sameer2730
05-15 08:24 AM
You are faking!!!
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
Thank you sir for finally putting into words what I always suspected. This is shit to attract attention to their site. That was the first place this nonsense came up and just watch how active that thread is . Everywhere else the thread dies quickly.
Other signs these threads are bull. They either give too much info (All tax returns info for the past 10 years) or too little (I got a one line RFE). Secondly look at the id of this guy "Mishras" - How many S Mishra's got this RFE. Where is the effing anonimity. Just a bunch of amateurs trying too hard to make up believe they are authentic.
The other anti's I see here posing as good guys
"GCFORMEORNOT" - Always digging up fear mongering threads to distract from our main goal
"EASTINDIA" - Real first class asshole posing as someone who is a crusader of playing by the rules.
Another reason I feel the above too are rouge is because they change their RED - GREEN status like the markets of 2008. One day they are bright red and the next day they are bright green. Basically they have teamed up each other or maybe other anti's to get the greens just to look authentic.
May those who indulge in this classless activity burn in effing hell.
Here are the reasons...
1) First up there is no candidate name on the LCA. When H-1B is filed, a location specific LCA is sent along with the application/ petition.
2) On subsequent change of location, a location specific LCA is taken out and kept for office records (after displaying on the office notice boards) and copy is given to you. This LCA never has any name(s) on it. A single LCA can be taken for 10 positions. This LCA is never sent to USCIS. USCIS does not keep track of an individual's projects/ clients after the initial approval of H-1B (unless they make a site visit to your employers office and go through each and every work orders and ascertain them against existing valid LCAs, which is very unlikely considering the timeline you are quoting).
3) Yes it is a violation if an LCA is not pulled out for the new location. But that is the problem of the employer not yours and it is highly unlikely the individual will be penalized even if USCIS were to find out the violation after making a site visit.
4) If you suddenly got a nightmare, please state that in your post rather than stating it as a fact. Honest nightmares will still be discussed on this forum.
So Stop faking!!!
Thank you sir for finally putting into words what I always suspected. This is shit to attract attention to their site. That was the first place this nonsense came up and just watch how active that thread is . Everywhere else the thread dies quickly.
Other signs these threads are bull. They either give too much info (All tax returns info for the past 10 years) or too little (I got a one line RFE). Secondly look at the id of this guy "Mishras" - How many S Mishra's got this RFE. Where is the effing anonimity. Just a bunch of amateurs trying too hard to make up believe they are authentic.
The other anti's I see here posing as good guys
"GCFORMEORNOT" - Always digging up fear mongering threads to distract from our main goal
"EASTINDIA" - Real first class asshole posing as someone who is a crusader of playing by the rules.
Another reason I feel the above too are rouge is because they change their RED - GREEN status like the markets of 2008. One day they are bright red and the next day they are bright green. Basically they have teamed up each other or maybe other anti's to get the greens just to look authentic.
May those who indulge in this classless activity burn in effing hell.
perm2gc
12-22 06:08 PM
Efren Hernandez III, Director of the Business and Trade Services Branch at INS in Washington, D.C. announced in late December 2001 that the INS does not recognize or provide any "grace period" for maintaining status after employment termination. Mr. Hernandez explained this strict interpretation by reasoning that there is no difference between H1B holders and other non-immigrants, like students, to justify a stay in the U.S. beyond the explicit purpose of their admission. Mr. Hernandez admits that this may cause hardship to some terminated or laid off H1B workers, but believes that the INS position is legally justified.
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
Although the INS' strict interpretation of the law may have legal justification, the result to others seems harsh and unreasonable, considering the fact that the lay off or termination is completely beyond the control of the H1B worker. This strict INS position may also appear to be contrary to the purpose of allowing H1B workers admission to the U.S. since they helped to fill a critical need in our economy when the U.S. was suffering acute shortages of qualified, skilled workers. Perhaps, it would be more fair if the INS were to allow a reasonable grace period, perhaps 60 days, as mentioned in the June 19, 2001 INS Memo.
H1B workers should not be equated to other non-immigrants. For example, H1Bs can be distinguished from students. Students, in most cases, have exclusive control over whether they can maintain their status. Generally they determine whether they remain in school and satisfy the purpose of their admission to the U.S. If they choose not to remain in school, or they do not maintain certain passing grades or do not have sufficient funds, then they are no longer considered to be students maintaining their status and should return to their home countries. On the other hand, H1B workers enter the U.S. to engage in professional employment based on the needs of U.S. employers. They do not have exclusive control over whether they are laid off.
