Raj Iyer
09-22 04:38 PM
Go for premium processing.
colors
09-05 11:42 AM
Kumar,
It should come with in a week. It all depends on whether you filed your I-485 through attorney or not. For me they send it on 08/29/08. My attorneys informed me on 09/04/2008.
Hope that helps
It should come with in a week. It all depends on whether you filed your I-485 through attorney or not. For me they send it on 08/29/08. My attorneys informed me on 09/04/2008.
Hope that helps
sheshadripv
12-13 11:50 AM
Hi,
I'm in the US working on L1 visa, though I have an expired visa, I have I94 valid until Jun 2008 which makes me legal to work here until Jun 2008. Now, I'm planning to travel to India, Do I need transit visa in France if I travel via france.
Thanks in advance,
Sheshadri
I'm in the US working on L1 visa, though I have an expired visa, I have I94 valid until Jun 2008 which makes me legal to work here until Jun 2008. Now, I'm planning to travel to India, Do I need transit visa in France if I travel via france.
Thanks in advance,
Sheshadri
akred
05-26 07:27 PM
I'm puzzled that there has been a slow reaction to the Bernie Sander's killer amendment that was disguised as a scholarship fund which has always been there and has benefited many Americans and the National Science Foundation. None of the faxes have been amended neither have the emails, we're asking for good things which are only likely to benefit a few but leave many others in peril. We need to find a way to cushion the effect of this amendment and at the same time highlight that the H1 program is not what it has been vilified to be.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
1. Any H1B issues affect employers more than the employees, so employers will make an issue out of any onerous requirement.
2. Any H1B fee is to be paid by the employer and is viewed as a tax and cost of doing business by the employer. Like any tax, it will mean cutbacks in other areas possibly existing charitable contributions to education or some such non essential cost.
I would expect Compete America and employers to speak up if they feel they would be affected by any H1B taxes.
Point is, if IV attains its goals on EB visas, there will still be many members affected by Bernie Sander's amendment. Of what use will visa number availability be to someone whose non H1-B dependent employer makes an economic decision to lay them off as they can longer afford to spend $250,000 a year + attorney fees renewing 50 H1-B's ? Given that this person would instantly be out of status (and find it difficult to find an employer rushing to spend $5k right away), the individual would have no recourse also given that they would not be eligible for a Z visa. Can someone help me understand why sticking to an old though good strategy and message without slightly adapting it to the current reality holds good promise for those in limbo by paying no attention to the effects of the Sander's amendment (pending at BEC, beyond 6th year renewal, I-140 not filed as of May 21st 2007 etc)
1. Any H1B issues affect employers more than the employees, so employers will make an issue out of any onerous requirement.
2. Any H1B fee is to be paid by the employer and is viewed as a tax and cost of doing business by the employer. Like any tax, it will mean cutbacks in other areas possibly existing charitable contributions to education or some such non essential cost.
I would expect Compete America and employers to speak up if they feel they would be affected by any H1B taxes.
more...
hpandey
03-12 10:18 AM
Interesting. I never received the 1099-INT. Will talk to my bank.
You would receive the 1099-INT form only if your interest income is above 10 $ . If it is less than that you won't get it . That's why probably you did not receive it if you had negligible interest.
You would receive the 1099-INT form only if your interest income is above 10 $ . If it is less than that you won't get it . That's why probably you did not receive it if you had negligible interest.
suren
10-07 02:35 PM
Thanks for you reply.
My only conern is about I-94. When ever we renew the h1b we get new I-94 but in this instance my I94 got expired do i need to get new I94? if yes how can I get?
My only conern is about I-94. When ever we renew the h1b we get new I-94 but in this instance my I94 got expired do i need to get new I94? if yes how can I get?
more...
snathan
04-13 01:29 PM
Hello IV Freinds,
I checked my mail last Saturday, got Cards and welcome approval notices in mail. Status at USCIS website still shows all cases pending. I had called my Senators office for follow up week before as processing dates also had also passed.
I appreciate IV for providing this website for sharing our immigration issues and concerns in this long journey.
Good luck to all IV members who are still awaiting for good day to come.
Thanks,
Conguratulations...do you consider to donate anything to IV...
I checked my mail last Saturday, got Cards and welcome approval notices in mail. Status at USCIS website still shows all cases pending. I had called my Senators office for follow up week before as processing dates also had also passed.
I appreciate IV for providing this website for sharing our immigration issues and concerns in this long journey.
Good luck to all IV members who are still awaiting for good day to come.
Thanks,
Conguratulations...do you consider to donate anything to IV...
dan19
08-28 03:16 PM
Thanks!
PD: Sept 2002
I guess you filed EB3. I was in same situation with BS and MS in Industrial engineering. my I-140 got approved a year ago without any problem. I am waiting for visa number ROW Oct2003. What is your PD?
PD: Sept 2002
I guess you filed EB3. I was in same situation with BS and MS in Industrial engineering. my I-140 got approved a year ago without any problem. I am waiting for visa number ROW Oct2003. What is your PD?
more...
GoneSouth
07-05 11:31 PM
then outsourced jobs will come back to USA
Oh? Who are they going to hire? ;)
Oh? Who are they going to hire? ;)
rkotamurthy
09-16 02:03 AM
If you ask " Why Am I responsible for low media attention?" My answer is each and every Legal Skilled Immigrant is responsible for this. We are a tribe who do not believe in shouting on the roads. We think this is cheap!
Trust me, this is not being done in any cheap manner. It is not cheap to ask what you deserve. It is not cheap to express one's opinion in a diginified manner not offending anyone. It is not cheap to explain your problems to your lawmaker.
If you think that participating in this rally is cheap and only uneducated would shout on the roads, then come to DC to witness PhDs, MBAs, PMPs, CPAs, Attorneys and some of the brightest and the best minds shout at the top of their voice to fix the broken immigration system.
Sounds unbelievable, come, witness it for yourself on Sept 18th at Washington Monument.
Trust me, this is not being done in any cheap manner. It is not cheap to ask what you deserve. It is not cheap to express one's opinion in a diginified manner not offending anyone. It is not cheap to explain your problems to your lawmaker.
If you think that participating in this rally is cheap and only uneducated would shout on the roads, then come to DC to witness PhDs, MBAs, PMPs, CPAs, Attorneys and some of the brightest and the best minds shout at the top of their voice to fix the broken immigration system.
Sounds unbelievable, come, witness it for yourself on Sept 18th at Washington Monument.
more...
Ind_murali
06-29 11:34 AM
Sakthisagar is correct, i was in the same situation in yr 2006. When i went for stamping in chennai,India I was able to get the stamping for current + future (4years without any problems). At the POE my I-94 was stamped till 2010. I hope this helps.
shreekhand
08-28 04:42 PM
Actually it completely depends on the attorney. I know a couple of people in my company who changed employers and used the old attorney to file AC21 papers for them! and it is a big employer and a big attorney firm !
you should use another attorney. How can you go to your employer's attonery(even though he represents you) and ask about taking another job?. Its same as asking your employer.:eek:
you should use another attorney. How can you go to your employer's attonery(even though he represents you) and ask about taking another job?. Its same as asking your employer.:eek:
more...
desi3933
08-18 09:12 AM
Gurus,
Sorry.. I just received the letter received from USCIS.. Its mentioned as "NOTICE TO INTENT TO DENY(NOID)".
The reason specified in the letters:
- Section 203(b)(2)(A)
- 8 C.F.R 204.5(l)(3)(ii)(C)
........
Here is the definition from USCIS regulations (refer to 8 CFR �204.5 (k) (2)) for advanced degree equivalency: "Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate."
The key word here is degree, i.e., singular degree. That means - the beneficiary must have �a degree�, not a combination of degrees. Combination of degrees, therefore, is not permitted for EB-2 Advanced Degree classification.
I have written many times on this issue, please refer to my old posts for more details.
______________
Not a legal advice.
Sorry.. I just received the letter received from USCIS.. Its mentioned as "NOTICE TO INTENT TO DENY(NOID)".
The reason specified in the letters:
- Section 203(b)(2)(A)
- 8 C.F.R 204.5(l)(3)(ii)(C)
........
Here is the definition from USCIS regulations (refer to 8 CFR �204.5 (k) (2)) for advanced degree equivalency: "Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate."
The key word here is degree, i.e., singular degree. That means - the beneficiary must have �a degree�, not a combination of degrees. Combination of degrees, therefore, is not permitted for EB-2 Advanced Degree classification.
I have written many times on this issue, please refer to my old posts for more details.
______________
Not a legal advice.
soarin3655
04-08 02:41 PM
US taxman gets after Indian-Americans - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/news/US-taxman-gets-after-Indian-Americans/articleshow/7915510.cms)
US taxman gets after Indian-Americans
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN | Apr 8, 2011, 09.40pm IST
On Thursday, the US govt filed a petition with the court to allow the IRS to serve what is known as a "John Doe" summons on HSBC Bank.
WASHINGTON: When you do a good deed, get a receipt, just in case heaven is like the IRS, goes the sagely tax advice in America. Some 9000 Indian-Americans are about to discover that tales of the dreaded Internal Revenue Service's omnipresence are not entirely exaggerated.
While millions of Americans are sweating it out to file their tax returns before the April 15 deadline, Uncle Sam's taxman has zeroed in wealthy Indian-Americans suspected of using their native land to stash away undeclared money and evade taxes. Yes; while India has long believed its wealthy has stashed away money abroad, the wheel has turned a full circle. The US now says its Indian-American citizens are using India as a tax haven.
In a surprising move that takes the American hunt for hidden money beyond the usual Swiss and Caribbean tax havens, the US Justice Department's civil tax division on Thursday asked a Federal Court's permission to force the London-based HSBC Bank to disclose names of thousands of wealthy Indian-American clients who it says maintain accounts with more than $ 100,000 in the bank's India branches -- ostensibly to hide it from the IRS taxman.
In a 47-page statement filed before a San Francisco court, the IRS said there were 9,000 US residents of Indian-origin who had $100,000-minimum-balance accounts at HSBC India but that fewer than 1,400 had disclosed existence of their accounts. US laws require citizens to disclose any foreign account containing $10,000 or more.
The US hunt for Indian-American tax evaders follows a case early this year when federal prosecutors nailed Vaibhav Dahake, a US citizen and an HSBC client for tax evasion by stashing money in India. According to documents filed with the government's petition, on Jan. 26, 2011, a grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, indicted Dahake, charging him with conspiracy to defraud the United States by using undeclared accounts in the British Virgin Islands and at HSBC India.
According to those documents, employees of HSBC Holdings plc and its affiliates operating in the United States assured Dahake that accounts maintained in India would not be reported to the IRS.
US authorities, attributing the information to HSBC's website, say that in 2002 HSBC India opened a "representative office" at an HSBC USA office in New York City to enable ''Non-Resident Indians'' (NRIs) living in the United States to open accounts in India. In 2007, HSBC India allegedly opened a second representative office at an HSBC USA office in Fremont, Calif., purportedly "to make banking transactions more convenient for the NRI community based in California." Although HSBC India closed those offices in June 2010, the government alleges that NRI clients may still access their accounts at HSBC India from the United States.
According to the petition documents, NRI clients have told IRS investigators that HSBC's NRI representatives in the United States assured them that they could invest in accounts at HSBC India without paying US income tax on interest earned on the accounts and that HSBC would not report the income earned on the HSBC India accounts to the IRS.
"The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that all US taxpayers meet their obligations to declare and pay taxes on foreign bank accounts," John A. DiCicco, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division, said in a statement. "The ability to hide accounts in foreign countries is rapidly dwindling. We will continue working hand-in-hand with the IRS to enforce the tax laws against those who are using offshore accounts � wherever they are located � to evade taxes."
The IRS focus on India and Indian-Americans follows a campaign against undeclared offshore accounts held by US taxpayers, primarily in tax havens such as Switzerland and the Caribbean. In a landmark case in 2009, the IRS went after UBS AG for allowing U.S citizens hide their assets and evade taxes. UBS coughed up $780 million in fines, and more importantly, turned over some 4000 names in a precedent-setting case.
"The IRS continues to focus its attention on international tax evasion," IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said on Thrusday about the HSBC India case. ''This summons request is focused on obtaining more information to help us determine if additional actions are needed. As I've said all along, our international efforts are not about just one country or one bank � it's about our wider effort to ensure compliance with the nation's tax laws."
