could be one of the reasons.
For me, I was really running out of options, without ARRA, health insurance would have costed me over $1500 so I went for it.
Thanks
hair Vestidos de novia 2005/06
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
Sakthisagar
05-03 11:32 AM
Yesterday on CNN, State of the Union programme Candy Crowley asked Sen Charles Schumer what is next? Energy or Immigration.
He replied with a hearty laugh. Well I don't know. we need to wait.
I think no one is serious about Immigration bill now.
He replied with a hearty laugh. Well I don't know. we need to wait.
I think no one is serious about Immigration bill now.
hot Vestido de novia Blancanieves
pushkarw
12-21 01:13 PM
Have you contributed to the MILLION dollar drive? Please visit the funding thread!
more...
house Sencillo, elegante y muy
r2i2009
05-14 04:21 PM
2009------we can see something happening.
Until then Visa Bulleting is our best hope and source
Let us pray.
Until then Visa Bulleting is our best hope and source
Let us pray.
tattoo Fantástico vestido de novia
probe
10-07 04:23 PM
I live in Ohio and my sympathies are with you. If another state has concerns with clause "non renewable/non transferable"then Ohio should also have concerns, but on the contrary Licenses are renewed in Ohio.I feel this is more of kneejerk reaction to 9/11 aftermath.I am dismayed, does policy makers are under notion that a alien (not from outer space) have to
go through all the travails of a new driver if they move to other state !?.
My past experience suggests you to visit few other License agencies around your place and hope lady luck smiles
upon you.
go through all the travails of a new driver if they move to other state !?.
My past experience suggests you to visit few other License agencies around your place and hope lady luck smiles
upon you.
more...
pictures a sencillos vestidos y
irrational
06-30 04:23 PM
Message from AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) website about the biometrics cancellations:
6/30/2009 ASC Biometrics Cancellations
USCIS has reportedly cancelled all biometrics appointments for July 7-July 9, and all appointments are to be rescheduled in 2-3 weeks. AILA Doc. No. 09063061.
6/30/2009 ASC Biometrics Cancellations
USCIS has reportedly cancelled all biometrics appointments for July 7-July 9, and all appointments are to be rescheduled in 2-3 weeks. AILA Doc. No. 09063061.
dresses De Vestidos Para Novias
cbpds
02-11 01:26 PM
you can send it via usps , it will reach in 10 days.
Disclaimer: Again there is always an element of risk in life :)
Disclaimer: Again there is always an element of risk in life :)
more...
makeup Vestidos de novia sencillos
unseenguy
02-23 12:01 PM
Hello everyone - My company has announced a 10% across the board paycut. I am sulking over it as there is no job guarantee. I am in a big consulting org. There are no new projects coming and my project is there till end of April. I have I140 approved but I am afraid that my employer may seek to revoke it , if I leave on my own.
Gurus - Do you think it is wise to use AC21 in this situation. It will take years for me to get back to (2-3) my original salary level and if I accept the paycut and lay off happens, the future employer may seek further paycut or same salary.
My wife has already lost job and hence I am paranoid that I have taken almost 50% paycut if we consider 2 incomes. I dont think economy is THAT bad.
Gurus - Do you think it is wise to use AC21 in this situation. It will take years for me to get back to (2-3) my original salary level and if I accept the paycut and lay off happens, the future employer may seek further paycut or same salary.
My wife has already lost job and hence I am paranoid that I have taken almost 50% paycut if we consider 2 incomes. I dont think economy is THAT bad.
girlfriend vestidos de novia sencillos. vestidos sencillos cortos
minimalist
10-18 11:55 AM
Based on information I gathered,we need to have original 485 filing receipt to be able to use EAD for extending drivers licence. One question I would like to explore is has any one had success requesting a 485 receipt from USCIS?.I researched on the topic and called USCIS also and the answer I found is that USCIS will not reissue 485 receipt notice.I would like to see if any IVians have a different experience.
hairstyles Tintoretto propone vestidos
gsiskind
05-11 09:55 AM
HI
I am planning to file a for a fresh EAD or new EAD.
I had filed 485 on 08/06/2007.
Now I have the following questions:
1) I am confused about the filing fee for EAD. Some say Filing fee is dependent on your 485 filign date.
For example, on usics website under 'Special Instructions' it says (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D)
"If you filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on July 30, 2007, or after, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765. You may file the I-765 concurrently with your I-485, or you may submit the I-765 at a later date."
Does that mean I donot have to pay any fee to USICS for EAD application?
2)What are the documents I have to submit along with I-485 receipt, I-94 copy & 2 photos?
On the I-765Instr document it says
"You must submit a copy of your Federal Government-issued identity document, such as a passport showing your picture, name and date of birth; a birth certificate with photo ID; a visa issued by a foreign consulate; or a national ID document with photo and/or fingerprint.The identity document photocopy must clearly show the facial feature of the applicant and the boigraphical information."
