nashim
06-01 06:32 PM
Hi Gurus,
I have couple of questions regarding my AC21 portability, please post your thoughts on this.
My I485 was filed in July, 2007 based on approved I140 (EB3 India). Now I have new approved EB2 PERM labor from same company and I am also working for the same GC sponsor company and planning to interfile to my existing I485 so that I can capture old PD in to EB2. My question is,
1) Can I invoke AC21 immediately after interfiling or do I need to wait another 6 months after interfiling?
2) Will there be any impact on my old I485 application in case of interfiling denial?
thanks
I have couple of questions regarding my AC21 portability, please post your thoughts on this.
My I485 was filed in July, 2007 based on approved I140 (EB3 India). Now I have new approved EB2 PERM labor from same company and I am also working for the same GC sponsor company and planning to interfile to my existing I485 so that I can capture old PD in to EB2. My question is,
1) Can I invoke AC21 immediately after interfiling or do I need to wait another 6 months after interfiling?
2) Will there be any impact on my old I485 application in case of interfiling denial?
thanks
wallpaper Hello Kitty - Wallpaper
FrankZulu
08-20 02:37 PM
For all those waiting for approval, its does help to find out if a visa number has been requested for your application. My understanding is that all the applications which are ready for adjudication are moved to a separate area and visa number is requested for those.Infact if you can find out (I think the guys at Infopass only have access to that information. Not sure if the level 2 service does) it helps. If a visa number has been assigned or requested for your application it will get approved.
I am not sure if assigned to an officer or with an officer status has any material value when it comes to approval unless a visa number has been requested.
You might be right. Check the response senator got from USCIS on Aug 6th. I was later approved on Aug 16th.
-------------------------------
In reviewing the August Visa Bulletin, it does appear that visas will be available after August 1st for these employment-based adjustment cases. In reviewing the electronic records, it does appear that the contractor has placed these cases in a location where they will be pulled and sent to an officer. We are unable to request the files be moved to an Adjudications Officer because our Records Division is running an electronic sweep to pull the files with available visas. Files will be pulled through this sweep and sent to an Officer. We are generally processing about 4000 employment-based cases a month and the cases with available visas are being pulled through these sweeps.
-----------------------
I am not sure if assigned to an officer or with an officer status has any material value when it comes to approval unless a visa number has been requested.
You might be right. Check the response senator got from USCIS on Aug 6th. I was later approved on Aug 16th.
-------------------------------
In reviewing the August Visa Bulletin, it does appear that visas will be available after August 1st for these employment-based adjustment cases. In reviewing the electronic records, it does appear that the contractor has placed these cases in a location where they will be pulled and sent to an officer. We are unable to request the files be moved to an Adjudications Officer because our Records Division is running an electronic sweep to pull the files with available visas. Files will be pulled through this sweep and sent to an Officer. We are generally processing about 4000 employment-based cases a month and the cases with available visas are being pulled through these sweeps.
-----------------------
vbkris77
05-04 08:09 PM
OK Guys, it is not part of INA but part of CFR which is I believe admin decision. But I leave it to IV core to decide.
Below is the link
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/42-32-employment-based-preference-immigrants-19720782
TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS
CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SUBCHAPTER E - VISAS
PART 42 - VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED
subpart d - IMMIGRANTS SUBJECT TO NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS
42.32 - Employment - based preference immigrants.
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as indicated below.
(a) First preferencePriority workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based first preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(1) if the consular office has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such Preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(1).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based first preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(b) Second preferenceProfessionals with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based second preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(2) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(2).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based second preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(c) Third preferenceSkilled workers, professionals, other workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based third preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(3) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(3).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based third preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
Below is the link
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/42-32-employment-based-preference-immigrants-19720782
TITLE 22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS
CHAPTER I - DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SUBCHAPTER E - VISAS
PART 42 - VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED
subpart d - IMMIGRANTS SUBJECT TO NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS
42.32 - Employment - based preference immigrants.
Aliens subject to the worldwide level specified in section 201(d) for employment-based immigrants in a fiscal year shall be allotted visas as indicated below.
(a) First preferencePriority workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based first preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(1) if the consular office has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such Preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(1).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based first preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(b) Second preferenceProfessionals with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based second preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(2) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(2).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based second preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
(c) Third preferenceSkilled workers, professionals, other workers(1) Entitlement to status. An alien shall be classifiable as an employment-based third preference immigrant under INA 203(b)(3) if the consular officer has received from INS a Petition for Immigrant Worker approved in accordance with INA 204 to accord the alien such preference status, or official notification of such an approval, and the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is within one of the classes described in INA 203(b)(3).