Meanwhile, an HSBC spokesperson in New York told wire services that the bank has been engaged in a "constructive dialogue" with US authorities and hoped the issue can be resolved expeditiously. "HSBC does not condone tax evasion and fully supports the US efforts to promote appropriate payment of taxes by US taxpayers," spokeswoman Juanita Gutierrez said, adding that the bank complies with the law in all the jurisdictions and cooperates with requests from US authorities.
US taxman gets after Indian-Americans
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN | Apr 8, 2011, 09.40pm IST
On Thursday, the US govt filed a petition with the court to allow the IRS to serve what is known as a "John Doe" summons on HSBC Bank.
WASHINGTON: When you do a good deed, get a receipt, just in case heaven is like the IRS, goes the sagely tax advice in America. Some 9000 Indian-Americans are about to discover that tales of the dreaded Internal Revenue Service's omnipresence are not entirely exaggerated.
While millions of Americans are sweating it out to file their tax returns before the April 15 deadline, Uncle Sam's taxman has zeroed in wealthy Indian-Americans suspected of using their native land to stash away undeclared money and evade taxes. Yes; while India has long believed its wealthy has stashed away money abroad, the wheel has turned a full circle. The US now says its Indian-American citizens are using India as a tax haven.
In a surprising move that takes the American hunt for hidden money beyond the usual Swiss and Caribbean tax havens, the US Justice Department's civil tax division on Thursday asked a Federal Court's permission to force the London-based HSBC Bank to disclose names of thousands of wealthy Indian-American clients who it says maintain accounts with more than $ 100,000 in the bank's India branches -- ostensibly to hide it from the IRS taxman.
In a 47-page statement filed before a San Francisco court, the IRS said there were 9,000 US residents of Indian-origin who had $100,000-minimum-balance accounts at HSBC India but that fewer than 1,400 had disclosed existence of their accounts. US laws require citizens to disclose any foreign account containing $10,000 or more.
The US hunt for Indian-American tax evaders follows a case early this year when federal prosecutors nailed Vaibhav Dahake, a US citizen and an HSBC client for tax evasion by stashing money in India. According to documents filed with the government's petition, on Jan. 26, 2011, a grand jury in Newark, New Jersey, indicted Dahake, charging him with conspiracy to defraud the United States by using undeclared accounts in the British Virgin Islands and at HSBC India.
According to those documents, employees of HSBC Holdings plc and its affiliates operating in the United States assured Dahake that accounts maintained in India would not be reported to the IRS.
US authorities, attributing the information to HSBC's website, say that in 2002 HSBC India opened a "representative office" at an HSBC USA office in New York City to enable ''Non-Resident Indians'' (NRIs) living in the United States to open accounts in India. In 2007, HSBC India allegedly opened a second representative office at an HSBC USA office in Fremont, Calif., purportedly "to make banking transactions more convenient for the NRI community based in California." Although HSBC India closed those offices in June 2010, the government alleges that NRI clients may still access their accounts at HSBC India from the United States.
According to the petition documents, NRI clients have told IRS investigators that HSBC's NRI representatives in the United States assured them that they could invest in accounts at HSBC India without paying US income tax on interest earned on the accounts and that HSBC would not report the income earned on the HSBC India accounts to the IRS.
"The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that all US taxpayers meet their obligations to declare and pay taxes on foreign bank accounts," John A. DiCicco, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division, said in a statement. "The ability to hide accounts in foreign countries is rapidly dwindling. We will continue working hand-in-hand with the IRS to enforce the tax laws against those who are using offshore accounts � wherever they are located � to evade taxes."
The IRS focus on India and Indian-Americans follows a campaign against undeclared offshore accounts held by US taxpayers, primarily in tax havens such as Switzerland and the Caribbean. In a landmark case in 2009, the IRS went after UBS AG for allowing U.S citizens hide their assets and evade taxes. UBS coughed up $780 million in fines, and more importantly, turned over some 4000 names in a precedent-setting case.
"The IRS continues to focus its attention on international tax evasion," IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said on Thrusday about the HSBC India case. ''This summons request is focused on obtaining more information to help us determine if additional actions are needed. As I've said all along, our international efforts are not about just one country or one bank � it's about our wider effort to ensure compliance with the nation's tax laws."
Meanwhile, an HSBC spokesperson in New York told wire services that the bank has been engaged in a "constructive dialogue" with US authorities and hoped the issue can be resolved expeditiously. "HSBC does not condone tax evasion and fully supports the US efforts to promote appropriate payment of taxes by US taxpayers," spokeswoman Juanita Gutierrez said, adding that the bank complies with the law in all the jurisdictions and cooperates with requests from US authorities.
more...
gc28262
07-15 05:43 PM
This memo was discussed extensively on this forum in the past and many lawyers have given their opinion.
Summary: You don't need to worry. As long as you are on AOS, you are authorized to stay in the country irrespective of your I-94 expiry date.
Here is the memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF
Here is what Ron Gotcher said:
I don't care what the non-binding policy memo says, it can't trump a duly promulgated regulation. Indeed, I don't think that they were trying to do that. The problem stems from the fact that the policy memo is a lot of inarticulate babble and is very hard to decipher. In any case, it is a memo, not a statute or a regulation and it must bow in the face of a regulation with contradictory information.
Here is another link:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/506251-post13.html
Summary: You don't need to worry. As long as you are on AOS, you are authorized to stay in the country irrespective of your I-94 expiry date.
Here is the memo
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/revision_redesign_AFM.PDF
Here is what Ron Gotcher said:
I don't care what the non-binding policy memo says, it can't trump a duly promulgated regulation. Indeed, I don't think that they were trying to do that. The problem stems from the fact that the policy memo is a lot of inarticulate babble and is very hard to decipher. In any case, it is a memo, not a statute or a regulation and it must bow in the face of a regulation with contradictory information.
Here is another link:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/506251-post13.html
ujjwal_p
08-14 09:12 PM
good morning.
This horse has been beaten to death before.
the pre-adjudication process does not give u any benefits of I-1485.
I hope they don't charge money for pre-adjucation, else this would be another scheme for money making!
From the link, it appears that the talk here is about filing I-485 even when priority date is not current. That's different from before. Having said that, we'll see when it happens and if anything happens.
This horse has been beaten to death before.
the pre-adjudication process does not give u any benefits of I-1485.
I hope they don't charge money for pre-adjucation, else this would be another scheme for money making!
From the link, it appears that the talk here is about filing I-485 even when priority date is not current. That's different from before. Having said that, we'll see when it happens and if anything happens.
more...
MatsP
March 24th, 2005, 05:59 AM
Thank Mats for your kind reply.
The problem is that I purchased the camera in Hong Kong few day ago and went back to my home country. I will not visit HK any time soon and the guarantee I received from the HK shop is not valid in any other country.
I have been told (since the last correspondence with alparsons above) that a common misshap with the D-100 is breaking the shutter glass/cover or mirror (I think) while attempting to attach a lense. I deeply hope that this is not the case since I will have to pay for it's repairment (3 days after spending about $1,400).
Any thoughts ?
Thanks.
David.
You should be able to see if the mirror is broken, misaligned or similar. Most cameras will actually function with the lens off. I don't know with the D100, but you could give that a try. Set it to manual and set the exposure to 30 seconds or something like that, and see if you can actually see something wrong in there.
I'm sure if you contact the shop, you could send the camera back for warranty work, assuming that shipping is less than the cost of repairs of course...
--
Mats
The problem is that I purchased the camera in Hong Kong few day ago and went back to my home country. I will not visit HK any time soon and the guarantee I received from the HK shop is not valid in any other country.
I have been told (since the last correspondence with alparsons above) that a common misshap with the D-100 is breaking the shutter glass/cover or mirror (I think) while attempting to attach a lense. I deeply hope that this is not the case since I will have to pay for it's repairment (3 days after spending about $1,400).
Any thoughts ?
Thanks.
David.
You should be able to see if the mirror is broken, misaligned or similar. Most cameras will actually function with the lens off. I don't know with the D100, but you could give that a try. Set it to manual and set the exposure to 30 seconds or something like that, and see if you can actually see something wrong in there.
I'm sure if you contact the shop, you could send the camera back for warranty work, assuming that shipping is less than the cost of repairs of course...
--
Mats
pappu
07-24 09:50 PM
Please consider signing up for monthly recurring contributions. It will be a big help to IV and we can plan our lobbying efforts in the coming months ahead of time.
It seems people will wake up only after they are stuck in the 485 and EAD backlogs and ask IV to do something for them. It will be too late by then. The more we get closer to the presidential election, the lesser chances we have to get any relief. Hope all members realize this truth.
It seems people will wake up only after they are stuck in the 485 and EAD backlogs and ask IV to do something for them. It will be too late by then. The more we get closer to the presidential election, the lesser chances we have to get any relief. Hope all members realize this truth.
CaliHoneB
06-05 03:53 PM
Hi,
I think we need to get some facts from DBEC and PBEC through senators. Basically we need to find out how much time(man hrs) per case they are spending so far and project that to Future (Sept2007) and then probably we can prove that What they are saying " backlog will be eliminated by certain date" is impossible.
I ask IV core team to come up with a strategy to tackle this. I know that IV core team has put 6 months time frame in the bill ( I truely appreciate IV efforts in this) but bill becoming a law has a long way to go..so this should be handled seperately. I am willing to contribute, send faxes and call the senators.
Cheers
I think we need to get some facts from DBEC and PBEC through senators. Basically we need to find out how much time(man hrs) per case they are spending so far and project that to Future (Sept2007) and then probably we can prove that What they are saying " backlog will be eliminated by certain date" is impossible.
I ask IV core team to come up with a strategy to tackle this. I know that IV core team has put 6 months time frame in the bill ( I truely appreciate IV efforts in this) but bill becoming a law has a long way to go..so this should be handled seperately. I am willing to contribute, send faxes and call the senators.
Cheers
pa_arora
12-03 05:45 PM
Don't get excited too soon :)
I saw the following message when I logged into the USCIS case tracking system.
* Note on "Last Updated" date:
Your case may have a new "Last Updated" date and you may receive an Email Notification of your case being updated, without the status of the case changing. This is due to internal USCIS processing being performed on your Case. This will be reflected in the "Last Updated" date, but may not result in a different status message.
lol...where do u see excitement in my post? i know its atleast a year for me to see some green.
I saw the following message when I logged into the USCIS case tracking system.
* Note on "Last Updated" date:
Your case may have a new "Last Updated" date and you may receive an Email Notification of your case being updated, without the status of the case changing. This is due to internal USCIS processing being performed on your Case. This will be reflected in the "Last Updated" date, but may not result in a different status message.
lol...where do u see excitement in my post? i know its atleast a year for me to see some green.
gcformeornot
09-25 03:41 PM
Hello,
I had taken advantage of concurrent filing. I have I-140 approved and I-485 pending for more than 180 days. I already have my EAD.
Rumours are that my company is in the process of layoffs. Can anyone enlighten me on my options?
1. Can the employer revoke my I-140? YES
2. If so, will I loose my PD and have to restart my GC process? Once 140 approved you would not loose PD. Also since its more than 180 days, you are protected under AC21 provisions.
3. Do I have to invoke AC21 immediately? IMHO YES
4. What options do I have to keep my current file alive?
5. Any situation I need to be aware at this point?You should look for new job asap. Also get a EVL from new employer. USCIS is known to act on 140 revokation
Appreciate your response!..
I had taken advantage of concurrent filing. I have I-140 approved and I-485 pending for more than 180 days. I already have my EAD.
Rumours are that my company is in the process of layoffs. Can anyone enlighten me on my options?
1. Can the employer revoke my I-140? YES
2. If so, will I loose my PD and have to restart my GC process? Once 140 approved you would not loose PD. Also since its more than 180 days, you are protected under AC21 provisions.
3. Do I have to invoke AC21 immediately? IMHO YES
4. What options do I have to keep my current file alive?
5. Any situation I need to be aware at this point?You should look for new job asap. Also get a EVL from new employer. USCIS is known to act on 140 revokation
Appreciate your response!..
No comments:
Post a Comment