images new generation BMW M5 will 
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-13 03:44 PM
I am current now (PD: Feb 16th,06) and last time when i was current in 2008 for a month i got an RFE. Even though the attorney replied to the RFE in 3 days, all my case status shows is RFE response received.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
Ours is a big company and close 2000 people applied for 485 during the July 2007 fiasco and we were asked to send the G28 forms to the attorney by mail with no signature reqd. Apparently almost every got an RFE for that.
I wish i could get to know if RFE was all taken care of and my case is pending for a VISA number. Any way to know if thats the case gurus?
Why did you not open an SR. I was in the same situation, my company replied back to the RFE and the status still says we recieved your RFE. I opened an SR to find out my position this March, they said they are waiting for visa to get current.
Try opening an SR and just find status.
wallpaper Bmw M5 Photos
CT_Green
09-26 09:56 AM
This is actually an article by FSB (Forture Small Business) and they have a debate section. Just wanted to make everyone aware. Thanks.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/
GCStatus
09-17 09:15 PM
Goldman Sachs is next. Then WaMu + there will be bank runs. It doesn't look good. We will probably see car makers in line. Home builders will be next. Dell, HP is laying off. We are totally sc----d. We have no hope of GC. We will be lucky to hold on to our jobs.:(
Oh my God, i am screwed, end of the world, life sucks, dont know what to do, i am crying, i am bleeding, screaming, God, superpower help meeeee, save meeee
Get a life dude, you werent born thinking america
Oh my God, i am screwed, end of the world, life sucks, dont know what to do, i am crying, i am bleeding, screaming, God, superpower help meeeee, save meeee
Get a life dude, you werent born thinking america
2011 2006 BMW M5 Full Front View
varshadas
03-07 12:45 PM
Ajay and Shekhar. Did you guys have any luck with the Congressmen?
more...
drirshad
07-04 09:35 PM
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
chanduv23
04-09 10:40 PM
We are not saying that they are not doing their job well. We just want better visibility to plan our future. I want to buy Hose which has substancial investment, can I buy during this uncertainity, may be.
Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
Buying a hose is not substantial investment. It may cost $20 to $50 based on the length you need
more...
trueguy
07-30 12:09 PM
Add E&Y (Ernst and Young) to the list.
2010 Wald BMW M5 - Front Angle,
ujayra01
03-17 10:41 AM
EB3-India
PD: Dec 2003
EAD-AP approved, FP done
PD: Dec 2003
EAD-AP approved, FP done
more...
PresidentO
03-10 01:31 PM
I have been lurking on this forum to understand the plight of EB immigrants and the posts the last few weeks have confirmed my belief that the problem exist because a lot of people came to the US from 1999-2006 and want to stay here permanently. The EB immigration system was fine before then; thus, the problem is supply/demand, not the immigration policies.
Let me guess. You are brother/sister of Ron Hira who is in bed with programmers guild and who wants to shut the golden door as soon as he is done. Ron and ilk would never say that they/their parent's stole an American job. They are all genuine and we are all fraud. If you can stay permanently, We can too. Cut the crap! Kid
You showed your two big foot in your mouth by saying that immigration policy has nothing to do with this and this is purely supply/demand. Whom are you trying to kid? Supply and demand changed because the immigration policy changed. H1B visas were increased from 65K to 195K, without a increase in the GC numbers. Folks on the hill made businesses happy by increasing the H1B numbers and did not care a rat's ass about how the increase will choke the GC system. The effect is compounded with 245i and USCIS inefficiency. But the root cause is policy that did not encompass all aspects of Employment based immigration.
You moron! People just did not come here night over night flying on their wings. It is the policy stupid that created the supply/demand problem. You don't need to lurk and then lash out by taking a conversation out of context. The guy who quoted the 2A was just quoting the retrogression times in EB and FB and was pointing out the absurdity. Of all the people, you thought EB folks dont care about family and unification issues. Yeah right! What else you gotta spit?
Let me guess. You are brother/sister of Ron Hira who is in bed with programmers guild and who wants to shut the golden door as soon as he is done. Ron and ilk would never say that they/their parent's stole an American job. They are all genuine and we are all fraud. If you can stay permanently, We can too. Cut the crap! Kid
You showed your two big foot in your mouth by saying that immigration policy has nothing to do with this and this is purely supply/demand. Whom are you trying to kid? Supply and demand changed because the immigration policy changed. H1B visas were increased from 65K to 195K, without a increase in the GC numbers. Folks on the hill made businesses happy by increasing the H1B numbers and did not care a rat's ass about how the increase will choke the GC system. The effect is compounded with 245i and USCIS inefficiency. But the root cause is policy that did not encompass all aspects of Employment based immigration.
You moron! People just did not come here night over night flying on their wings. It is the policy stupid that created the supply/demand problem. You don't need to lurk and then lash out by taking a conversation out of context. The guy who quoted the 2A was just quoting the retrogression times in EB and FB and was pointing out the absurdity. Of all the people, you thought EB folks dont care about family and unification issues. Yeah right! What else you gotta spit?
hair BMW M5 Touring
tawlibann
03-18 07:17 PM
Here is what you provided on the banned id
Phone number 631-922-xxxx. I called the number and a lady answered. I asked "Is there any one living with last name FOGGS?" The answer is NO. I asked are you sure? She goes mad. I then went on to see the city you provided in MD exists, Google maps has no clue about the city.
There are many non-contributing & contributing members and its entirely your wish to do so or not but IV does not need any distractions. Don't bring in the free speech and 1st amendment now.
May be its fun for you and our friends, its not funny here.
I am not saying anything about free speech. I realize this is a forum that belongs to a private organization and has not obligations to provide a platform for free speech to anybody. That's why I said that if you do not want me here, I'll leave.
As to the details provided, these were not required details and I didn't agree to anyone to call me at home. I entered the phone, because the form was broken and gave me some errors. Btw, the registration form is still broken, because it has a section for Required Information, and Additional Information. In Additional Information (which I assume is optional), it is still asking whether I'm going to attend DC Rally in 2007. If you do not answer the question about the rally, it doesn't allow you to register.
I haven't filled out all of details, because as I said, I thought they were optional. If there was anything missing that you want me to fill in, you could've told me so rather than ban the handle.
Phone number 631-922-xxxx. I called the number and a lady answered. I asked "Is there any one living with last name FOGGS?" The answer is NO. I asked are you sure? She goes mad. I then went on to see the city you provided in MD exists, Google maps has no clue about the city.
There are many non-contributing & contributing members and its entirely your wish to do so or not but IV does not need any distractions. Don't bring in the free speech and 1st amendment now.
May be its fun for you and our friends, its not funny here.
I am not saying anything about free speech. I realize this is a forum that belongs to a private organization and has not obligations to provide a platform for free speech to anybody. That's why I said that if you do not want me here, I'll leave.
As to the details provided, these were not required details and I didn't agree to anyone to call me at home. I entered the phone, because the form was broken and gave me some errors. Btw, the registration form is still broken, because it has a section for Required Information, and Additional Information. In Additional Information (which I assume is optional), it is still asking whether I'm going to attend DC Rally in 2007. If you do not answer the question about the rally, it doesn't allow you to register.
I haven't filled out all of details, because as I said, I thought they were optional. If there was anything missing that you want me to fill in, you could've told me so rather than ban the handle.
more...
webr
07-12 07:09 PM
cut-off dates are equal for both India & china. Does that mean that both are going to jump in August bulletin? Hope they move it further to atleast Dec 2006.
Stop being selfish first , you will get automatically then.... You wanted to move dates , since your PD Is Dec 2006 ... There are tons waiting after your dates. Just consider others.
Stop being selfish first , you will get automatically then.... You wanted to move dates , since your PD Is Dec 2006 ... There are tons waiting after your dates. Just consider others.
hot 2009 mw m5 to be powered by a
bfadlia
09-10 05:55 PM
Guys,
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
That is absolutely reasonable.
Canada does exactly that. You need 4 years for citizenship, but if you were in the country legally before getting permanent residence that is counted.
Unfortunately, US legislators don't care about what's reasonable, their only thinking is "will supporting this bill benefit or hurt my chances of re-election"
The link isnt working for me too.
I hope things work in favor with this bill today, but if not, we must ask for Citizenship instead of Greencards. Anyone with me.,
We have all waited for 5-10 year and there are many who got it in one year and then Citizenship in 6-8 years from the day they got their GCs. That was the normal timeframe. But due to their inefficiency, we are waiting this much time. NOT our fault. Now dont you guys think we must ask for Citizenship.. I thought my case was too stressful, came 99, applied 04, waiting for 485 now, but I have seen so many many stories of ohter guys also here who suffered more. I feel we must ask them Citizenship. If we get, great, else atleast we end up with GC.
Anybody with me,
Thanks,
Sri.,
That is absolutely reasonable.
Canada does exactly that. You need 4 years for citizenship, but if you were in the country legally before getting permanent residence that is counted.
Unfortunately, US legislators don't care about what's reasonable, their only thinking is "will supporting this bill benefit or hurt my chances of re-election"
more...
house 2011 BMW M5 Nice view
bigboy007
06-11 12:20 PM
Everyone is again talking about ifs and buts. Guys why do not you put your hard work on what is more important than what is never ever going to happen. People with a GC, if this Bill passes, they are not going to renew your GC also. How's about that? People with a US citizenship, with previous GC status, they will not renew the USA passport, if this Bill passes. How's about that?
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Dude, we are not suggesting or even thinking that we should move away from main agenda, thats there and thats where IV advocacy days aimed at. Its part of the game. You cant sail the sea without winning over turbulences. these are not if and if nots.
Other If's you are trying to post are not in the works, if they are then its same path. You cant turn a blind eye to something that is already happening.
So forget all these bogus bills, and support our main agenda, which is to remove the Backlogs. If you do not have any new news, then sit idle, but please do not spread these bogus out-of-world stories.
Dude, we are not suggesting or even thinking that we should move away from main agenda, thats there and thats where IV advocacy days aimed at. Its part of the game. You cant sail the sea without winning over turbulences. these are not if and if nots.
Other If's you are trying to post are not in the works, if they are then its same path. You cant turn a blind eye to something that is already happening.
tattoo BMW M5 Touring : Safety
vijayassr
02-23 02:24 AM
Hi,
Have a question on my visa.
I applied for H1 visa with company A, when I am in US in Apr'08 with
L1 thats getting expired, due to emergency I went to India.
I got h1 approval notice with COS on July'23 2008.
My Indian company B asked to get fresh L1 , so I took a stamping on
Aug'20 2008 and came to US on L1
changed company A with H1 visa . (company A did not do any COS again, since they say H1 is already with COS).
Want to know if my H1 is valid do I need to do any other things to
tell USCIS that I am on H1 NOW. Can I do stamping at Mexico/Cuba.
If there is any problem above how to come out of it.
Have a question on my visa.
I applied for H1 visa with company A, when I am in US in Apr'08 with
L1 thats getting expired, due to emergency I went to India.
I got h1 approval notice with COS on July'23 2008.
My Indian company B asked to get fresh L1 , so I took a stamping on
Aug'20 2008 and came to US on L1
changed company A with H1 visa . (company A did not do any COS again, since they say H1 is already with COS).
Want to know if my H1 is valid do I need to do any other things to
tell USCIS that I am on H1 NOW. Can I do stamping at Mexico/Cuba.
If there is any problem above how to come out of it.
more...
pictures 3.8L Inline 6 BMW M5.