Although we are in a soft economy with massive employee cutbacks in a variety of fields, many of these H1B workers are able to find new employment within reasonable timeframes. Some companies, at least, are in need of these workers. Salaries have dropped in many cases and recruitment of workers from outside the U.S. has significantly slowed; but, to a large extent, the need for these existing workers remains. It would benefit U.S. companies and suit the purpose of the H1B visa program to allow a reasonable grace period for these laid-off H1B workers to seek new employment within a realistic time frame.
Adding to the woes of H1B workers, Mr. Hernandez addressed the issue of extensions of stay following brief status lapses. In short, the regulations require that an individual be in status at the time an extension of status is requested. Failure to maintain status will result in the H1B petition being granted, if appropriate, without an extension of stay. No I-94 card will be attached to the approval notice. Instead, the beneficiary will be directed to obtain a visa at a U.S. consulate in a foreign country and, only afterward, will return to lawful H1B status by re-entering the U.S. Although INS has a regulation that allows the Service to overlook brief lapses in status, extraordinary circumstances are required. Mr. Hernandez stated that even very short lapses in status are not justified in the context of terminated H1B workers, absent extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Hernandez specifically negated the existence of a ten-day grace period following employment termination. There are ten-day grace periods allowed in three other instances. These are (a) the H1B worker can be admitted to the U.S. up to 10 days prior to the validity of his/her petition; (b) the H1B worker has a ten-day grace period following the expiration of the period of admission; and (c) in the case of denials of extensions, the H1B worker is given up to ten days to depart the U.S. Unfortunately, termination of employment is not covered by any of these exceptions. Some find it hard to see why a terminated H1B worker should be treated any differently from the H1B worker whose period of H1B admission has expired. There is far less warning and predictability in cases of layoffs or of other terminations.
Rumors are also circulating about a 30-day grace period should INS deny an H1B petition or extension of status and require the person to depart the U.S. There is also a 60-day time frame, proposed by the INS itself in the June 19, 2001 Memo, analyzing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty First Century Act (AC21). In this memo, the INS discussed the law allowing a person to be eligible for H1B extensions beyond 6 years if the person previously held either H1B status or had an H1B visa. The INS surmised that the law envisioned that one who previously held H1B status should be entitled, possibly up to 60 days, to the benefits of that section of AC21. Efren Hernandez clarified that none of these grace periods applies in the case of an H1B worker who is terminated or laid off
dngoyal
07-27 04:31 PM
this is the correct information. Applicant signature is not necessary if you have an attorney representation form. I have verified this with two different attorneys and also my HR guy, who suprisingly is very knowledgeable in GC process.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
do they have to attach copy of email with the application?
In my case my application was filed on 2nd July but my attorney asked me to send the email on 3rd July just for records.
In my own case I have sent an email to the attorney authorizing them to sign on my behalf. The firm has confirmed that it is sufficient. I just off the phone with them too. 3 attorney - SAME ANSWER.
do they have to attach copy of email with the application?
In my case my application was filed on 2nd July but my attorney asked me to send the email on 3rd July just for records.
kshitijnt
04-23 08:23 AM
The statistics can be skewed in that people switch jobs after perm, people like me have filed 2nd perm application despite having an earlier 2005 application.
more...
phillyag
07-20 02:14 PM
Any expected timelines for getting the receipt notice from USCIS? I filed on Jul17th.
bskrishna
06-04 05:46 PM
Slightly off topic. But do we need to send our original BC if we are sponsoring someone other than your parents. I am in the process of sponsoring my aunt and would like to know if i need to send my orginal BC. Sorry for going off topic.
If you meant birth certificate, i do not think so is a requirement..
If you meant birth certificate, i do not think so is a requirement..
more...
feedfront
02-01 11:07 AM
Enjoy the freedom.
eager_immi
07-17 03:10 PM
Immigration Voice Announcements
UPDATE AT 3:15 PM EST TUESDAY: The latest update we received is the annoucement to be made soon will be as follows:
DHS will be rescinding its July 2 update and the initial July Visa Bulletin will take effect for 31 days � i.e., all employment-based green card categories (except for the �Other Workers� category) will be �current� and CIS will accept applications through August 17.
