abhijitp
03-17 06:52 PM
Bumping up!
wallpaper one shouldered wedding dresses
vaishalikumar
08-16 02:17 PM
IT IS TOO BAD FOR EB 3 , WHY THIS INJUSTICE WITH EB 3 ?
everyone was expecting them to go U
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
everyone was expecting them to go U
EB1 has cutoff?? for the first time in recent memory?
greenguru
12-10 02:16 PM
He got his GC.. i will not expect him here.. we need one more VLDrao
2011 one shoulder dresses
Ramba
07-14 06:01 PM
Consult an attorney because if you applied for I-485 in July 2007 and quit employer in August, you might not be covered under AC21 since 6 months did not pass since adjucation request (I-485) was files with USCIS.
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
more...
ash123
02-13 02:09 PM
Can someone tell me how to close this thread.
good idea
09-09 03:58 PM
I would like to see all EB3 AS DONORS.
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
I have read so many posts in the past where senior members have clearly said that their is nothing possible for EB3 alone and if something is possible it would be for EB.
(as per calculator, I am going to get my GC in 2030) Would contribution of all EB3 help them in any way?
more...
abhijitp
07-18 12:37 AM
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
This would be interesting as well as cause for concern for many of us. Do we have to go through the whole process one more time and file again?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
This would be interesting as well as cause for concern for many of us. Do we have to go through the whole process one more time and file again?
2010 She had simple hairstyle and
nixstor
04-23 04:57 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
Bud,
Its quite contradictory that you say that you are not an IV member and dont intend to be one, but you would like to particiapte freely and throw your opinion and get info about events with out aligning to the common goal of the organization. Now dont tell me that you got info about the event some where else. If every one of us try to get our own issue or a group of 15-20 people's issue solved we wont get any thing. This is common sense. What you said about making it paid site/open for certain members sounds bland to me. I am appalled that your thought process is not at all in sync with your accomplishments. If you think you can sell your group story and bring GC to the massess dream on. IV sure has lot of compelling stories that are sold already, but politics is bigger than you,me and our stories. If you are working only for people who are sought after by the stanford's and harvard's, move on.
It's so unfortunate that we fight on issues like this. On your next conf call with Rajiv, bring up the same Q and seek his advice. Let us know what he thinks about your sales pitch and getting GC's only for the most sought. I am not mocking you or slinging mud at you. Its blatant that you are not understanding the political scenario. GC is not any one's birth right but that is what actuallly holding you up.
more...
paskal
12-26 04:30 PM
amsterdam is visa free- thank NW/KLM for it!
I hear Milan is too - Alitalia
I hear Milan is too - Alitalia
hair One-derful One-Shoulder
gc_mania_03
07-09 07:43 PM
http://www.ahslaw.com/documents/AHSLawsuit.pdf
This document gives lot of legal details, states what the lawsuits exactly is..
P.S : I Think its just filed, not accepted by the court as of now
What are we fighting for now? We are expending all energies for temporary relief. I do not mean to belittle how important this step is for people who have been waiting to file for their 485s/EADs.
But, couldnt these organization sue USCIS over the past years for being inefficient and squandering so many visa that could have helped a lot of us...Why isnt anyone talking about that? Should the new law suit also include the complaints of inefficiencies at USCIS and the cause of lost visas...
Or am I just being naive with this thought...
This document gives lot of legal details, states what the lawsuits exactly is..
P.S : I Think its just filed, not accepted by the court as of now
What are we fighting for now? We are expending all energies for temporary relief. I do not mean to belittle how important this step is for people who have been waiting to file for their 485s/EADs.
But, couldnt these organization sue USCIS over the past years for being inefficient and squandering so many visa that could have helped a lot of us...Why isnt anyone talking about that? Should the new law suit also include the complaints of inefficiencies at USCIS and the cause of lost visas...
