hsm2007
09-20 07:28 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.
Thanks.
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Thanks.
harikris
12-05 09:56 PM
Hi maverick_iv and smuggymba - thanks to you both. between you two, all my Qs are answered.
I will mail the app and then go visit the embassy after 10 days - i think that will be more effective.
Thanks.
I will mail the app and then go visit the embassy after 10 days - i think that will be more effective.
Thanks.
singhsa3
08-29 01:22 PM
I think they had understanding of RD all along. The reason I say that is anytime I contacted IO or went to InfoPass they had this information.
What was different then was that they had all applications in sets of boxes, which had random applications.
Now thinking logically, it would take them lots of efforts to sort that mess out. And the best way out is to retrogress to a point where the available number of visas will be utilized as well a degree of fairness can be achieved.
Published dates are only a general ballpark information to indicate where are for the remaining cases. Havn't they already granted visas to those filed in August/Sept '07?
This change is all due to their better understanding of what is a Receive Date. So far, they have been treating date when they physically enter data in the system (date which you see online as "we received your case on...") as the Receive Date, and making all predictions, postings and claims based on that. Now they know that it is what you see on your receipt as the Receive Date, and hence the back step in the dates. TSC is at June 18, NSC is at July 2.
They should better post where they are based on PDs, and work based on that too.
What was different then was that they had all applications in sets of boxes, which had random applications.
Now thinking logically, it would take them lots of efforts to sort that mess out. And the best way out is to retrogress to a point where the available number of visas will be utilized as well a degree of fairness can be achieved.
Published dates are only a general ballpark information to indicate where are for the remaining cases. Havn't they already granted visas to those filed in August/Sept '07?
This change is all due to their better understanding of what is a Receive Date. So far, they have been treating date when they physically enter data in the system (date which you see online as "we received your case on...") as the Receive Date, and making all predictions, postings and claims based on that. Now they know that it is what you see on your receipt as the Receive Date, and hence the back step in the dates. TSC is at June 18, NSC is at July 2.
They should better post where they are based on PDs, and work based on that too.
new_horizon
03-08 06:44 AM
Filed online on Dec 20 for both me and my wife. Send additional docs in 1 week. EAD and AP approved on Feb 23. Nebraska center. Only sad thing is EAD and AP are not in one card. I got EAD approved for 2 years, but AP for only 1 year in paper form.
Can anyone offer suggestion if I should call USCIS why they did not give it in a single card. 'coz I thought they were supposed to issue both the EAD and AP in one card starting Feb 11. I applied for both together.
Can anyone offer suggestion if I should call USCIS why they did not give it in a single card. 'coz I thought they were supposed to issue both the EAD and AP in one card starting Feb 11. I applied for both together.
more...
Munna Bhai
07-12 09:48 AM
Yes, you can. You can switch to H4 and back to H1 without worrying about the Cap limitation. The only point that is little hazy is how long can you stay on a H4 before you can get back to H1 without the cap limitation kicking in. As the H1 is given in 3 year installments, would you have to get back to your H1 before that 3 year period ends, if in the middle of that period you had switched to H4?
Say, you had obtained your H1 in Jan 2007 and is good until Jan 2010 (3 years allotment), and you switched to H4 in Dec 2007 using up 1 year of your H1. I think that you can switch back to H1 without the cap limitation ONLY until Jan 2010 and your new papers will give you another 3 years of the remaining 5 years of your H1.
Let me know what you find. Good luck.
One person just told me that, I can switch to H4 but I will be subjected to Cap since my spouse is in H1b non-profit.
Currently my H1b extension is based on i-140 approval(3 years), will same rule apply to my case.
Say, you had obtained your H1 in Jan 2007 and is good until Jan 2010 (3 years allotment), and you switched to H4 in Dec 2007 using up 1 year of your H1. I think that you can switch back to H1 without the cap limitation ONLY until Jan 2010 and your new papers will give you another 3 years of the remaining 5 years of your H1.
Let me know what you find. Good luck.
One person just told me that, I can switch to H4 but I will be subjected to Cap since my spouse is in H1b non-profit.
Currently my H1b extension is based on i-140 approval(3 years), will same rule apply to my case.
kalwinhobbess
08-28 06:16 PM
Its writern in the RFE. I got an RFE and in that letter its clearly mentioned by when you need to submit the required docs.
more...
ursosweet
07-17 05:45 PM
one silly question. How weeks do we have in hand to file 485?
no you have until august 17, 2007.
see murthy.com
pk
no you have until august 17, 2007.
see murthy.com
pk
misha
07-21 11:08 AM
Forgot to tell. Regarding my attorney, you can not use AP before it's start date. So you can not travel in August 2008 on AP with start date October 2008.
Misha
Misha
more...
sen
02-21 08:02 AM
Guys,
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
I have a similar question. I have both H1 visa (valid till Feb 09) and approved AP document. I am planning to use my H1 during my re-entry into US. Do i still need to present/inform about my AP to POE officer?
Please advise.
shirish
02-23 02:21 PM
This issue was discussed in 2 other threds in the last 2 months. I don't remember the name of the threads. Please search.
The status of I-140 application may be important. Out of state tution may depend on the state.
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
The status of I-140 application may be important. Out of state tution may depend on the state.
What if I-140 is approved , and the primary applicant (H1) is waiting for the PD to be current, and the dependent wants to go to school. Will this have any impact on the GC process?
more...
snathan
03-31 01:16 PM
Not all L1 is bad
Not all H1B is bad
Not all consulting companies are bad
So why are we behaving like crabs?