DHS will issue a press release to this effect later today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE AT 3:15 PM EST TUESDAY: The latest update we received is the annoucement to be made soon will be as follows:
DHS will be rescinding its July 2 update and the initial July Visa Bulletin will take effect for 31 days � i.e., all employment-based green card categories (except for the �Other Workers� category) will be �current� and CIS will accept applications through August 17.
DHS will issue a press release to this effect later today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more...
immi_seeker
07-13 08:19 PM
I agree with Eb2India, It appears to be a mistake or typo on the part of USCIS.
You should approcah them. Hopefully they will react the same way as his case and you will get extended EAD. Goodluck
thanks
You should approcah them. Hopefully they will react the same way as his case and you will get extended EAD. Goodluck
thanks
kishdam
03-20 12:39 PM
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
I didnt understand your point: Is revoking an approved I140 is mandotary for the employer when an employee leaves? Per most lawyers it is not mandotory. Yes ofcourse employers "can" revoke but the question is it necessary for their interests and how?
Revocation of an approved I140 by USCIS is may be for other reasons like incorrect info when its applied or something like that.
I didnt understand your point: Is revoking an approved I140 is mandotary for the employer when an employee leaves? Per most lawyers it is not mandotory. Yes ofcourse employers "can" revoke but the question is it necessary for their interests and how?
Revocation of an approved I140 by USCIS is may be for other reasons like incorrect info when its applied or something like that.
more...
gcformeornot
08-14 02:32 PM
Just now my lawyer called to tell that she got all my receipts , filed on july 2nd but my wifes application was rejected for "insufficient filing fees", I had put in a single check for $745 , how can this be, it was both in the same fedex packet, she says it is some "mailroom error", so she sent back the application with a letter and my receipt copy to accept. My app also had a $745 check and that was receipted,
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
to send separate checks so they can generate LIN/SRC numbers against each application.:(
Has this happned to anyone, please respond , i am wondering if what my lawyer did was correct, pls share your experiences.
to send separate checks so they can generate LIN/SRC numbers against each application.:(
martinvisalaw
01-06 05:42 PM
Thanks for all the details. Greatly appreciate your advise. Looks like lot of information needs to be collected and without a research background I think its really a long shot to justify the time effort and resources.
I agree that unless the person really is outstanding, with lots of publications, conference presentations, reference letters, journal articles, etc, it is very difficult to get an EB-1 approved as an outstanding researcher or extraordinary ability. I just filed one, for example, and the package weighed almost 5 lbs, and included 54 exhibits. Yes, it was approved!
I agree that unless the person really is outstanding, with lots of publications, conference presentations, reference letters, journal articles, etc, it is very difficult to get an EB-1 approved as an outstanding researcher or extraordinary ability. I just filed one, for example, and the package weighed almost 5 lbs, and included 54 exhibits. Yes, it was approved!
more...
piyu7444
05-08 02:21 PM
:confused:
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
I am changing job and moving to EAD from h1b. My 140 is approved and 485 has been pending more than 180 days. I am in EB2 category.
Question 1 - New employer wants to inform USCIS about job change and I dont want to do so as it just might delay AOS process? suggestions/thoughsts?
Question 2 - New employer wants to apply for EAD and AP via corporate attorney and I prefer that my attorney do that but if i will have no choice I will have to give up BUT can corporate lawyers apply for my EAD and AP without me changing my legal rep with USCIS?
Question 3 - The job title was "Sr Systems Analyst" and now it would be "System Quality Analyst 5" 5 is the highest level in this company after which it goes to Tech. Manager. I dont see issue with the title...do you see any issue? (job description are similar-I would say about 70%)
Question 4 - Salary at the time of filing 140 was 60k offered for the Sr. System Analyst position and now with the new job is 100k. Can that be a problem?
krishnam70
02-22 09:40 PM
Hi Kris,
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Amulchandra
I can assure you this is not a rumor and has happened recently in my colleague's team. I agree that this might cause lot of doubts in people's minds but I just wanted to share the info so that people don't get in to trouble. It is quite possible that this is a one off incident. People should share such information if it come's to their attention. This guy was told to return from POE
Regarding the rights of the IO at POE. I am not sure if it is within the right of the IO to decide in this case but I have read somewhere that the IO has the power to decide whom to allow or not according to the interpretation of law. I am not sure what law was used to interpret the situation here by the IO
If this post has caused unnecessary concerns I urge you to ignore it. If people who are back from visiting other countries or trips back home can post their experiences at the POE or any contradicting information then this one could just be a one off case..
good luck
kris
Can you please give the source from where you heard about this info? There are a lot of rumors being spread without any reason behind them. So this is important to find the source of the info before we get panic or make decision.