(2) Entitlement to derivative status. Pursuant to INA 203(d), and whether or not named in the petition, the child or spouse of an employment-based third preference immigrant, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa, is entitled to a derivative status corresponding to the classification and priority date of the beneficiary of the petition.
2011 Cute Hello Kitty
JunRN
08-31 05:30 PM
One more week for me....I'm a July 31st filer...
more...
tonyHK12
02-22 09:04 AM
thanks members for your contribution
Total Contributions...........$7,125.00
Amount to be raised.......$42,875.00
.
.
Total Contributions...........$7,125.00
Amount to be raised.......$42,875.00
.
.
gccovet
07-24 12:47 PM
EAD Paper filed at TCS EB2 ROW
USCIS Receipt date: April 18, 08
FP done: July 22, 08
No LUDs, No EAD yet.
Kodi,
Was the FP for I-485?
I am quite sure FP is not requested for paper based filing. FP for you is misleading.
GCCovet
USCIS Receipt date: April 18, 08
FP done: July 22, 08
No LUDs, No EAD yet.
Kodi,
Was the FP for I-485?
I am quite sure FP is not requested for paper based filing. FP for you is misleading.
GCCovet
more...
CADude
05-23 05:13 PM
I webfax and send email to CA Senetor.
2010 Cute Hello Kitty Local
cjagtap
08-02 02:53 PM
My 140 was approved in 10 days from TSC and my attorney sent my 485 to TSC (they send the applications to the same ctr where your 140 got approved),my 485 reached on July 2 nd..no receipt yet ,no check cashed yet..
may be we should just wait for another 10 working days.They are still working on June cases(TSC)
may be we should just wait for another 10 working days.They are still working on June cases(TSC)
more...
coolcat
06-17 12:18 PM
Mailed to NSC on: May 31st.
Mailed From State: AZ
Received at NSC on: June 1st
Transferred to TSC on: ?
140 approved from : CSC
Receipt Date :?:confused:
Notice date :?
Mailed to NSC on: May 31st.
Mailed From State: AZ
Received at NSC on: June 1st
140 approved from : CSC
Receipt Date : Received (by lawyers) on Jun 16th.
Mailed From State: AZ
Received at NSC on: June 1st
Transferred to TSC on: ?
140 approved from : CSC
Receipt Date :?:confused:
Notice date :?
Mailed to NSC on: May 31st.
Mailed From State: AZ
Received at NSC on: June 1st
140 approved from : CSC
Receipt Date : Received (by lawyers) on Jun 16th.
hair Hello+kitty+wallpaper+
Prashant
07-02 10:13 PM
Hello folks,
This might be the right time for it, we sure will get media attention if lot of us participate.
Edited by Moderator:
"Kindly do not return our I-485 petitions in July and honor the original DOS visa bulletin"
[ first-name last-name ] - An employment based immigrant.
Just a thought
This might be the right time for it, we sure will get media attention if lot of us participate.
Edited by Moderator:
"Kindly do not return our I-485 petitions in July and honor the original DOS visa bulletin"
[ first-name last-name ] - An employment based immigrant.
Just a thought
more...
smohan
07-20 03:51 AM
hello anzerraja
By putting date coloumn in the Excel sheet, this sheet will provide a reader the trend in the pledge making. Most of the techies are always curious...sniff-sniff type you know.
thanks
Thanks Mohan !!!
By putting date coloumn in the Excel sheet, this sheet will provide a reader the trend in the pledge making. Most of the techies are always curious...sniff-sniff type you know.
thanks
Thanks Mohan !!!
hot Filed in: Cute amp; Funny
kondur_007
08-18 02:48 PM
Everybody has been waiting for his/her green card and congratulations to all those who has got their GC. On the other hand it is really unfair and to some extent unethical on the part of USICS not follow a fair system.
There are several people in 2004, 2005 who have been paitently waiting for their turn only to see that people behind them getting approved.
Several of us have writtent to Ombudsman, Director but of no avail.
Not sure what else can be done? Any Idea? Do we have any liaison with AILA who can take up this matter.
I can understand the frustration here. The problem is, USCIS has been doing this for several years and everyone knows this.
Even Ombudsman mention this in his report! So I dont think we can write much of letters about this...it is a well known and acknowledged fact!
Now what is the solution? The problem is USCIS claims that they do not have enough resouces to implement FIFO. Or may be they do not have a system to utilize available resources to do so.