Or am I just being naive with this thought...
more...
nixstor
07-05 03:00 PM
Why would this website suddently decide to convert to a paid website? There is a link right on the top requesting funds / contributions, right? People who have resources / are willing to contribute will do it. Look at the postings of the core members who actually started this website. Did they ever make a harsh statement regarding the site visitors who have not contributed? Personally I havn't seen one yet, have you? They are very diplomatic in their efforts and thats what makes them leaders. We dont want juveniles to start dictating regulations in this forum. Lets leave these decisions to mature people who have insight in their decisions, OK. Actions taken when you are emotionally disturbed will do nothing but harm you and the rest of us. This site is and should remain a non paid. I have contributed a small amount sofar, however have found a very pleasant and enjoyable community here at the IV. I know many have contributed much more than me. Please remember that this website / core group efforts all began probably as a selfless act by a group of youngsters to benefit our legal immigrant community. Let not our emotions guide us but let reason guide us in our decisions and the best approach would be to let the core group decide. Now if they decide sternly that this can be run only as long as all the visitors/beneficieries contribute then I dont know what to say. Contributions were all voluntary and should remain voluntary. Some of those who support a paid website seem to be VERY AGITATED. If you are agitated while spending money then think twice before contributing. Dont expect everybody to do do exactly what you do.
This is a perfect example of how an argument can be twisted and turned around. So you would prefer Pappu or 3 other members to have a funding drive for ever instead of having a constant flow of money? No one questioned the intentions of core members or people who started the website. They not only started this as a place where we can discuss issues, but also as a place where people in similar situations can come together as a community and contribute towards the cause. The contribution is both monetary and personal time. Both grass root efforts and lobbying will bring success. I personally, (who has been vocal on the thread) am not agitated that I am paying and xyz is not paying. People do not see a need to pay for IV because they are getting what they want. Every one on their heart of hearts know what kind of platform we have built here and without $$ it all means nothing. An hour before I spoke with a NPR news reporter and she asked me if I were calling on behalf of IV as soon as I explained the VB fiasco. Its our choice to support through contributions or to undermine the main agenda of the organization.
Do not try to sell the point that we will lose membership if we make it paid, atleast to me. As I said before, people have come over to IV when hell broke loose time over time. I do not see a reason why they would stop coming. We are highly skilled but not very well endowed financially. What can we do other than lamenting about our personal choice instead of coming together as a community?
This is a perfect example of how an argument can be twisted and turned around. So you would prefer Pappu or 3 other members to have a funding drive for ever instead of having a constant flow of money? No one questioned the intentions of core members or people who started the website. They not only started this as a place where we can discuss issues, but also as a place where people in similar situations can come together as a community and contribute towards the cause. The contribution is both monetary and personal time. Both grass root efforts and lobbying will bring success. I personally, (who has been vocal on the thread) am not agitated that I am paying and xyz is not paying. People do not see a need to pay for IV because they are getting what they want. Every one on their heart of hearts know what kind of platform we have built here and without $$ it all means nothing. An hour before I spoke with a NPR news reporter and she asked me if I were calling on behalf of IV as soon as I explained the VB fiasco. Its our choice to support through contributions or to undermine the main agenda of the organization.
Do not try to sell the point that we will lose membership if we make it paid, atleast to me. As I said before, people have come over to IV when hell broke loose time over time. I do not see a reason why they would stop coming. We are highly skilled but not very well endowed financially. What can we do other than lamenting about our personal choice instead of coming together as a community?
hot Trend: One Shoulder Styles
gsc999
04-08 11:02 AM
I think -We have to come to our senses. The law wants to treat us as slaves. Do the work and go back. They do not want to give the opportunity to have the american dream. They do not have problem with mexicans, or arabic country people, or anybody. All they want is - we do not want smart talented ones to take our white collar jobs.
We are screwed by our Desi employers, the law. We do it for $. So it is really upto us to choose from. Money or respect.
When I see fellow indians, at the age of 40, I feel pity. Most of us would see that they are in dilema as what to do. What they are doing is correct. They live a succumbed life.
Choose life !! is the better option !!
-------
yawn. Weak post. Just substitute "I" for wherever you use "We" start with "I have to come to my senses." Don't patronize and don't be condescending.
We are screwed by our Desi employers, the law. We do it for $. So it is really upto us to choose from. Money or respect.
When I see fellow indians, at the age of 40, I feel pity. Most of us would see that they are in dilema as what to do. What they are doing is correct. They live a succumbed life.
Choose life !! is the better option !!
-------
yawn. Weak post. Just substitute "I" for wherever you use "We" start with "I have to come to my senses." Don't patronize and don't be condescending.
more...
house hairstyles for one shoulder
gcisadawg
02-13 04:59 PM
LOL
his choice of words was dramatic/wrong but it does'nt take away the fact the veracity of the article he's posted.
i've been hearing about this for a while as well, and it needs to be debated/looked into
This is a real life example that happened a week ago. I was at the gym talking to a guy and he was asking where I was working. I told him and I got a look that suggested it was a crime for me to have a job.....No words exchanged but just the look of it...I could feel it..
his choice of words was dramatic/wrong but it does'nt take away the fact the veracity of the article he's posted.
i've been hearing about this for a while as well, and it needs to be debated/looked into
This is a real life example that happened a week ago. I was at the gym talking to a guy and he was asking where I was working. I told him and I got a look that suggested it was a crime for me to have a job.....No words exchanged but just the look of it...I could feel it..
tattoo One Shoulder Dress
ramus
07-03 07:58 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
pictures One-shoulder short dress with
nixstor
07-03 12:26 PM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Sheer number of applications from the high volume countries has created the backlog?? Are you saying/wishing that these people should not have come in the first place to avoid the backlog?? My friend, backlogs did not happen completely because of the sheer number of applications and gaming. Backlogs happened primarily because of wasted visa numbers and issues surrounding it. If there was no visa number wastage the priority dates would have been around 2-3 years behind as opposed to 7 or 8 years. There are gamers in every system. If a system does not work for people as it is supposed to, gamers do so to get out of the system. Not that IV condones such things but it happens in any system, when the system is broken.
The I in IV definitely does not stand for me only or for any one only. I along with V only makes sense. I by itself does not get IV any where.
So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed?
On one hand you are saying that there is a bias towards lower population countries now and you are ok with it, just because you happen to benefit from it. Is that what you mean?
If retrogressed countries are asking for 75% of the numbers reserved to them rather than having one line for all, You have a good point in saying that the bias is shifting towards retrogressed countries. There is no such provision like that. The provision creates one line depending on when you entered the line. You enter the line ahead, you get it first.
So keeping the limits intact is NOT a bias to you? You can't have it both ways. What do you think is a solution? The point system you referred to came with the same 10% limit on the retrogressed countries. What difference does it make to a retrogressed person with 96 out of 100 points, but still needs to wait for 4 years, while some one from Krakozhia walks away in 6 months with 60 points. B T W , you also said that higher education deserves more does not fly with you. I am not sure how you want points to be assigned, other than education and experience. Don't let the fear and protectionist thought take over the logical and rational thought.
The "other side" of immigration is an entirely different topic. Their issues and our issues, their path to the end line and ours are entirely different. We can't simply compare apples and oranges and call people hypocrites. That said, I personally support it and feel that it will happen at some point depending on the majority in both houses and one party will suffer for the decisions it made. As a by stander, I sympathize with the situation the "other side" has been in. I have a full plate to work on.
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
Sheer number of applications from the high volume countries has created the backlog?? Are you saying/wishing that these people should not have come in the first place to avoid the backlog?? My friend, backlogs did not happen completely because of the sheer number of applications and gaming. Backlogs happened primarily because of wasted visa numbers and issues surrounding it. If there was no visa number wastage the priority dates would have been around 2-3 years behind as opposed to 7 or 8 years. There are gamers in every system. If a system does not work for people as it is supposed to, gamers do so to get out of the system. Not that IV condones such things but it happens in any system, when the system is broken.
The I in IV definitely does not stand for me only or for any one only. I along with V only makes sense. I by itself does not get IV any where.
So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed?
On one hand you are saying that there is a bias towards lower population countries now and you are ok with it, just because you happen to benefit from it. Is that what you mean?