Which document I should provide as per the above statement?
3)What is the EAD application current processing time for Nebraska as I am in California and have to apply to NSC(Nebraska)?
Thanks in advance.
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
As for your second question, you should be supplying that documentation with your I-485. If you're filing separately, then note the instruction giving you a choice. One document should not be better than another.
As for processing times, generally estimate 60 to 90 days on employment cards.
Regards,
Greg Siskind
Gregory Siskind, Attorney at Law
Siskind Susser - Immigration Lawyers
Telephone: 800-748-3819 or 901-682-6455
Fax: 800-684-1267 or 901-339-9604
Email: gsiskind@visalaw.com
Web: www.visalaw.com
Warning: Unless you have a signed engagement letter with me, you should not consider information contained herein as legal advice and you should check with your own counsel before relying on this message.
I am planning to file a for a fresh EAD or new EAD.
I had filed 485 on 08/06/2007.
Now I have the following questions:
1) I am confused about the filing fee for EAD. Some say Filing fee is dependent on your 485 filign date.
For example, on usics website under 'Special Instructions' it says (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=73ddd59cb7a5d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D)
"If you filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on July 30, 2007, or after, then no fee is required to file a request for employment authorization on Form I-765. You may file the I-765 concurrently with your I-485, or you may submit the I-765 at a later date."
Does that mean I donot have to pay any fee to USICS for EAD application?
2)What are the documents I have to submit along with I-485 receipt, I-94 copy & 2 photos?
On the I-765Instr document it says
"You must submit a copy of your Federal Government-issued identity document, such as a passport showing your picture, name and date of birth; a birth certificate with photo ID; a visa issued by a foreign consulate; or a national ID document with photo and/or fingerprint.The identity document photocopy must clearly show the facial feature of the applicant and the boigraphical information."
Which document I should provide as per the above statement?
3)What is the EAD application current processing time for Nebraska as I am in California and have to apply to NSC(Nebraska)?
Thanks in advance.
With respect to your first question, anyone filing since the 2007 rules change you note would only pay a single I-485 filing fee which now has the EAD and advanced parole fees built in. Basically, you're paying for the EAD whether you actually apply for it or not.
As for your second question, you should be supplying that documentation with your I-485. If you're filing separately, then note the instruction giving you a choice. One document should not be better than another.
As for processing times, generally estimate 60 to 90 days on employment cards.
Regards,
Greg Siskind
Gregory Siskind, Attorney at Law
Siskind Susser - Immigration Lawyers
Telephone: 800-748-3819 or 901-682-6455
Fax: 800-684-1267 or 901-339-9604
Email: gsiskind@visalaw.com
Web: www.visalaw.com
Warning: Unless you have a signed engagement letter with me, you should not consider information contained herein as legal advice and you should check with your own counsel before relying on this message.
seahawks
09-09 12:59 PM
^^^ bump ^^^
krishnam70
02-20 07:55 PM
Members,
I need some help to act in right direction.
In Oct -2008 my wife got H1B. She was on H4 before that. The employer is still searching client for her to start work. She has got no pay, as practically she never started work. She still have valid-H4 VISa till sept-2009.
1) What is her current status H1B or H4?
2) how long can she wait to search job, assuming if she does not get job in next 2-3 months, how long will be H1B status Valid.
3) If she travels to india, will she has to get H1B stamped or she can re-enter on H4.
4) What are the options to get her back on H4. I have to file my extension in sept-2009.
Feedbacks, as highly appreciated.
~cheers
You need to apply H4 for her and immediately ask her to move to that status. She is already out of status 'technically' as she is supposed to be working/or get paid even if she is not working.. Unless she has pay stubs from her employer from the time her H1 was done she is not in 'status'. Once you move to H-1 the only way is to file for change of status using the appropriate petition. She will not move in to H-4 automatically. I think you need to file H-4 petition for your wife immediately.
Consult your attorney immediately and do the needful
good luck
kris
I need some help to act in right direction.
In Oct -2008 my wife got H1B. She was on H4 before that. The employer is still searching client for her to start work. She has got no pay, as practically she never started work. She still have valid-H4 VISa till sept-2009.
1) What is her current status H1B or H4?
2) how long can she wait to search job, assuming if she does not get job in next 2-3 months, how long will be H1B status Valid.
3) If she travels to india, will she has to get H1B stamped or she can re-enter on H4.
4) What are the options to get her back on H4. I have to file my extension in sept-2009.
Feedbacks, as highly appreciated.
~cheers
You need to apply H4 for her and immediately ask her to move to that status. She is already out of status 'technically' as she is supposed to be working/or get paid even if she is not working.. Unless she has pay stubs from her employer from the time her H1 was done she is not in 'status'. Once you move to H-1 the only way is to file for change of status using the appropriate petition. She will not move in to H-4 automatically. I think you need to file H-4 petition for your wife immediately.
Consult your attorney immediately and do the needful
good luck
kris