This is not likely to change in next couple of months. So with all due respect, everyone with current PD but still waiting for GC will just have to wait and hope for the best. I wish my good luck to all. The best we can expect from USCIS at this point is to use all the visa numbers and not to waste any.
On a long run, this does need to change. It will take several months or years to change and it is worthwhile to attempt our efforts in that direction. Or suggest something in that line to include in upcoming CIR next year.
any thoughts?
There are several people in 2004, 2005 who have been paitently waiting for their turn only to see that people behind them getting approved.
Several of us have writtent to Ombudsman, Director but of no avail.
Not sure what else can be done? Any Idea? Do we have any liaison with AILA who can take up this matter.
I can understand the frustration here. The problem is, USCIS has been doing this for several years and everyone knows this.
Even Ombudsman mention this in his report! So I dont think we can write much of letters about this...it is a well known and acknowledged fact!
Now what is the solution? The problem is USCIS claims that they do not have enough resouces to implement FIFO. Or may be they do not have a system to utilize available resources to do so.
This is not likely to change in next couple of months. So with all due respect, everyone with current PD but still waiting for GC will just have to wait and hope for the best. I wish my good luck to all. The best we can expect from USCIS at this point is to use all the visa numbers and not to waste any.
On a long run, this does need to change. It will take several months or years to change and it is worthwhile to attempt our efforts in that direction. Or suggest something in that line to include in upcoming CIR next year.
any thoughts?
more...
house Tags: hello kitty wallpaper,
go_gc_way
10-22 01:44 PM
Of all the threads , I found this is one of the most relevant threads discussing our problem..
So there will be a lame duck session where at our retrogression problem will be discussed again. And chances of passing a relief are tough.
What is economic recession's impact on retrogression when is it predicted , does any one know?
So there will be a lame duck session where at our retrogression problem will be discussed again. And chances of passing a relief are tough.
What is economic recession's impact on retrogression when is it predicted , does any one know?
tattoo Hello Kitty
fetch_gc
09-05 11:39 AM
Hi Guys,
Self and Spouse 485/131/765 applications reached USCIS@NSC on July 16th,2007.
No signs of any receipt notices yet??
pls count me in.
NSC EB3 INDIA
(SUBST LABOR,NJ)
PD:APRIL, 2002
I-140 AD: OCTOBER,2005
I-485/131/765: Sent (arrived )on 07/16/2007
Notices??????
Self and Spouse 485/131/765 applications reached USCIS@NSC on July 16th,2007.
No signs of any receipt notices yet??
pls count me in.
NSC EB3 INDIA
(SUBST LABOR,NJ)
PD:APRIL, 2002
I-140 AD: OCTOBER,2005
I-485/131/765: Sent (arrived )on 07/16/2007
Notices??????
more...
pictures Hello Kitty-Green Wallpeper
akambh01
12-03 05:11 PM
I am sorry to hear your situation.You will Survive Mehul. dont loose the hope. I strongly believe this time for some reason my sixth sense is telling me that you will survive...please dont loose the hope please
Thanks
Ajay
Thanks
Ajay
dresses hello kitty wallpaper ipad.
desi3933
06-26 09:04 AM
.
For most of the jobs, employer must accept any worker who is authorized to work in the US. In other words, US citizens, Permanent Residents (aka Green Card holders), and EAD (person authorized to work for any employer by USCIS). From legal point of view, employer can not discriminate between GC holder and EAD. If job is advertised as for Citizens only, applicant has right to ask for such reason.
Now, in order to qualify as person who has been wrongly discriminated
1. he/she must be otherwise qualified for job (example job asks for dot net and person has java experience)
and
2. he/she MUST have applied for the job.
Employer can not discriminate because of
1. Expiry date of EAD
2. Reason for Issue of EAD (I-485 based, L2 visa, F1 visa etc)
Having said that, there could be valid grounds that job is qualified only for US citizens or US citizens with specific security clearance. Applicant, in this case, has right to ask for reasons for such requirement.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
For most of the jobs, employer must accept any worker who is authorized to work in the US. In other words, US citizens, Permanent Residents (aka Green Card holders), and EAD (person authorized to work for any employer by USCIS). From legal point of view, employer can not discriminate between GC holder and EAD. If job is advertised as for Citizens only, applicant has right to ask for such reason.
Now, in order to qualify as person who has been wrongly discriminated
1. he/she must be otherwise qualified for job (example job asks for dot net and person has java experience)
and
2. he/she MUST have applied for the job.
Employer can not discriminate because of
1. Expiry date of EAD
2. Reason for Issue of EAD (I-485 based, L2 visa, F1 visa etc)
Having said that, there could be valid grounds that job is qualified only for US citizens or US citizens with specific security clearance. Applicant, in this case, has right to ask for reasons for such requirement.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
makeup Cute Hello Kitty On Colorful
buddyinsd
08-25 05:04 PM
I'm guessing ppl who got LUDs recently (mostly on 21st) have been assigned visa numbers which are going to be released only nxt month and they will be approved only in the beginning of Sept.
Visa numbers for this month have been used up. And going by the # of ppl who got LUDs even if they were not current, my assumption is that their applications were in the same box as the ones who were current and it was a mass update. I think come Sept, they're going to take all applications out of the "LUD Boxes" and sort out only those who are current and start approving them.
Again, its all assumptions...Nobody knows for sure whats going on...
Visa numbers for this month have been used up. And going by the # of ppl who got LUDs even if they were not current, my assumption is that their applications were in the same box as the ones who were current and it was a mass update. I think come Sept, they're going to take all applications out of the "LUD Boxes" and sort out only those who are current and start approving them.
Again, its all assumptions...Nobody knows for sure whats going on...
girlfriend hello kitty wallpaper
gcspace
01-21 01:29 PM
I have EB2 PERM and EB3 I140 approved. Since my EB3 PD date is earlier than EB2 PD , my lawyer filed my 485 with EB3 I140.
Is there any way to find from 485 receipt or application which I140 was used for filing ?
Is there any way to find from 485 receipt or application which I140 was used for filing ?
hairstyles I am missing a cute Hello
abracadabra
07-07 02:34 PM
Is it happening today?? There is no media coverage
gccovet
05-12 01:08 PM
June VB is out !
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4231.html
For India:
EB2 - Progressed to 1APR04
EB3- Did not change.
EB3 other - No change (1 Jan 03)
ROW- EB2- Current
ROW- EB3- 1 Mar 06
ROW- EB3Others- 1 Jan 03.
For China
EB2 - Progressed to 1APR04
EB3- 22Mar 03.
EB3 other - No change (1 Jan 03)
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4231.html
For India:
EB2 - Progressed to 1APR04
EB3- Did not change.
EB3 other - No change (1 Jan 03)
ROW- EB2- Current
ROW- EB3- 1 Mar 06
ROW- EB3Others- 1 Jan 03.
For China
EB2 - Progressed to 1APR04
EB3- 22Mar 03.
EB3 other - No change (1 Jan 03)
sankap
07-10 12:47 PM
@desi3933:
Are you suggesting that AC-21 job does not need to be bonafide?
Then you claimed that AC-21 job does not be same/similar to labor/I-140.
Where did I say that AC-21 job does not need to be the same as I-140 petition? It's clearly a requirement on the Yates memo. "Do you even read what are you saying" (to quote you)?
Second, re "permanent" job, the Yates memo clearly doesn't say that requirement--the RFE you quoted does . Also, since no source has been able to define what a "permanent" job is, I said that ALL contract jobs and self-employment can be shown to be permanent. Surprisingly, your interpretation is that NO H-1B job is "permanent!"
Now you have changed stand on these two after seeing one RFE example.
I did not change my stand on "permanent" job--no source has been able to define what that is. So, inserting that in the EVL in case of as RFE should not be a problem.
Now, you are saying new AC-21 job does not be bonafide.
I'm not saying that the "AC-21-job does not be bona fide." You *assumed* that, which is what you need to stop in your arguments. All I asked you is, where did you read that?
Do you even read what are you saying?
.
Are you suggesting that AC-21 job does not need to be bonafide?
Then you claimed that AC-21 job does not be same/similar to labor/I-140.
Where did I say that AC-21 job does not need to be the same as I-140 petition? It's clearly a requirement on the Yates memo. "Do you even read what are you saying" (to quote you)?
Second, re "permanent" job, the Yates memo clearly doesn't say that requirement--the RFE you quoted does . Also, since no source has been able to define what a "permanent" job is, I said that ALL contract jobs and self-employment can be shown to be permanent. Surprisingly, your interpretation is that NO H-1B job is "permanent!"
Now you have changed stand on these two after seeing one RFE example.
I did not change my stand on "permanent" job--no source has been able to define what that is. So, inserting that in the EVL in case of as RFE should not be a problem.
Now, you are saying new AC-21 job does not be bonafide.
I'm not saying that the "AC-21-job does not be bona fide." You *assumed* that, which is what you need to stop in your arguments. All I asked you is, where did you read that?
Do you even read what are you saying?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment