lord_labaku
11-17 12:04 PM
Yes. layoffs and labor certs dont mix well. esp. if an american or GC holder worker with the same position as u is laid off.
It does make sense at a labor cert level...but if u look at this long drawn GC process of 6+ years....it is unfair to the potential immigrant as he is seeking GC for future employment. This is when a point based system like Canada does makes sense....even when economy is down...u continue to immigrate people who are still needed because of their critical skills.
It does make sense at a labor cert level...but if u look at this long drawn GC process of 6+ years....it is unfair to the potential immigrant as he is seeking GC for future employment. This is when a point based system like Canada does makes sense....even when economy is down...u continue to immigrate people who are still needed because of their critical skills.
wallpaper andcharlotte kemp Lima brown eyes brown eyes brown eyes Kemp+muhl+hair
chi_shark
02-18 12:34 PM
Yes, I worked during that time using EAD as I dont have H1b. My Lawyer said I can work as EAD was not revoked. I work for myself (self employment) through my own company.
Again I didn't get refund of MTR money... that is good news if we get our $585 fee back..
Hello bkn96! congratulations!
so, i am interested to know more about your self-employment status. so you saying that you actually worked for your own company when the 485 was adjudicated? so, they did not ask you any questions about that? no rfe? no raised eyebrows? that is cool! how was it? please share!
Again I didn't get refund of MTR money... that is good news if we get our $585 fee back..
Hello bkn96! congratulations!
so, i am interested to know more about your self-employment status. so you saying that you actually worked for your own company when the 485 was adjudicated? so, they did not ask you any questions about that? no rfe? no raised eyebrows? that is cool! how was it? please share!
AK_GC
03-16 05:05 PM
...2 letters.
2011 NYFW: Charlotte Kemp Muhl,
skagitswimmer
June 18th, 2005, 09:28 PM
Well, it took longer to get to than I expected but here is my effort. I selected the areas that looked blacked out without detail on my home monitor, and adjusted levels and contrast. Then I used FM's shadow recovery tool overall.
I sharpened the tip of the beak, and then cloned out the oof green leaf and darkened the branch in the lower right foreground.
Let me know whether this looks ok
I sharpened the tip of the beak, and then cloned out the oof green leaf and darkened the branch in the lower right foreground.
Let me know whether this looks ok
more...
DUNBAR
09-22 12:48 PM
My labor was filed in 2008, got the Audit in filed month 2009,responded and got cleared in filed month 2010.
synergy
08-15 11:03 AM
Does it apply for people who used AC-21?Do they need to go back to their filing employer after getting green card?
It is mandatory by law. Both side have to have a bona fide intention (for company - to hire, for employee - to work for) for EB GC. Employer proves its intent by filing I-140. Employee proves his/her intent by joining the employer. Each situation is unique, but in OP's situation, there is no bona fide intent to work for company Y. Therefore, it will be a fradulent GC which can be revoked. How OP is going to prove that he was going to join Y after GC is approved? AC21 allows for porting, but porting to company X will look fishy as well. If OP can get a letter from Y that position is no longer available, it may help. This being said, there is a possibility to get a GC without any issues.
It is mandatory by law. Both side have to have a bona fide intention (for company - to hire, for employee - to work for) for EB GC. Employer proves its intent by filing I-140. Employee proves his/her intent by joining the employer. Each situation is unique, but in OP's situation, there is no bona fide intent to work for company Y. Therefore, it will be a fradulent GC which can be revoked. How OP is going to prove that he was going to join Y after GC is approved? AC21 allows for porting, but porting to company X will look fishy as well. If OP can get a letter from Y that position is no longer available, it may help. This being said, there is a possibility to get a GC without any issues.
more...
chintu25
10-31 01:59 PM
Good job guys ...I am back was busy with some office mess that is now cleared . I am all in and active as ever .
2010 Muse: Charlotte Kemp Muhl
franklin
06-19 05:05 PM
Start worrying about LC approval notice and start working about AOS.
Aaj kal nav jawanoku, ye kya ho raha hi?
What?!
Aaj kal nav jawanoku, ye kya ho raha hi?
What?!
more...
krustycat
03-09 07:26 PM
I have a quick question on salary issue with 485. My EB2 I-140 states that my yearly salary 87k per annum. It got approved last year. I realized that my w-2 only reflects 64k for last year. I did not work for 2 months because of some personal reason. Is this less salary going to affect my 485 application? I thougt, GC is for future jobs so its okay. Can somebody please clarify this ?
You will be fine if you company can prove 'ability to pay' (the financial capability to pay the wages being offered for the position).
Adjudicators should make a favorable decision if the case contains proof of one of three specific matters.
the company's net income is equal to or greater than the wage that is offered
the company's current net assets are equal to or greater than the offered wage
the petitioner is employing the beneficiary and paying the beneficiary a wage in an amount equal to the prevailing wage
Point #3 will fail, then your company must prove #1 or #2 in order to be approved.
#2 => net income = taxable income
#3 => net current assets = current assets - current liabilities
You will be fine if you company can prove 'ability to pay' (the financial capability to pay the wages being offered for the position).
Adjudicators should make a favorable decision if the case contains proof of one of three specific matters.
the company's net income is equal to or greater than the wage that is offered
the company's current net assets are equal to or greater than the offered wage
the petitioner is employing the beneficiary and paying the beneficiary a wage in an amount equal to the prevailing wage
Point #3 will fail, then your company must prove #1 or #2 in order to be approved.
#2 => net income = taxable income
#3 => net current assets = current assets - current liabilities
hair Charlotte Kemp Muhl amp; Sean
hariswaminathan
01-10 02:57 PM
Its been 5 months , I'vent recieved the FP for myself. My case status still shows "The case has been transferred to Nebraska etc etc.."
Anybody in the same shoes?
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
Anybody in the same shoes?
Applied July 23rd NSC. Receipt notice July 23rd and again another receipt September once my case went to CSC and back to NSC.
Got AP and EAD issued from CA (laguna Niguel USCIS) though not without headaches (RFE on AP)
took infopass appointment last week and officer said FPs havent been issued because Background check still not cleared for me (wife cleared but she will not get FP notice until mine is cleared). This is possibly the same reason you have not received yours. looks like i am stuck for the long haul in name check clearance.
good luck to you!
more...
hebbar77
11-23 04:06 PM
I found ICICI money2india better than CITIBANK (rate wise). I have been using ICICI money transfer for last 4 years!
I would like to know anything better too!
I would like to know anything better too!
hot Love-Charlotte-Kemp-Muhl-x
ayazali17
12-18 07:08 PM
One more question. Does a person with EAD (I-766) considered a permanent legal resident? The reason why i asked is because i was filling out a form to open a Scottrade account, i was stumped on this question, so i thought i asked someone here to verify.
Thanks for answering.
Thanks for answering.
more...
house Charlotte Kemp Muhl for Marie
desi3933
06-18 04:30 PM
Under Part 3.
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
Mr. EndlessWait -
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
What should one put for
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
2. Date Visa Issued
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
I'm currently on a valid H1 extension with a valid I-94. The visa on passport has expired and I had got an extension within US. Anybody any ideas????
Mr. EndlessWait -
You extended your status, not visa. Please get your basics correct.
1. Nonimmigrant Visa number
Visa Number for the last issued visa (does not matter if is expired)
2. Date Visa Issued
Date of Issue for Visa in #1
3. Consulate Where Visa was Issued.
Place of Issue for Visa in #1
Good Luck
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
----------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
tattoo Charlotte Kemp Muhl
Better_Days
10-14 07:30 PM
Yes. It happened in my case as well. My I-140 was denied from NSC after having filed I-485. It was refiled (yes refiled in TSC, not MTR and got a different case number). After the I-140 denial my I-485 was also denied. Upon approval on my new I-140 the I-485 was reopened automatically. The online status had not changed from 'Denied". I was surprised when I got my second round of FP notices in August 09. Now the status says "Case has resumed processing". I would however suggest that you ask your attorney to send a letter to USCIS.
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
I had an I-485 pending when my first I-140 was denied. The cases ended up with AAO.
I started a new GC process in PERM and the second I-140 was approved. After approval I noticed a LUD on my pending 485. I called the 1-800 number and asked for the I-140 number underlying my I-485. To my surprise, I was given the receipt number for the second I-140. What surprised me was that the my priority date was not current.
I can only assume that when one has more than one I-140 pending with the same employer (remember that a I-140 with MTR or with AAO is considered to be pending), the first one to get approved gets linked with the I-485. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS PLEASE?
The interesting thing is that the AAO woke from it's slumber and issued an RFE last week. As a result of the RFE, both my I-140 have changed their status and now show "Post Decision Activity".
more...
pictures Month: Charlotte Kemp Muhl
sbg
07-16 08:11 PM
Guys,Please create an account in numbersusa, the nuse their fax page where you have to put in your login information to convey our message. You can use the first, last name and address to put in what we want. Like you could say, "this is a bunch of lies" for the first name, "H1 pay all taxes" for last name etc. Use thier own mechanism to defeat their purpose. Guys please do it. We can no longer remain quiet. Even if we have a favorable decision for us today we are still in the woods, anything can change in a few years.
thats crazy...on the other hand...I found this on their website:
"You will now be redirected to the NumbersUSA Action Buffet.
There, you will have greater faxing opportunities and the ability to customize your free faxes to Congress.
In addition, the Action Buffet contains news articles tailored to your interests. "
judging by their choice of words, it sounds like a group of fatties who just want to keep the competition (i.e us) out.
thats crazy...on the other hand...I found this on their website:
"You will now be redirected to the NumbersUSA Action Buffet.
There, you will have greater faxing opportunities and the ability to customize your free faxes to Congress.
In addition, the Action Buffet contains news articles tailored to your interests. "
judging by their choice of words, it sounds like a group of fatties who just want to keep the competition (i.e us) out.
dresses Sean Lennon, Kemp Muhl by
pappu
04-08 05:54 PM
Is someone working to fix the issues with the IV Tracker? It is such an important tool, but still has bugs to be resolved.
When you try to restrict by country or Country of charge, it doesnt bring back any results.
Also, if you try to sory by priority date, the sorting doesnt seem to work.
Yes we are working on it and will be enhancing it. Please keep adding your details to it.
When you try to restrict by country or Country of charge, it doesnt bring back any results.
Also, if you try to sory by priority date, the sorting doesnt seem to work.
Yes we are working on it and will be enhancing it. Please keep adding your details to it.
more...
makeup Charlotte Kemp Muhl Beauty
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
girlfriend Kemp+muhl+hair
freedom_fighter
01-15 09:22 AM
anyidea how long does it take for the actual card to come, after getting the CPO email. I checked my status says, welcome notice sent something.
How long does it take to get the actual card after approval notice is sent.
How long does it take to get the actual card after approval notice is sent.
hairstyles Charlotte Kemp Muhl here.
walking_dude
11-06 10:20 AM
Members from MI, please join your state chapter.
Thank You.
Thank You.
meetpravee
04-17 11:49 AM
My passport expires in 6 months. What is the earliest time before passport expiry can I apply for my Indian passport renewal. How long will it take to process it.
joydiptac
03-13 02:11 PM
Chorke na jao saiyaan... :D
CONGRATS buddy!
CONGRATS buddy!