Think from a perspecive of a legit L1 visa holder too
To anti Immigrants even your greencard is bad.
He will be happy if your greencard is made painful
Will you rejoice then?
What Sen is doing is looking at everything in black and white. He is making all L1 as bad. He shoud be suggesting fixes in L1 like giving more power to L1s to complain and protecting them if they complain. he should be making punishment tougher for fraud. But he is targetting the whole via and you are feeling happy about it. Just because you are not an L1 visa holder some of us are happy. Tommow if he does it to all EAD holders will you be happy?
Forget this Crab story...it’s a crap story written by one idiot followed by other idiots only when its adding value for their argument.
If not all, most of the L1 are abusive. I know a company paying 30K for L1. They no longer take H1B and lay off H1 people whoever was already working with them.
But how are they are going scot-free...all the expenses are billed to the client but shown as benefit to the employee.
So the client is losing , the employee is losing.
But I am not supporting this whatever is reported.
When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Not all H1B is bad
Not all consulting companies are bad
So why are we behaving like crabs?
Think from a perspecive of a legit L1 visa holder too
To anti Immigrants even your greencard is bad.
He will be happy if your greencard is made painful
Will you rejoice then?
What Sen is doing is looking at everything in black and white. He is making all L1 as bad. He shoud be suggesting fixes in L1 like giving more power to L1s to complain and protecting them if they complain. he should be making punishment tougher for fraud. But he is targetting the whole via and you are feeling happy about it. Just because you are not an L1 visa holder some of us are happy. Tommow if he does it to all EAD holders will you be happy?
Forget this Crab story...it’s a crap story written by one idiot followed by other idiots only when its adding value for their argument.
If not all, most of the L1 are abusive. I know a company paying 30K for L1. They no longer take H1B and lay off H1 people whoever was already working with them.
But how are they are going scot-free...all the expenses are billed to the client but shown as benefit to the employee.
So the client is losing , the employee is losing.
But I am not supporting this whatever is reported.
When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
kisana
04-11 07:55 AM
I have couple of questions
1. There is question "Have you ever applied for Online Authorization form USCIS". My answer to that is yes. But in the "Date of application" what should I write. It should be the date on which EAD was issues from EAD card, or date which apparead in receipt notice.
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
1. There is question "Have you ever applied for Online Authorization form USCIS". My answer to that is yes. But in the "Date of application" what should I write. It should be the date on which EAD was issues from EAD card, or date which apparead in receipt notice.
2. Also there is question "Please provide information concerning your eligibility status:", what should I provide in that text box.
Please suggest.
more...
needhelp!
04-10 05:27 PM
Please continue to post bugs and suggestions.
raj7480
09-18 04:42 PM
I would recommend not to worry about that and make the move. Non compete in general is not easy to enforce through a court. Particularly if it stops you from earning your livelihood. If you live in CA, it not valid. Many states have different laws and most of the court decision favor employees.
Since you H1B was denied, Company A cannot prove any loss of business to them because of your move.
Since you H1B was denied, Company A cannot prove any loss of business to them because of your move.
more...
ssss
01-10 06:43 PM
My husband's case was transferred from CSC to TSC. We haven't received the FP notice yet. USCIS status "The I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS was transferred and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office". when we called customer service cust service rep informed that we need to wait 180 days after the transfer for FP
lostinbeta
10-20 10:56 PM
Oh... yeah that makes sense. I just change the spelling so it still shows, it is just grammatically incorrect :P
more...
small2006
08-31 10:15 AM
Looks like this is only for renewals
A colleague of mine (not India or China) got her EAD card in mail within a month of applying. Her 485 has been pending for more than a year.
Another friend of mine from India got his approved within 60 days of applying.
Doesn't all these mean that the interim EAD (or whatever you want to call it) is still possible and we can get it?
I am confused.
A colleague of mine (not India or China) got her EAD card in mail within a month of applying. Her 485 has been pending for more than a year.
Another friend of mine from India got his approved within 60 days of applying.
Doesn't all these mean that the interim EAD (or whatever you want to call it) is still possible and we can get it?
I am confused.
NWISE
06-23 02:57 PM
It seems like earlier there used to be a certainty with the CIR. The news over the past few days is indicating that this certainty no longer exists.
As I have suggested before, does it make sense to close our eyes to all other options and just concentrate on CIR? If the CIR does happen, great! If not, what then? We're left empty handed once again. It would be prudent to continue to work on the smaller bills that will help alleviate the problems.
The way to go at this huge problem is to attack it piecemeal. Take small bites and keep furthering our agenda in small steps. Small successes will improve participation from this community, generate momentum and help our cause.
As I have suggested before, does it make sense to close our eyes to all other options and just concentrate on CIR? If the CIR does happen, great! If not, what then? We're left empty handed once again. It would be prudent to continue to work on the smaller bills that will help alleviate the problems.
The way to go at this huge problem is to attack it piecemeal. Take small bites and keep furthering our agenda in small steps. Small successes will improve participation from this community, generate momentum and help our cause.
seaken75
10-09 01:35 PM
bump
needhelp!
10-10 11:37 AM
perks included..
Anders �stberg
June 19th, 2005, 09:29 AM
A bit better but still a little grey. I don't think you can get detail on the chest area for instance and keep the blacks looking black on the rest of the bird.
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
I do use autofocus, at least with the 1D2 it works fine. The 20D is a bit iffy, it should work but it hunts sometimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment