gcdreamer05
08-04 11:50 AM
Does your new I-140 have the old PD printed on it ?
If so you are better filing a new I-485.... and withdraw the old 485, as several threads have explained not to have two 485's running parallel because USCIS itself will ask the user to revoke one...
Please do let us know what happened after you know the information from M team.
She would recommend you to file another 485
If so you are better filing a new I-485.... and withdraw the old 485, as several threads have explained not to have two 485's running parallel because USCIS itself will ask the user to revoke one...
Please do let us know what happened after you know the information from M team.
She would recommend you to file another 485
wallpaper New Volkswagen Beetle 2012-11
baburob2
11-02 02:42 PM
As per my knowledge, GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
Plz. correct if I am wrong.
My company has filed one of my Labor (stuck in DBEC) from MN, while I am working in Texas from Last five years.
I concur that "GC thru employment is for future job position, i.e. Once your GC is approved you should do the job in that area.". Hence your move is fine.
LostInGCProcess
09-18 05:05 PM
But if I get out of US and get back with H1b stamping will then I can start again with my current company as H1b while I wil work with EAD for another company full time?
Please try to understand. Once you use your EAD, you lose your H status. Doesn't matter if you hold H1 from company A and work on EAD for Company B, or vice versa.
Ok, now once you start using your EAD, you are in AOS pending status. But if you want to reinstate H status, Yes..you go out of the country, get the Visa stamped on your passport and enter as H1-b...but then you should not use your EAD if you want to continue to work on H1.
Please try to understand. Once you use your EAD, you lose your H status. Doesn't matter if you hold H1 from company A and work on EAD for Company B, or vice versa.
Ok, now once you start using your EAD, you are in AOS pending status. But if you want to reinstate H status, Yes..you go out of the country, get the Visa stamped on your passport and enter as H1-b...but then you should not use your EAD if you want to continue to work on H1.
2011 Volkswagen Beetle autos 2012
thediablo
05-30 03:19 PM
oh MAN! THIS SUCKS
i think Soul site really sucks. :D
i think Soul site really sucks. :D
more...
pappu
11-25 10:10 PM
Next year is also critical for our lobbying efforts with the new administration and going through the bill cycle all over again. For that it will be very helpful if members sign up for monthly contributions. The monthly contributions help us plan future events and lobby efforts.
I urge all new and old non contributing members to sign up for monthly contributions to strengthen your organization.
I urge all new and old non contributing members to sign up for monthly contributions to strengthen your organization.
chanduv23
06-12 02:30 PM
Because this year's greencards are expired. New quota starts in October. So he should apply labor by then so that he gets his greencard on Oct 1, 2009 by overnight FedEx at 9.00 AM.
As KI am born in October - will I have any special consideration :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
As KI am born in October - will I have any special consideration :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
more...
amitjoey
07-13 07:57 PM
Great Job! amitjoey...
added to your reputation..
Thanks tikka
added to your reputation..
Thanks tikka
2010 09 2012 Volkswagen Beetle 2012
docwa
04-12 06:50 PM
Thanks all. I called my lawyer, and she mentioned that there have been specific cases of the Neb Service Center rejecting I485 applications for internists while they are doing fellowships. I guess my plan would be to find a 'full time' position working a couple of nights a week in the same city where I am working as a fellow, and use that as proof of ongoing full time internist work.
I am not sure if they need just a letter, or a w2s also. I guess 'full time' is a very arbitrary word, and can be applied to more than 28-32 hrs a week, which is very easily doable.
I am not sure if they need just a letter, or a w2s also. I guess 'full time' is a very arbitrary word, and can be applied to more than 28-32 hrs a week, which is very easily doable.
more...
chi_shark
07-24 03:49 PM
so, we are not out of the woods yet? its just that they (USCIS) can now say that they have gone through x number of apps... i wish they clarified this really well...
but thanks for answering the really important question!
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
but thanks for answering the really important question!
Sanjay:
Most likely you will not have to do anything further and your application will be approved when the Visa Bulletin reaches your priority date. However it will depend on how long it is before that date is reached. you may have to be fingerprinted again, as the fingerprint checks are only valid for 18 months. Also, if the wait is long enough, USCIS may want you to go for another interview to make sure you are still eligible.
hair Volkswagen Beetle 2012 1 2012
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
iptel
02-14 01:21 PM
Chapter 2: Skills for the U.S. Workforce.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
covers great deal of importance of H1B and Green Card. May be we can consider it to be part of our presentation.
Part of the report says
Caps on employment-based green cards limit the number of high-skilled
foreigners who can become permanent residents. The cap is set at 140,000
visas per year, including visas for the workers� spouses and children. Each
country�s nationals can make up no more than 7 percent of total immigrant
visas. These caps have led to long delays for applicants, especially for workers
from over-represented countries. For instance, some workers who became
eligible in January 2006 for EB-2 employment-based green cards (for workers
with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability) had applied for
permanent residence five years earlier.
A variety of proposals have been advanced for permanent employmentbased
immigration to allow for more high-skilled workers and to reduce wait
times. Any changes to the cap on the number of employment-based green
cards would require legislative action. First, workers� spouses and children
could be exempted from the cap, as is currently done for the H-1B program.
Spouses and children make up about half of the recipients of employmentbased
green cards, so this change would roughly double the number of
workers able to get employment-based green cards. Second, the fixed 140,000
cap could be replaced with a flexible market-based cap that would increase or
decrease with demand for workers eligible for employment-based green cards.
Finally, under current policy, nationals of no single country can receive more
than 7 percent of green cards. This share could be raised to reduce the long
delays for employment-based green cards for applicants from countries with
large numbers of desirable, high-skilled workers. Careful enforcement of
limits on foreign nationals� access to sensitive technology would provide
continued protection for our national security.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/ch2-erp06.pdf
covers great deal of importance of H1B and Green Card. May be we can consider it to be part of our presentation.
Part of the report says
Caps on employment-based green cards limit the number of high-skilled
foreigners who can become permanent residents. The cap is set at 140,000
visas per year, including visas for the workers� spouses and children. Each
country�s nationals can make up no more than 7 percent of total immigrant
visas. These caps have led to long delays for applicants, especially for workers
from over-represented countries. For instance, some workers who became
eligible in January 2006 for EB-2 employment-based green cards (for workers
with advanced degrees or persons of exceptional ability) had applied for
permanent residence five years earlier.
A variety of proposals have been advanced for permanent employmentbased
immigration to allow for more high-skilled workers and to reduce wait
times. Any changes to the cap on the number of employment-based green
cards would require legislative action. First, workers� spouses and children
could be exempted from the cap, as is currently done for the H-1B program.
Spouses and children make up about half of the recipients of employmentbased
green cards, so this change would roughly double the number of
workers able to get employment-based green cards. Second, the fixed 140,000
cap could be replaced with a flexible market-based cap that would increase or
decrease with demand for workers eligible for employment-based green cards.
Finally, under current policy, nationals of no single country can receive more
than 7 percent of green cards. This share could be raised to reduce the long
delays for employment-based green cards for applicants from countries with
large numbers of desirable, high-skilled workers. Careful enforcement of
limits on foreign nationals� access to sensitive technology would provide
continued protection for our national security.
hot vw beetle 2012 images.
GC_2007
12-22 12:05 PM
Your new employer has to start GC from scratch, but you can retain your old PD if your I140 is approved.
more...
house VW Beetle 2012 1. Gallery
jonty_11
04-21 01:08 PM
I got the Card Production Ordered e-mail today. No LUD even last night at 1 Am. Only one LUD today. My case is processed at Texas service center. And my receipt date is not with in their processing times.
Good luck to everyone.
thats calle dwinning the POWERBALL. I am assuming EB3....
So no RFEs after applying 485..?
Point is if you were actually out of a job this very moment....USCIS wudnt know and still issue ur GC...?
Good luck to everyone.
thats calle dwinning the POWERBALL. I am assuming EB3....
So no RFEs after applying 485..?
Point is if you were actually out of a job this very moment....USCIS wudnt know and still issue ur GC...?
tattoo volkswagen beetle 2012 concept
srkamath
08-05 06:15 PM
It is illegal for the foreign employee to pay or to reimburse the employer (or even agree to a reduced salary) to cover the costs of the foreign labor certification process. There are no exceptions to this - there is no varied interpretation either. The labor certification will be denied or revoked if the foreign applicant had any role to play in the recruitment process.
Disclaimer - This is my understanding, i'm not a lawyer.
Disclaimer - This is my understanding, i'm not a lawyer.
more...
pictures vw beetle 2012 convertible.
jonty_11
05-15 10:27 AM
Good going IV..
Yes I agree being current means NOTHING...if it retrogresses again befor eyo uhave your GC in hand...u will be in a waiting game again like always...so reform is the only solution.
Yes I agree being current means NOTHING...if it retrogresses again befor eyo uhave your GC in hand...u will be in a waiting game again like always...so reform is the only solution.
dresses The 2012 Volkswagen Beetle to
vikrantp
12-23 01:35 PM
Can I port a PD from Company A when the company got bankrupt and closed after I moved to Company B and started my new LC and I140.
more...
makeup volkswagen beetle 2012.
winguru
09-16 10:51 PM
Done
girlfriend volkswagen beetle 2012 models.
RattuRani
06-10 09:34 PM
The USCIS cannot be blamed for the quota mess. That is set by Congress. Now you can legitimately accuse them of sloth and indifference. But not greed. They're not a profit center for the US.
The right place to lobby for change is in Congress. As I've stated in other posts, the appetite doesn't seem to be there right this instant. Maybe if the economy comes roaring back in a couple years, then the political tide will once again turn in favor of reform.
The right place to lobby for change is in Congress. As I've stated in other posts, the appetite doesn't seem to be there right this instant. Maybe if the economy comes roaring back in a couple years, then the political tide will once again turn in favor of reform.
hairstyles New Volkswagen Beetle 2012-1
gkaplan
04-21 04:43 PM
Hello
My story is:
I've been on J2 for a while, it expires in May 2011. I have a EAD and currentlt I'm working for a company as a professional.I have a 5 years of Bs degree.
Questions are:
1. Can my employer apply for a Perm Cert for me if they want.
2. After getting the perm cert. can my employer file I 140 under EB3 for me?
3. Will I be eligible for premium processing for I 140 application, in 15 days?
4. Lets say all the above steps are accomplished and I got approved for I 140, all happened prior to May 2011 (this is the actual date my J visa and EAD expires).
a. Then I'll still be working with my current EAD, right?
b. Then what happens after May 2011?
c. DO I need to wait to file I 485 or can I file it right after my I 140 approved?
d. how can I legally work in the USA after my EAD from J visa expires, but if I have approved I 140.
thank you very much
My story is:
I've been on J2 for a while, it expires in May 2011. I have a EAD and currentlt I'm working for a company as a professional.I have a 5 years of Bs degree.
Questions are:
1. Can my employer apply for a Perm Cert for me if they want.
2. After getting the perm cert. can my employer file I 140 under EB3 for me?
3. Will I be eligible for premium processing for I 140 application, in 15 days?
4. Lets say all the above steps are accomplished and I got approved for I 140, all happened prior to May 2011 (this is the actual date my J visa and EAD expires).
a. Then I'll still be working with my current EAD, right?
b. Then what happens after May 2011?
c. DO I need to wait to file I 485 or can I file it right after my I 140 approved?
d. how can I legally work in the USA after my EAD from J visa expires, but if I have approved I 140.
thank you very much
Bolt
04-23 11:48 AM
Hi Guys,
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
Hi ,
congrats! did you get an approval i.e 797 with i-94 or without it ? am in the same situation, my previous h1b was denied on mar10th 2009 (which was filed on march 24th 2008). i had a transfer to another company thru premium processing on 30th of march 2009 and got approval on april 21st.
Please do reply.
I got the good news to share every one. got the approval . its wonderful
Hi ,
congrats! did you get an approval i.e 797 with i-94 or without it ? am in the same situation, my previous h1b was denied on mar10th 2009 (which was filed on march 24th 2008). i had a transfer to another company thru premium processing on 30th of march 2009 and got approval on april 21st.
Please do reply.
fittan
03-16 06:27 PM
GCPagla,
Job title doesn't have to be the same. The requirement is "same or similar" job. I am in the IT networking...network admin, system admin, network engineer, system engineer, IT consultant, network consultant are all the same. The key is that the job description is similar...there are no guidelines basically its all common sense. For you to go from programmer analyst to development is perfectly ok.
I've not done AC21 before. But if I do, here's what I'll do...Compare your labor description with the new job requirements. They should be similar. Prepare a AC21 letter that list the common and general requirements and send it to the USCIS. They are no official forms and some people even say that this letter is not necessary. However, I think it is important to cover your behind. Make sure this letter is certified, registered so that if anything happens you can prove that you did inform them and ported your I-140 to the new company.
Fittan
Job title doesn't have to be the same. The requirement is "same or similar" job. I am in the IT networking...network admin, system admin, network engineer, system engineer, IT consultant, network consultant are all the same. The key is that the job description is similar...there are no guidelines basically its all common sense. For you to go from programmer analyst to development is perfectly ok.
I've not done AC21 before. But if I do, here's what I'll do...Compare your labor description with the new job requirements. They should be similar. Prepare a AC21 letter that list the common and general requirements and send it to the USCIS. They are no official forms and some people even say that this letter is not necessary. However, I think it is important to cover your behind. Make sure this letter is certified, registered so that if anything happens you can prove that you did inform them and ported your I-140 to the new company.
Fittan
No comments:
Post a Comment