pappu
02-02 02:56 PM
Donation should be on the way today.
Thank you
Thank you
wallpaper woody and uzz and randy
immig4me
03-08 10:17 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Canuck
02-14 08:15 PM
maybe there is no divide and rule - but definitely when they thought of country limits - they must have debated and come to conclusion that there should not be domination from one country (as one country people can become powerful - demand more etc) .so in a way it is divide. but in this age - country limits dont make sense. the problem is laws dont change easily.
Of course they thought about that! They don't want too much of one ethnic group, which is why they apply per country rationing for EB immigration, which is completely discriminatory and flies in the face of basic employment laws.
If they are too worried about voting blocs, they should then implement a system whereby, no more than a certain percentage of green card holders in a given year from a certain country of birth can become citizens. Personally, I could care less about voting, I just want the ability to have my green card on a shorter time scale!
Of course they thought about that! They don't want too much of one ethnic group, which is why they apply per country rationing for EB immigration, which is completely discriminatory and flies in the face of basic employment laws.
If they are too worried about voting blocs, they should then implement a system whereby, no more than a certain percentage of green card holders in a given year from a certain country of birth can become citizens. Personally, I could care less about voting, I just want the ability to have my green card on a shorter time scale!
2011 Close up of Woody and Buzz
rpulipati
09-26 09:44 AM
If you guyz like it, please use it.
===========================
Dear Editor,
I'm a skilled worker and attended the rally mentioned in the article. But as per the article, our intention was NOT to get attention to H1-B visas, instead
---------
the rally is for the skilled legal immigrants already present in United States, requesting Congress to speed up the permanent resident applications by re-suing the previous years unused visas and/or increasing the annual cap.
---------
There is a lot of difference between these two agenda's and this article really sends a wrong message to the entire American community.
So, I request you to please act immediately and correct the article. Also, please do sufficient investigation before you post things that are important to community (such as immigration).
Thanks
===========================
===========================
Dear Editor,
I'm a skilled worker and attended the rally mentioned in the article. But as per the article, our intention was NOT to get attention to H1-B visas, instead
---------
the rally is for the skilled legal immigrants already present in United States, requesting Congress to speed up the permanent resident applications by re-suing the previous years unused visas and/or increasing the annual cap.
---------
There is a lot of difference between these two agenda's and this article really sends a wrong message to the entire American community.
So, I request you to please act immediately and correct the article. Also, please do sufficient investigation before you post things that are important to community (such as immigration).
Thanks
===========================
more...
GCKaIntezar
02-21 11:14 AM
Sorry I had 2/26 as Sunday in my previous post.
Thanks Sekar, please bring as many friends as you can. I plan to be there around 3:30pm.
Hi Guys when are you meeting in Durga temple Let me know I can come with some of my friends
Sekar
Thanks Sekar, please bring as many friends as you can. I plan to be there around 3:30pm.
Hi Guys when are you meeting in Durga temple Let me know I can come with some of my friends
Sekar
senthil1
06-12 03:10 PM
If no H1b restrictions then mostly lottery for new H1b for every year( I think 115k is not enough as Consulting companies will rush to get the quota on first day) unless unlimited H1b was given. Lottery is very bad for good companies. Best way is to put restrictions only for new H1bs and exclude from extensions and transfers.
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
If people think that after CIR fails, we will have a better chance of getting favorable provisions with some other Bill or on coat tails of appropriation bills, it could be a risky gamble.
However, looking at the mood of Senate there is a very good chance that post-CIR we might be thrown a curve ball with some hard line H1B restrictions and fee increases extracted from almost passed CIR. So opposing CIR due to H1 alone is not the best strategy.
CIR is on the table because there are lot of interests driving its existence. If Compete America and us(IV) cannot drive in a small amendment into a popular bill like this, it would be a big blow. Is there enough bite in the coalition to create our own bill or fight an anti-H1 wave out there? That's up for judgement.
My point is, please do not assume H1B status quo will stay that way even if CIR fails. Like someone pointed out in these forums, big Corporations might enlist these anti-consulting restrictions/fee increases and use as compromise to increase H1 numbers(even post CIR).
And we thought life was tough now, imagine paying 10K for every H1 extension and not being able to consult and status quo on current GC system still place. Thats a hair raising thought for me.
more...
BlueSunD
03-07 07:28 PM
Nice one Elisoe.... really sad you couldn�t tweak it more as you might want it to, but hey, we�ve got our first final image, and it�s really cool! Congratulations!
Those are some sad news 3d Nirvana, but hey, it�ll be really cool if you get the time to showcase something later!
I would like to know who�s still participating, thought.... just curious :P!
If you wonder, �m still in! :hugegrin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And... Sparky, what�s your question? not that I�m an expert or something, but hey we can try to help, at least with tutorials :)
Those are some sad news 3d Nirvana, but hey, it�ll be really cool if you get the time to showcase something later!
I would like to know who�s still participating, thought.... just curious :P!
If you wonder, �m still in! :hugegrin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And... Sparky, what�s your question? not that I�m an expert or something, but hey we can try to help, at least with tutorials :)
2010 -woody-uzz-bullseye1
rockstart
03-10 11:07 AM
Guru's
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
I have a small doubt on AC -21 especially the same / similar interpretation. in Perm Application there are two places where there is job description. One is Section H field 11 ( Job Opportunity/ job duties) and other one is Section F field 2 ( Prevailing Wage/ SOC code) now both define what the job is the Section H is company specific and Section F is list of USCIS codes under which this particular job falls as subset.
The question is will USCIS judge using section F or Section H for same/ similar interpretation because Section F is pretty Generic and as long as you are in same field it works example in IT if you were say DBA and now data modeler or Systems Analyst or coder they are pretty much same. Here is an example of one such code
15-1051 Computer Systems Analysts
Analyze science, engineering, business, and all other data processing problems for application to electronic data processing systems. Analyze user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate or improve existing systems and review computer system capabilities, workflow, and scheduling limitations. May analyze or recommend commercially available software. Exclude persons working primarily as "Engineers" (17-2011 through 17-2199), "Mathematicians" (15-2021), or "Scientists" (19-1011 through 19-3099). May supervise computer programmers.
But in case they try to interpret Section H is it very complex and has specific tools that can get outdated or obselete with time. So it will be difficult to do an Ac -21 with that Example if they mention SQL Server or Ab-Initio in section H and now you take a full time in company using Oracle or Informatica will that cause an issue?
more...
sodh
07-24 06:02 PM
What i have heard is that the recent I140 approvals (2006/07) contains A#.
Only the ones who were on OPT.
Only the ones who were on OPT.
hair Woody amp; Buzz Lightyear
vghc
07-03 11:59 AM
If you call it re-distribution of pain, I would call it sharing the pain. I think its high time ROW candidates felt the pain which we non-ROW have suffered for a long time. You are objecting just because you are on the better side and wish to continue with the better bargain. If you think about it as a EB group in general, then its absolutely ridiculous that there should be country limits for EB category GC when there is no limits on H1B which is the primary route for most EB category GC applications. I completely agree with you on the family quotient of your arguement, they should not get the GC numbers which is meant only for primary EB applicant. Not that I want families to suffer, but the family GC numbers for EB applicants should not count towards GC number cap.
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
Don't be ignorant, i am still bloody waiting for mine and counting!!!! :mad:
Problem is not country quota, its the ones with families!!! ><
more...
Ramba
07-14 10:02 PM
--
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
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.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
I do not think what you are saying is correct. Ac21 does not allow you to leave before 180 days of your 485 filing.
Have you read the USCIS question? If not, read few times to understand how your interpretation is wrong.
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.
The bottom line is if his approved 140 is not revoked with in 180 days of filing the 485, his 485 is still valid even if ported the job with in a month after filing 485.
The RFE is trying to determine whether your former employer holds a bonafide future job open for you or not. If he/she does not then your application is not valid in your circumstances from what I know.
If you get a letter from him/her then that should be adequate, however you will also need to start work with that employer for a reasonable time afterward to be within the law.
If as you say the intent has to be there at the time of filing, then it would be easy for everyone to intend whatever the needed at the time of filing and then change their minds. It does not work that way.
The revocation of the 140 would not have been a problem if it happened after the 180 days, but would be an issue now.
I can see you are in a difficult spot. I would definitely suggest you stay honest, since they have all of your filing records etc. and if you fudge it, your petition can be denied for fraud, which could harm future applications.
Rather than relying on the advise here, you should seek out a good attorney experienced in AC21.
hot Video Review Woody amp; Buzz
srkamath
07-13 12:30 PM
Where the visa numbers in Oct'08 will be will depend on how proactive IV is.
Here is my take on the situation.
DOS said that they used up 80% of EB numbers in first 3 quarters of Fiscal year '08, that leaves 28K (20% of 140K) visas available for last quarter of Fiscal year '08.
Since higher priority categories are already current, this means that most of these visas have to be used by EB2 India/China.
Hence DOS made it an option for USCIS to issue another 25K visas to EB2 India/China.
See my analysis:
If USCIS uses these 25K visas, then in Oct'08, they get the first quarter allocation for Fiscal year '09, and my calculation shows that EB2 India/China will move to atleast Jul 1, 06 (based on 627 India/China Level III/IV labor approvals forthat period).
If USCIS lets the 25K visas to go waste, then in Oct'08, PDs will move back to mid 04.
If they can approve ~ 150 k total EB cases per year @ ~12,500 / month, with EB3 used up for the remainder of this year, they can definitely process at least 25 k during Aug and Sep.
Here is my take on the situation.
DOS said that they used up 80% of EB numbers in first 3 quarters of Fiscal year '08, that leaves 28K (20% of 140K) visas available for last quarter of Fiscal year '08.
Since higher priority categories are already current, this means that most of these visas have to be used by EB2 India/China.
Hence DOS made it an option for USCIS to issue another 25K visas to EB2 India/China.
See my analysis:
If USCIS uses these 25K visas, then in Oct'08, they get the first quarter allocation for Fiscal year '09, and my calculation shows that EB2 India/China will move to atleast Jul 1, 06 (based on 627 India/China Level III/IV labor approvals forthat period).
If USCIS lets the 25K visas to go waste, then in Oct'08, PDs will move back to mid 04.
If they can approve ~ 150 k total EB cases per year @ ~12,500 / month, with EB3 used up for the remainder of this year, they can definitely process at least 25 k during Aug and Sep.
more...
house Woody amp; Buzz at Target
feedfront
10-12 01:33 PM
feedfront
I got an RFE on my 485 on Oct 6th. But I haven't received the letter yet. But, since my TB test turned positive and I had to take an X-ray, I'm wondering if I would get the same RFE on my 485 too. I haven't changed employers nor had any H1B breaks in my 12 year stint here. So, I'm wondering if it would be the same RFE as yours.
In case of an X-Ray missing, couldn't we contact the doctor's office where we did our tests and ask them to mail it again? Or should we do it once again now? I did my tests in 2004, so I'm not even sure if they have copies of my X-rays with them.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Hi 'akilhere',
You should go for new medical report as last one is too old. For vaccinations, you can use your last report but for TB and other blood test, you should go for recent.
I'm not sure whether RFE would be for medical report. In my case, my civil surgeon was not in USCIS's current list of authorised civil surgeons and somehow, my x-ray report was missing from report also.
It may be EVL. In either case, it is easy work as you have not changed your employer (no AC-21 issue).
I got an RFE on my 485 on Oct 6th. But I haven't received the letter yet. But, since my TB test turned positive and I had to take an X-ray, I'm wondering if I would get the same RFE on my 485 too. I haven't changed employers nor had any H1B breaks in my 12 year stint here. So, I'm wondering if it would be the same RFE as yours.
In case of an X-Ray missing, couldn't we contact the doctor's office where we did our tests and ask them to mail it again? Or should we do it once again now? I did my tests in 2004, so I'm not even sure if they have copies of my X-rays with them.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Hi 'akilhere',
You should go for new medical report as last one is too old. For vaccinations, you can use your last report but for TB and other blood test, you should go for recent.
I'm not sure whether RFE would be for medical report. In my case, my civil surgeon was not in USCIS's current list of authorised civil surgeons and somehow, my x-ray report was missing from report also.
It may be EVL. In either case, it is easy work as you have not changed your employer (no AC-21 issue).
tattoo Woody amp; Buzz Lightyear
new2gc
06-10 04:23 PM
done.. and fwd to other friends as well.
more...
pictures Woody Buzz Lightyear coloring
himu73
07-03 11:31 AM
If for a moment we say USCIS has really increased the processing rate and more people are getting green cards which we see is the case. It may signal that on Oct 1st,2007 dates will move ahead of what was the scenario in May visa bulletin.
If we forget the mistake they did in July bulletin and see the brighter side that they process faster, we should hold back our applications now and wait for the scenario on Oct 1st 2007, which would be hopefully a give a good realistic forward movement in dates. Since receipt date is important we should not get emotional and send in the application. This is just a thought.
Making Current in July was anyway like a lottery which denied all calculations based on pending cases.Before getting into law suits and protests which are also needed we have to take stock of all the implications and whether we really can provide 100% to these efforts.
From the posts coming since yesterday, most of the members are agitated and it seems we fail to realize that this event itself was a miscalculation and all of us were trying to get benefit of it considering the long waits we have endured for just getting a chance to file AOS.
We also knew that even if the applications are accepted there was no way we can get our green cards for a long time. AC21 and EAD for spouse was the main aim of many applicants.
This is really a sad story of people who have sacrificed career prospects, faced family separation, made important decisions like marraige.
Hope this post makes sense and we take a step back and reconsider our actions. This is not out of fear but past experience of lawsuits explained in other posts.
Lets contribute... We have big day ahead of us..
If we forget the mistake they did in July bulletin and see the brighter side that they process faster, we should hold back our applications now and wait for the scenario on Oct 1st 2007, which would be hopefully a give a good realistic forward movement in dates. Since receipt date is important we should not get emotional and send in the application. This is just a thought.
Making Current in July was anyway like a lottery which denied all calculations based on pending cases.Before getting into law suits and protests which are also needed we have to take stock of all the implications and whether we really can provide 100% to these efforts.
From the posts coming since yesterday, most of the members are agitated and it seems we fail to realize that this event itself was a miscalculation and all of us were trying to get benefit of it considering the long waits we have endured for just getting a chance to file AOS.
We also knew that even if the applications are accepted there was no way we can get our green cards for a long time. AC21 and EAD for spouse was the main aim of many applicants.
This is really a sad story of people who have sacrificed career prospects, faced family separation, made important decisions like marraige.
Hope this post makes sense and we take a step back and reconsider our actions. This is not out of fear but past experience of lawsuits explained in other posts.
Lets contribute... We have big day ahead of us..
dresses Buzz and Woody
shiva7
05-26 11:54 PM
It was Sunday when I got off the bus in Phoenix and CBP asked me for the papers. I was not carrying any leagal document with me at that time. They tried to get my info on their computer based on the info I gave them about me but they could not for misterious reasons. Ultimately they arrested me for not carrying papers with me and put me in jail. I spent horrible night in jail that Sunday. The next day Judge asked me more details and could find my data. They released me and warned me to carry such papers with me all the time.I never knew that I was supposed to keep a copy of the papers with me. I am just wondering who is supposed to notify us that we need to carry papers with us at all the times ?
more...
makeup Disney Toy Story 3 Buzz Woody
gc_chahiye
08-15 05:33 PM
Well, I mean no offense to anybody but why is EB3 ROW so far back while EB2 India and China are as per June bulletin or better?
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
India did have tons of approvals, but I believe most were EB3 (18K) so thats gone to U. These are just a small number of unused visas that were presumably returned. October and there-on dates are a real reflection of USCIS backlog etc. (see the arbitrary use of Jan 2007 for EB1 in this VB)
I thought for India the approved cases were 5 times the country quota for 2007? Good for those guys that were approved but I still don't get it why ROW is 2002!
India did have tons of approvals, but I believe most were EB3 (18K) so thats gone to U. These are just a small number of unused visas that were presumably returned. October and there-on dates are a real reflection of USCIS backlog etc. (see the arbitrary use of Jan 2007 for EB1 in this VB)
girlfriend same old Woody and Buzz
OLDMONK
07-18 09:26 PM
guys,
please go to http://www..com/usa-immigration-trackers/ and go to i485, then enter your case. Hundreds of people track their cases there, and that includes me. This is a good site for tracking purposes and it even generates graphs.
Please don't expect receiving I485 notices now if you filed on or after July2nd. USCIS is still working on the Jun filings and our filings will come later. Some people say it may take up to 3-4 weeks before we get receipts. If you have record of delivery to uscis, don't worry and just wait. Don't bother calling USCiS, it will not help at this time.
G
Really Does is generates graphs WOW. I dont believe you. kidding.
please go to http://www..com/usa-immigration-trackers/ and go to i485, then enter your case. Hundreds of people track their cases there, and that includes me. This is a good site for tracking purposes and it even generates graphs.
Please don't expect receiving I485 notices now if you filed on or after July2nd. USCIS is still working on the Jun filings and our filings will come later. Some people say it may take up to 3-4 weeks before we get receipts. If you have record of delivery to uscis, don't worry and just wait. Don't bother calling USCiS, it will not help at this time.
G
Really Does is generates graphs WOW. I dont believe you. kidding.
hairstyles Pixar-Toy-Story-woody-uzz.jpg
lazycis
12-21 10:03 PM
lazycis,
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
According to 245(k), does it mean that "unauthorized stay" (or stay with expired I-94) of more than 1 year is wiped out if a nonimmigrant went out of the country, entered back with a new I-94 and maintained legal status ever since? He/she should not have any problems in adjusting status with 485?
I like your insight into immigration policies and the way you express them.
Thanks.
8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B) Aliens unlawfully present
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.
Unlawful presence is different from out of status.
The period for unlawful presence begins on:
1) The expiration date* of the visa "status" document (I-94 Arrival/Departure Card), or
2) status violation, determined by an immigration judge, or
3) status violation, determined by the USCIS during the course of adjudicating a benefit application.
245(k) allows up to 180 days of "out of status".
If a person overstays (expired I-94) more than one year, leaves and re-enters within 10 years, it will be a problem for I-485 (if the USCIS finds about it, of course). More likely it will result in removal proceedings and permanent bar to reentry to the US. The only exception is if that person has an immediate relative who is a US citizen (see 8 USC 1255(i)).
So the moral of the story is to never leave the US until you get a green card if you accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence.
However if a person left and was allowed to re-enter, there is a chance that a person did not accumulated unlawful presence to trigger re-entry ban. Refer to this CIS memo for details regarding "period of authorized stay".
http://www.mnllp.com/GOVbcisnOOSunlawful0403.pdf
WillIBLucky
12-31 07:36 PM
I thought you said you posted in detroit website as well? Have you not? Just an update .. Following in following websites have posted with classifieds.
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
I am looking forward to more participation or other ideas from other Members ... or it's better I close this thread :)
Suggest ,comment or post a classified in a web site you know.
Following regional web sites have been posted with claissfied. Catch you folks later.
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Chicago .....................www.chicagosamachar.com
4)Houston
5)Philadelphia
6)Phoenix
7)San Antonio
8)San Diego ................. www.sasural.com/san_diego
9)Dallas
10)San Jose
11)Detroit
12)Indianapolis
13)Jacksonville
14)San Fransisco
15)Columbus
16)Austin
17)Memphis
18)Baltimore
19)Fort Worth
20)Charlotte
21)El Paso
22)Milwaukee
23)Seattle
24)Boston ...................... www.aapkamanoranjan.com
25)Denver
26)Luisville
27)Washington
28)Nashville
29)Las Vegas
30)Portland .....................www.eknazar.com
31)Oklahoma City
32)Tuscon
33) Atlanta .....................www.desigate.com,
34) Kanasas City ..............www.kcdesi.com
35) St. Louis ...................www.myilaaka.com
uma001
12-21 04:21 PM
This is from Murthy chat.
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Thats for those who are still in US. You have been put of US and reentered , so dont worry...Chill out
Question: If in the past I have been out of H1B status for 6 months (I-94 not expired), is this going to hurt my GC (or any new petitions to change / extend / adjust status)?
Answer: A person who fails to maintain status for over 180 days may have a problem obtaining the approval of the I-485, which allows a maximum of 180 days for one to be out of status under Section 245(k) of the INA, unless the person is covered under 245(i) of the INA. Sometimes, though, the fault of the employer in not paying the salary while the person is considered an employee may not pose a problem but at other times it may pose a problem. Not having pay stubs will certainly adversely impact the ability to obtain an extension or change of status from the USCIS. Jun-20-2005.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Thats for those who are still in US. You have been put of US and reentered , so dont worry...Chill out