Thanks.
Amulchandra
I can assure you this is not a rumor and has happened recently in my colleague's team. I agree that this might cause lot of doubts in people's minds but I just wanted to share the info so that people don't get in to trouble. It is quite possible that this is a one off incident. People should share such information if it come's to their attention. This guy was told to return from POE
Regarding the rights of the IO at POE. I am not sure if it is within the right of the IO to decide in this case but I have read somewhere that the IO has the power to decide whom to allow or not according to the interpretation of law. I am not sure what law was used to interpret the situation here by the IO
If this post has caused unnecessary concerns I urge you to ignore it. If people who are back from visiting other countries or trips back home can post their experiences at the POE or any contradicting information then this one could just be a one off case..
good luck
kris
more...
yabadaba
07-12 08:47 AM
what the hell is AILF doing????? why hasnt the lawsuit been filed yet????
ss2005
08-05 09:00 AM
In the October 24, 2007 USCIS HQ Stakeholders Meeting, the USCIS gives the following answer:
Question: Should I be worried if I receive a different A-number after filing an application for adjustment of status on Form I-485?
Response: No, a temporary receipt process was implemented for Employment Based I-485 applications filed between July 2, 2007, and August 17, 2007. The temporary receipt process allowed USCIS to receipt the high volume of I-485 applications filed during the summer in a faster and more efficient manner. New A numbers were assigned during the receipt process. At a future date the newly assigned A numbers will be reconciled with previous A-numbers that may exist for each applicant and the newly assigned A-number will be deleted. The temporary A number will also appear on the EAD card. This temporary receipt process also facilitated the receipting of I-765 applications for employment authorization and I-131 applications for advance parole.
Question: Should I be worried if I receive a different A-number after filing an application for adjustment of status on Form I-485?
Response: No, a temporary receipt process was implemented for Employment Based I-485 applications filed between July 2, 2007, and August 17, 2007. The temporary receipt process allowed USCIS to receipt the high volume of I-485 applications filed during the summer in a faster and more efficient manner. New A numbers were assigned during the receipt process. At a future date the newly assigned A numbers will be reconciled with previous A-numbers that may exist for each applicant and the newly assigned A-number will be deleted. The temporary A number will also appear on the EAD card. This temporary receipt process also facilitated the receipting of I-765 applications for employment authorization and I-131 applications for advance parole.
more...
Siddharta
09-26 12:02 AM
1)Incase my 485 application gets denied, can I start the process again and use the PD of my current application?
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
2) Can I move to and start the GC process with another company and use the current PD (I140 approved, 180 days passed), even if my current company revokes I140 and my Job description is very different --- I'm assuming yes.
3) What if I leave the country and come back after 2-3 years and reapply. Can I reuse the PD of my current application?
I was told by a friend that the priority date is mine forever since my I140 is approved. Is that correct?
Thanks
pappu
02-18 10:20 AM
The flyer created by NJ chapter has been uploaded in the resources section
Flyer_2007 version (word file)
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=36&mosmsg=Item+succesfully+saved.
Flyer_2007 version (word file)
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=36&mosmsg=Item+succesfully+saved.
Becks
03-22 07:09 PM
You should be ok to re-enter when you have a valid AP (and valid visa/EAD if they ask) even though if you changed the jobs. I think it is risky though. We never know when will the rules change so its safe to file AC21. I did file AC21 but they never opened my AC21 file. They sent an RFE to my old employer(internal attorney) for employer letter after 1year of filing AC21. I had couple of LUDs so I thought they were for AC21 but not really. So strange things may happen. Some officers at port of entry may be too curious about these issues though if you have valid APs. They shouldnot deny the entry but you may have to go through the waiting. So my suggestion is do not delay AC21.
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
thesparky007
06-06 02:44 PM
mine are not on there?
you are kidding
you are kidding
nirdlalegcade
02-26 11:50 AM
The above said is correct only if you have an approved AP with you.
But I have only my H4 visa. I can go out of US with the H4 right?
But I have only my H4 visa. I can go out of US with the H4 right?
No comments:
Post a Comment