Abhinaym
07-03 10:26 AM
...that the system is severely backlogged and needs repair but to say it is unfair to limit the number of immigrants from one country does not make sense. Removing the per country limit would allow one or two countries to dominate the EB system because their high populations allow them to produce more skilled labor. So removing the per country limit would remove the "bias" off these countries and move it to the ones with lower populations; so, in essence the discrimination would be reversed? Maybe a point-based system that incorporates a per country score would be better?
Hey DN, look this whole point about "countries to dominate the EB system" is totally frivolous. Please try to understand 2 points (I say please again):
1. Cards don't go out to countries, they are given to individuals, whose background, education, motivation, employability, circumstances are completely different from another individual from the same country. From your profile it seems you are Canadian, does it make any sense to say that you shouldn't be given a GC, because a whole bunch of Canandians got a GC in the past? Why should there be a relation between country and employability here? (After all the GC is for employability in the long run)
2. Just because another of my countrymen got a GC doesn't make any difference to me or my employer! They don't subsidize me, they don't feed me, they don't pay my bills, they don't work for my employer/clients. Again, my employer wants to keep me employed beyond my H1 date, how and why should it matter to the employer/client/economy that heaps of Indians got their GCs?
Buddy, I'm different, I'm a very unique individual - so are you, and so is everyone in this forum. I bring a diversity in skillset which is why my employer hires me, not because of my ethnicity or country of origin.
Basically that's what should matter to the economy, a diversity in skillset not in race or national origin. And who's best at deciding that other than the employer?! Besides, the EB GC system is designed to strengthen the workforce and not about doing favors to countries, right?
Hey DN, look this whole point about "countries to dominate the EB system" is totally frivolous. Please try to understand 2 points (I say please again):
1. Cards don't go out to countries, they are given to individuals, whose background, education, motivation, employability, circumstances are completely different from another individual from the same country. From your profile it seems you are Canadian, does it make any sense to say that you shouldn't be given a GC, because a whole bunch of Canandians got a GC in the past? Why should there be a relation between country and employability here? (After all the GC is for employability in the long run)
2. Just because another of my countrymen got a GC doesn't make any difference to me or my employer! They don't subsidize me, they don't feed me, they don't pay my bills, they don't work for my employer/clients. Again, my employer wants to keep me employed beyond my H1 date, how and why should it matter to the employer/client/economy that heaps of Indians got their GCs?
Buddy, I'm different, I'm a very unique individual - so are you, and so is everyone in this forum. I bring a diversity in skillset which is why my employer hires me, not because of my ethnicity or country of origin.
Basically that's what should matter to the economy, a diversity in skillset not in race or national origin. And who's best at deciding that other than the employer?! Besides, the EB GC system is designed to strengthen the workforce and not about doing favors to countries, right?
dresses the BMW M5
Refugee_New
12-20 05:23 PM
Folks, I didn't worked for an year(2001) due to, you know what I am saying....
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
Hey, are you from Andhra pradesh?
Now I am afraid that I would get an RFE because of that. Do you think that I need to worry about it? :(
Hey, are you from Andhra pradesh?
more...
makeup 2006 BMW M5 - White Mischief
GCOP
07-11 02:07 PM
How many applications are pending for EB-3 (I). ?
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
Currently the tunnel is closed at the end for EB-3 :mad: and the only way out I see is for us EB-3 folks to dig through. No one cares about EB-3 I folks. That's the way I see it.
girlfriend BMW M5 Sedan : Exterior
go_guy123
06-08 06:58 PM
Same old stuff. I dont see a light at the end of the tunnel till some immigration reform bill gets shoved in or a comprehensive immigration bill is introduced.
The obama administration is not in a mood to touch immigration and we live to be scape goats of policies back from 90's.
Immigration is the third rail of American Politics. Nobody wants to touch that.
Obama and his party wont risk election 2010
The obama administration is not in a mood to touch immigration and we live to be scape goats of policies back from 90's.
Immigration is the third rail of American Politics. Nobody wants to touch that.
Obama and his party wont risk election 2010
hairstyles BMW M5 Lumma Design CLR 500
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
deepimpact
09-10 01:53 PM
If USCIS wants to do another JULY 2007 they never learnt their lession. With the Quarterly/annual quota I dont think USCIS legally can make EB2 current. I hate another JULY 2007 for sure.
They can make a category current when Demand < Supply. So once all I-485s prior to 2007 are approved the monthly demand data they publish will show demand Prior to CY2011 = 200. So unless they use approved I-140 to determine demand , DOS will make the dates current(even if for 1 month). As long as USCIS uses pending I-485 data to determine demand, the July 2007 fiasco will keep on repeating every 3-4 years. The key here is to have USCIS provide the actual demand (people with approved I-140s). It was mentioned somewhere that the current USCIS database is not capable of sorting the I-140s by country of chargebility and hence the I-140 data can't be used to determine per country demand.
They can make a category current when Demand < Supply. So once all I-485s prior to 2007 are approved the monthly demand data they publish will show demand Prior to CY2011 = 200. So unless they use approved I-140 to determine demand , DOS will make the dates current(even if for 1 month). As long as USCIS uses pending I-485 data to determine demand, the July 2007 fiasco will keep on repeating every 3-4 years. The key here is to have USCIS provide the actual demand (people with approved I-140s). It was mentioned somewhere that the current USCIS database is not capable of sorting the I-140s by country of chargebility and hence the I-140 data can't be used to determine per country demand.
map_boiler
07-05 05:30 PM
Guys, please contribute to IV. I just did today, and believe me, you will feel better for doing so...
This is not just for you and me, but also for those who will come after us. Also, this is not a battle just to sue USCIS/DOS, but a war we need to fight on multiple fronts:
1) First and foremost, we the immigrant community need to join hands and fight as one cohesive group.
2) Sue the government agencies for damages/violation of law/precedents due to the revised visa bulletin
3) Get this matter the attention it deserves in the media
4) Try and get congress to intervene in this matter, and also introduce and pass legislation that will fix the broken employment based immigration system
5) Request corporate sponsorship. Since employers spent money on this fiasco as well, they will have a vested interest in pursuing this as well.
The main thing, however, is funds. IV needs funds to fight for us. Each of us has already spent 100's (many even 1000's) of $ trying to get ready to file our I-485's. So even if 10,000 members contribute just $100 each, it will be $1 mil. I am sure each of us can at least spare that much. It is a small price to pay for liberation from this GC mess for all of us....
With ~15,000 members already, and hopefully some serious $$$$$$ raised, IV will be a force to be reckoned with. No one will be able to treat us with such utter disdain ever again...
This is not just for you and me, but also for those who will come after us. Also, this is not a battle just to sue USCIS/DOS, but a war we need to fight on multiple fronts:
1) First and foremost, we the immigrant community need to join hands and fight as one cohesive group.
2) Sue the government agencies for damages/violation of law/precedents due to the revised visa bulletin
3) Get this matter the attention it deserves in the media
4) Try and get congress to intervene in this matter, and also introduce and pass legislation that will fix the broken employment based immigration system
5) Request corporate sponsorship. Since employers spent money on this fiasco as well, they will have a vested interest in pursuing this as well.
The main thing, however, is funds. IV needs funds to fight for us. Each of us has already spent 100's (many even 1000's) of $ trying to get ready to file our I-485's. So even if 10,000 members contribute just $100 each, it will be $1 mil. I am sure each of us can at least spare that much. It is a small price to pay for liberation from this GC mess for all of us....
With ~15,000 members already, and hopefully some serious $$$$$$ raised, IV will be a force to be reckoned with. No one will be able to treat us with such utter disdain ever again...