If retrogressed countries are asking for 75% of the numbers reserved to them rather than having one line for all, You have a good point in saying that the bias is shifting towards retrogressed countries. There is no such provision like that. The provision creates one line depending on when you entered the line. You enter the line ahead, you get it first.
So keeping the limits intact is NOT a bias to you? You can't have it both ways. What do you think is a solution? The point system you referred to came with the same 10% limit on the retrogressed countries. What difference does it make to a retrogressed person with 96 out of 100 points, but still needs to wait for 4 years, while some one from Krakozhia walks away in 6 months with 60 points. B T W , you also said that higher education deserves more does not fly with you. I am not sure how you want points to be assigned, other than education and experience. Don't let the fear and protectionist thought take over the logical and rational thought.
The "other side" of immigration is an entirely different topic. Their issues and our issues, their path to the end line and ours are entirely different. We can't simply compare apples and oranges and call people hypocrites. That said, I personally support it and feel that it will happen at some point depending on the majority in both houses and one party will suffer for the decisions it made. As a by stander, I sympathize with the situation the "other side" has been in. I have a full plate to work on.
dresses One shoulder wedding dresses
abracadabra102
07-29 10:16 AM
A lot of people act as if their God / Gods need their protection. My friends think about that before getting upset about these issues. Do the Gods really need your protection? or is it just your ego thats being hurt? Would Ganesha (in this case) be hurt by being on the beer bottle? Does the picture infact resemble him? has anybody seen Ganesha? I mean, this is 21st century and we have to think rationally before becoming sentimental over these issues. So long as you get hurt over these there will be people to insult you. Believe me my friend no human can ever hurt / insult a God (if there is infact one). so why bother? Maintain your personal relationship with Ganesha in your prayer and let him deal with such insults in his way. The only reality you will ever know is your neighbuor. Live and let others live life to the fullest and dont let religion / religious idease dictate your attitude towards this world. next time you see the beer, buy it and drink it if you enjoy alcoholic beverages.
Great post.
Great post.
more...
makeup Still, the one-shoulder look
downthedrain
02-02 07:09 PM
Here is the text under the attachment section
The record contains a letter from your prospective employer. The letter indicates that you have been employed by XXXXXX company as a Senior Software Engineer. However, the record does not contain any evidence which establishes the salary or compensation package being offered. Therefore you must submit a currently issued letter or other evidence from the prospective permanent employer indicating that the salary or compensation package being offered.
PD Mar 2002
485 RD SEP 2007
The record contains a letter from your prospective employer. The letter indicates that you have been employed by XXXXXX company as a Senior Software Engineer. However, the record does not contain any evidence which establishes the salary or compensation package being offered. Therefore you must submit a currently issued letter or other evidence from the prospective permanent employer indicating that the salary or compensation package being offered.
PD Mar 2002
485 RD SEP 2007
girlfriend One-shoulder styles tend to be
Googler
02-20 03:11 PM
googler u r the new berkeleybee!!
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
can u call him in a few weeks and ask him what was the number of eb2 india pre-dec 2003 that he got from uscis?
I try not to abuse his patience too much -- this was the first time ever that I called him twice in the matter of seven days. ;-)
hairstyles One Shoulder Dress
hsm2007
09-20 07:37 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
hiyer31
01-26 12:00 PM
What happened to all the thesis and discussions? i felt disgusted listening to the state of the union address. i completely am of the opinion that everybody deserves a chance even those who are here illegally. But there is something wrong with a country which wishes to cater to them to favor them who broke the laws then the who indian community which barely breaks laws and is probably the most god fearing and law fearing group of people in this country. We have 0 representation in this nation. Taxation without representation. All the social security and medicare taxes I will never probably get to use it. I wish we could all muster the courage to quit the jobs and leave this country and let every client and employer deal with the fallout. Unfortunately we cant. Since there are 10 others in line behind me who will willing become slaves for the little comfort they get. Life has become very frustrating.
varshadas
02-09 09:34 PM
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/profile_state.php3?District=NJ
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha