chanduv23
09-17 12:46 PM
That is pretty smart. In this country, if you leave those 2-3 year olds by themselves you end up in jail.
Come on Andy - I am looking forward to see you in DC
Come on Andy - I am looking forward to see you in DC
wallpaper funny sayings and quotes about
dish
03-27 11:09 AM
Senator Cornyn will be sponsoring talent bill. Any more info ?
11785181
10-26 10:48 PM
I got my EAD and AP but no sign of fingerprinting. My wife has also not got her EAD. It is past 90 days now. Please anyone advise. Called the USCIS and someone just read from the website that EAD is pending.
No sign of fingerprinting yet. Anyone please guide. Thanks
No sign of fingerprinting yet. Anyone please guide. Thanks
2011 funny sayings and quotes
gcisadawg
09-09 11:38 PM
To reactivate your h1b you need to resenter the us using your h1b visa stamp, if you don't have an h1b visa stamp you would need to get it stamped at a consulate
No, to re-activate, all that is needed is a h1B extension or amendment petition. An I-94 would would come along with that and that would put you on H1B status again.
No, to re-activate, all that is needed is a h1B extension or amendment petition. An I-94 would would come along with that and that would put you on H1B status again.
more...
pappu
02-02 02:54 PM
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Naturalization
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
vallabhu
07-30 11:54 AM
I applied on April 17th and got it approved on May 30th.
more...
sandy_anand
10-04 01:32 PM
Thanks for the link
You're welcome, little_willy.
You're welcome, little_willy.
2010 funny sayings wallpapers for
gc_chahiye
07-19 01:55 AM
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-4.html
Am I barred from having a second adjustment application pending if I decide to file another case based on a different I-140 approval?
There is little definitive guidance from USCIS regarding submission of a second I-485 petition or substitution of a new I-140 in an existing adjustment case. Theoretically, there is no bar to either practice though in the latter case a priority date needs to be available for the new I-140. The service centers have been inconsistent in their treatment of both of these kinds of cases and he should proceed extremely cautiously before pursuing either.
Am I barred from having a second adjustment application pending if I decide to file another case based on a different I-140 approval?
There is little definitive guidance from USCIS regarding submission of a second I-485 petition or substitution of a new I-140 in an existing adjustment case. Theoretically, there is no bar to either practice though in the latter case a priority date needs to be available for the new I-140. The service centers have been inconsistent in their treatment of both of these kinds of cases and he should proceed extremely cautiously before pursuing either.
more...
krishnam70
07-04 10:29 AM
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/2007/07/03/the-cis-has-really-outdone-itself-this-time/
CIS has really outdone itself this time
The CIS has a long and dishonorable history. They have done many unconscionable things in their past, as individuals and as an institution. They are rife with corruption and incompetence. They willfully refuse to follow the law. Their latest stunt, however, tops anything they have done before.
According to the CIS Ombudsman, the CIS has wasted more than half a million employment based immigrant visas in the last decade. A few years ago, they reserved a huge block of EB immigrant visa numbers with the excuse that they were going to use them to close out a large number of backlogged adjustment of status applications. The result was that the Visa Office had to suddenly retrogress Visa Bulletin cutoff dates. The CIS, of course, didn�t close out even a small fraction of the cases they said they were going to close and tens of thousands of visa numbers were irretrievably lost. Cynical minds believe that they did this deliberately to force a retrogression and stop the filing of additional applications.
This year, determined to prevent the further waste of visa numbers, the Visa Office advanced cutoff dates so that as many EB immigrant visas as possible could be issued before the end of the fiscal year. A few months earlier, the CIS Ombudsman warned that CIS incompetence and inability to reduce adjustment of status backlogs would likely result in the irrevocable loss of at least 40,000 EB immigrant visa numbers.
The CIS was said to be very upset by the Visa Office action. They fumed and stomped and finally came up with a plan. This past weekend, they brought in the entire staff of the NSC and TSC and had them pull files. They pulled more than 60,000 pending adjustment of status files and then ordered visa numbers for all of them. Understand, many (most) of these files were missing background security check results and can not be closed. It didn�t matter, the CIS has no intention of closing them, they just wanted to find enough files to order all of the remaining visa numbers and force a retrogression of cutoff dates. This is why the Visa Office had to issue the update yesterday, announcing that there were no more EB visa numbers available for the remainder of the fiscal year.
By law, the CIS must return all visa numbers they have not used within seven days. Don�t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Consider the effort the CIS put into their scheme to frustrate the plans of thousands of intending applicants. How much overtime pay will the taxpayers have to fork over for this? Worse, I very seriously doubt that we will see more than a few cases actually closed. They will have gone through this entire expensive effort for no reason other than to show that they are capable of throwing an institutional tempter tantrum. At the end of the day, they will again have irrevocably wasted tens of thousands of EB immigrant visa numbers and pushed visa cutoff days back even further.
And people wonder why we have an immigration problem.
This entry was posted on July 3, 2007 at 10:22 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/2007/07/03/more-evidence-of-illegality-in-the-update/
CIS has really outdone itself this time
The CIS has a long and dishonorable history. They have done many unconscionable things in their past, as individuals and as an institution. They are rife with corruption and incompetence. They willfully refuse to follow the law. Their latest stunt, however, tops anything they have done before.
According to the CIS Ombudsman, the CIS has wasted more than half a million employment based immigrant visas in the last decade. A few years ago, they reserved a huge block of EB immigrant visa numbers with the excuse that they were going to use them to close out a large number of backlogged adjustment of status applications. The result was that the Visa Office had to suddenly retrogress Visa Bulletin cutoff dates. The CIS, of course, didn�t close out even a small fraction of the cases they said they were going to close and tens of thousands of visa numbers were irretrievably lost. Cynical minds believe that they did this deliberately to force a retrogression and stop the filing of additional applications.
This year, determined to prevent the further waste of visa numbers, the Visa Office advanced cutoff dates so that as many EB immigrant visas as possible could be issued before the end of the fiscal year. A few months earlier, the CIS Ombudsman warned that CIS incompetence and inability to reduce adjustment of status backlogs would likely result in the irrevocable loss of at least 40,000 EB immigrant visa numbers.
The CIS was said to be very upset by the Visa Office action. They fumed and stomped and finally came up with a plan. This past weekend, they brought in the entire staff of the NSC and TSC and had them pull files. They pulled more than 60,000 pending adjustment of status files and then ordered visa numbers for all of them. Understand, many (most) of these files were missing background security check results and can not be closed. It didn�t matter, the CIS has no intention of closing them, they just wanted to find enough files to order all of the remaining visa numbers and force a retrogression of cutoff dates. This is why the Visa Office had to issue the update yesterday, announcing that there were no more EB visa numbers available for the remainder of the fiscal year.
By law, the CIS must return all visa numbers they have not used within seven days. Don�t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Consider the effort the CIS put into their scheme to frustrate the plans of thousands of intending applicants. How much overtime pay will the taxpayers have to fork over for this? Worse, I very seriously doubt that we will see more than a few cases actually closed. They will have gone through this entire expensive effort for no reason other than to show that they are capable of throwing an institutional tempter tantrum. At the end of the day, they will again have irrevocably wasted tens of thousands of EB immigrant visa numbers and pushed visa cutoff days back even further.
And people wonder why we have an immigration problem.
This entry was posted on July 3, 2007 at 10:22 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
http://s202395528.onlinehome.us/2007/07/03/more-evidence-of-illegality-in-the-update/
hair funny quotes about life and
devan
11-04 09:17 AM
Hello gurus,
3 Years back, before applying my 485 and my labor was pending status, i came to know that the need of birth certificate at I485 stage and I asked the records from the local panchayat and they could not find out any records on my name. Then filed the complaint in the court by providing the my passport, mark statements. After many weeks, the court ordered to provide me the birth certificate with the delayed registration 3 years back that is only on 2007. Now i have the birth certificate with the delayed registration, Now in this situvation, is it possible to go to the municipality to ask them the non-availability certificate ?
Thanks
Devan
3 Years back, before applying my 485 and my labor was pending status, i came to know that the need of birth certificate at I485 stage and I asked the records from the local panchayat and they could not find out any records on my name. Then filed the complaint in the court by providing the my passport, mark statements. After many weeks, the court ordered to provide me the birth certificate with the delayed registration 3 years back that is only on 2007. Now i have the birth certificate with the delayed registration, Now in this situvation, is it possible to go to the municipality to ask them the non-availability certificate ?
Thanks
Devan
more...
amitpan007
10-19 04:33 PM
These are the job codes from DOL and mine was 15-1031. I am in similar area Oracle Applications. Hope this helps.
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1011 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
15-1021 Computer Programmers
15-1031 Computer Software Engineers, Applications
15-1032 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software
15-1041 Computer Support Specialists
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
15-1061 Database Administrators
15-1071 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
15-1081 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
15-1099 Computer Specialists, All Other
15-2011 Actuaries
15-2021 Mathematicians
15-2031 Operations Research Analysts
15-2041 Statisticians
15-2091 Mathematical Technicians
15-2099 Mathematical Science Occupations, All Other
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1011 Computer and Information Scientists, Research
15-1021 Computer Programmers
15-1031 Computer Software Engineers, Applications
15-1032 Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software
15-1041 Computer Support Specialists
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
15-1061 Database Administrators
15-1071 Network and Computer Systems Administrators
15-1081 Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts
15-1099 Computer Specialists, All Other
15-2011 Actuaries
15-2021 Mathematicians
15-2031 Operations Research Analysts
15-2041 Statisticians
15-2091 Mathematical Technicians
15-2099 Mathematical Science Occupations, All Other
hot hot funny sayings and quotes
.gif "Funny Sayings, Quotes")
jkays94
03-22 09:51 PM
Thanks for the information. I have sent a personal e-mail to Senator Chambliss following up on the phone conversating and requesting a meeting. I have also sent personal e-mails to my other representatives. I will call them on Friday.
You're welcome, great! keep us updated, I believe most of the Senators are unaware of the impact and plight of high skilled employment based GC applicants. The eventual fate in the house of the immigration provisions in S1932 has indeed created the false impression in the senate that these issues were addressed in the bill. Keep up the good work, its important that we get the message urgently to the different senate offices given that Senator Frist indeeds to have one of the Comprehensive Immigration bills debated on the senate floor starting this coming Monday (March 27th)
You're welcome, great! keep us updated, I believe most of the Senators are unaware of the impact and plight of high skilled employment based GC applicants. The eventual fate in the house of the immigration provisions in S1932 has indeed created the false impression in the senate that these issues were addressed in the bill. Keep up the good work, its important that we get the message urgently to the different senate offices given that Senator Frist indeeds to have one of the Comprehensive Immigration bills debated on the senate floor starting this coming Monday (March 27th)
more...
house cute life quotes and sayings
PD_Dec2002
07-07 09:49 PM
I have described my situation below. Can someone please tell me if they have ever encountered this and what is the best avenue to take?
1. My LC was sent back to me on Tues (after 4 years).
2. It was neither denied nor approved. They said that I did not make at least 95% of prevailing wage rate.
3. I am currently a little less than that if I can take into account all bonuses etc.
4. The company's immigration lawyer (outside counsel) is saying that if I think that I will probably meet the wage rate threshhold by the time entire GC process is complete, then it's OK to amend LC and say that, "Yes, I am making that much money".
5. Else - other option is to challenge the DOLs definition of prevailing wage rate.
6. Company lawyer/HR (I don't think any of them have any immigration law background) are all confused about it. They are not sure whether I can take bonuses into account. If I don't - then it is less likely that I wil reach prevailing wage rate at next review.
7. Also - they are uncomfortable saying that I WILL meet PW. I guess they think that I will hold them to it and then just slack off until my review.
What should I do???
I only know the answer for Q6. No, you cannot take bonus and other perks into account to calculate your total compensation or wage for DOL. The DOL wage has to be the annual salary that you will earn...as shown in your pay stubs.
Thanks,
Jayant
1. My LC was sent back to me on Tues (after 4 years).
2. It was neither denied nor approved. They said that I did not make at least 95% of prevailing wage rate.
3. I am currently a little less than that if I can take into account all bonuses etc.
4. The company's immigration lawyer (outside counsel) is saying that if I think that I will probably meet the wage rate threshhold by the time entire GC process is complete, then it's OK to amend LC and say that, "Yes, I am making that much money".
5. Else - other option is to challenge the DOLs definition of prevailing wage rate.
6. Company lawyer/HR (I don't think any of them have any immigration law background) are all confused about it. They are not sure whether I can take bonuses into account. If I don't - then it is less likely that I wil reach prevailing wage rate at next review.
7. Also - they are uncomfortable saying that I WILL meet PW. I guess they think that I will hold them to it and then just slack off until my review.
What should I do???
I only know the answer for Q6. No, you cannot take bonus and other perks into account to calculate your total compensation or wage for DOL. The DOL wage has to be the annual salary that you will earn...as shown in your pay stubs.
Thanks,
Jayant
tattoo quotes|Funny sayings|Funny
TeddyKoochu
12-28 10:58 AM
I don't have the I-797A's I-94 which was attached to the bottom since I had to submit that in Jan 2009 when I'd visited India and come back to the US with H1-B stamping. I do have a copy of this I-797A's I-94...would giving this copy be better than not providing any at all? Thanks, Vick
You are actually expected to provide the latest I94, I believe that your employer may have filed an I9 based on your latest I94, just find the I94 # and the local customs and immigration at the airport should be able to issue you a new one. If you have a copy or the number of this one it would help.
You are actually expected to provide the latest I94, I believe that your employer may have filed an I9 based on your latest I94, just find the I94 # and the local customs and immigration at the airport should be able to issue you a new one. If you have a copy or the number of this one it would help.
more...
pictures quotes and sayings about life
starscream
04-21 05:42 PM
Hi All,
Anybody got any H1B extensions approved in the last 2 months - Please reply to this thread.
Been hearing things that H1B extensions are getting RFEd and even denied. Don't want to depend on rumors.
Thanks
Anybody got any H1B extensions approved in the last 2 months - Please reply to this thread.
Been hearing things that H1B extensions are getting RFEd and even denied. Don't want to depend on rumors.
Thanks
dresses Funny Sayings, Quotes
Ann Ruben
01-26 10:05 PM
The officer who interviewed you was absolutely incorrect. If you have maintained valid H-1B status you are NOT required to obtain an Advance Parole in order to travel without abandoning your AOS application.The following text from the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual makes this clear:
__________________________________________________ ______________
USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Chapter 23.2
…….(2) Exceptions to the General Rule .
Certain applicants for adjustment of status before USCIS are not considered to have abandoned their applications simply by having departed from the U.S., even if they did not obtain an advance parole prior to their departure. The following aliens fall within the exceptions to the general rule:
(A) H and L Nonimmigrants with “Dual Intent.”
Under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(16)(i) and 8 CFR 214.2(l)(16) , H-1B, H-1C, L-1A, and L-1B nonimmigrants, and their dependent family members in H-4 or L-2 nonimmigrant classification, may be eligible to maintain and extend their nonimmigrant status while their applications for permanent residence under section 245 of the Act remain pending. The approval of a labor certification or preference visa petition or the filing of an adjustment of status application may not be the basis for a denial of an application for extension of stay by an H-1B, H-1C, or L-1 nonimmigrant or an application for change of status within the H-1B, H-1C, or L-1 classifications.
As long as an H-1B, H-1C, and L-1 nonimmigrant remains compliant with his or her nonimmigrant classification, including restrictions on periods of stay, changes in employers, and conditions of employment, the mere fact that he or she has filed an application for adjustment of status does not render him or her ineligible for an extension of nonimmigrant status. Similarly, the mere fact than an alien has filed an application for adjustment of status does not make him or her ineligible for nonimmigrant classification as an H-1B, H-1C, or L-1.
Under 8 CFR 245.2a(4)(ii)(C) , H-1/H-4 or L-1/L-2 nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants who are not in exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings are not required to seek advance parole to travel abroad. They may be readmitted to the United States in the same status they maintained at the time of their departure, provided that they are able to demonstrate to the immigration officer at a port of entry that they:
• remain eligible for H-1/H-4 or L-1/L-2 classification,
• are in possession of a valid H-1/H-4 or L-1/L-2 nonimmigrant visa (if a visa is required), and
• are coming to resume employment with the same employer for whom they had been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant (or, in the case of dependents, the spouse or parent through whom they received their H-4 or L-2 status is maintaining his or her H-1 or L-1 status).
If there has been a recent change of employer or extension of stay, the applicant, in order to comply with the third requirement noted above, must have evidence of an approved I-129 petition in the form of a notation on the nonimmigrant visa indicating the petition number and the employer’s name, or a notice of action, Form I-797, indicating approval.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________As you can see, there is no requirement that the AOS application be employment based. The regulation, 8 CFR 245.2a(4)(ii)(C) clearly applies to all H-1/H-4 and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants, and not just those adjusting status based on employment.
Ann
__________________________________________________ ______________
USCIS Adjudicator’s Field Manual, Chapter 23.2
…….(2) Exceptions to the General Rule .
Certain applicants for adjustment of status before USCIS are not considered to have abandoned their applications simply by having departed from the U.S., even if they did not obtain an advance parole prior to their departure. The following aliens fall within the exceptions to the general rule:
(A) H and L Nonimmigrants with “Dual Intent.”
Under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(16)(i) and 8 CFR 214.2(l)(16) , H-1B, H-1C, L-1A, and L-1B nonimmigrants, and their dependent family members in H-4 or L-2 nonimmigrant classification, may be eligible to maintain and extend their nonimmigrant status while their applications for permanent residence under section 245 of the Act remain pending. The approval of a labor certification or preference visa petition or the filing of an adjustment of status application may not be the basis for a denial of an application for extension of stay by an H-1B, H-1C, or L-1 nonimmigrant or an application for change of status within the H-1B, H-1C, or L-1 classifications.
As long as an H-1B, H-1C, and L-1 nonimmigrant remains compliant with his or her nonimmigrant classification, including restrictions on periods of stay, changes in employers, and conditions of employment, the mere fact that he or she has filed an application for adjustment of status does not render him or her ineligible for an extension of nonimmigrant status. Similarly, the mere fact than an alien has filed an application for adjustment of status does not make him or her ineligible for nonimmigrant classification as an H-1B, H-1C, or L-1.
Under 8 CFR 245.2a(4)(ii)(C) , H-1/H-4 or L-1/L-2 nonimmigrant adjustment of status applicants who are not in exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings are not required to seek advance parole to travel abroad. They may be readmitted to the United States in the same status they maintained at the time of their departure, provided that they are able to demonstrate to the immigration officer at a port of entry that they:
• remain eligible for H-1/H-4 or L-1/L-2 classification,
• are in possession of a valid H-1/H-4 or L-1/L-2 nonimmigrant visa (if a visa is required), and
• are coming to resume employment with the same employer for whom they had been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant (or, in the case of dependents, the spouse or parent through whom they received their H-4 or L-2 status is maintaining his or her H-1 or L-1 status).
If there has been a recent change of employer or extension of stay, the applicant, in order to comply with the third requirement noted above, must have evidence of an approved I-129 petition in the form of a notation on the nonimmigrant visa indicating the petition number and the employer’s name, or a notice of action, Form I-797, indicating approval.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________As you can see, there is no requirement that the AOS application be employment based. The regulation, 8 CFR 245.2a(4)(ii)(C) clearly applies to all H-1/H-4 and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants, and not just those adjusting status based on employment.
Ann
more...
makeup funny sayings and quotes for
kams
08-08 04:40 PM
Damn, I am in the same boat! PD Dec 2004 RD July 27 2007.:mad:
girlfriend Life Quotes amp; Sayings Funny
getta05
03-27 10:40 PM
Oh no
Im on a L2 visa.
Im on a L2 visa.
hairstyles life quotes and sayings
yabadaba
06-20 09:23 AM
take a photo of yourself with a digital camera....go to epassportphoto.com upload the photo and crop it...save the output jpeg and upload to walgreens. Print from there
total cost 19 cents
total cost 19 cents
chantu
09-18 10:13 PM
I am planning to book tickets for my parents travelling from India to US and returning back to India after 2 months. I have some questions:
1) Is it necessary to book tickets in India?
2) If not, Can I book tickets through orbitz or expedia in the US and send them the e-tickets?
Please reply with your experiences.
Thanks in advance!
1) Is it necessary to book tickets in India?
2) If not, Can I book tickets through orbitz or expedia in the US and send them the e-tickets?
Please reply with your experiences.
Thanks in advance!
anilsal
12-19 10:41 AM
I think the Sen.Cornyn's staff do not mind when we call. They like people that support their bill. We have to call just to maintain the momentum.
Sen.'s office in DC
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
Sen.'s office in DC
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
0 comments:
Post a Comment