mallickarjunreddy
07-06 09:58 AM
I dont know about good ones
but i read the whole post and came out with the not so good ones and i started this blog
just as a reference
http://badimmigrationattorneys.blogspot.com/
but i read the whole post and came out with the not so good ones and i started this blog
just as a reference
http://badimmigrationattorneys.blogspot.com/
rinkurazdan
05-31 11:01 AM
You are right but unfortunately history has thought us that when it comes down to GC versus H1b everybody is willing to throw GC under the bus to get H1b provisions.
This current bill is no exception, h1 increased from 65,000 to 115000 with triggers to increse it to 185000, but no provisions for green cards.
a exclusive emendment with GC will be the only way out. nobody is offering such amendment and if somebody offers it might be ordered to lie on table.
I think industry and their senators alike will be happy with quota increases...waht they will try to strike out is the extra fees....($5000 now) and also the retrictions on recruitment / displacement policy, which will make H1B useless as it will take umpteen number of months to get an H1B approved.
This ammdt is still difficult to pass
BTW, I cannot find the text of this ammndt on Thomas.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:26:./temp/~bdp3oO::|/bss/d110query.html|
This current bill is no exception, h1 increased from 65,000 to 115000 with triggers to increse it to 185000, but no provisions for green cards.
a exclusive emendment with GC will be the only way out. nobody is offering such amendment and if somebody offers it might be ordered to lie on table.
I think industry and their senators alike will be happy with quota increases...waht they will try to strike out is the extra fees....($5000 now) and also the retrictions on recruitment / displacement policy, which will make H1B useless as it will take umpteen number of months to get an H1B approved.
This ammdt is still difficult to pass
BTW, I cannot find the text of this ammndt on Thomas.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:26:./temp/~bdp3oO::|/bss/d110query.html|
ram04
12-23 10:33 PM
Yes This is the notice which you should get after MTR opened.
You are back on track and adjustment status.
All the best for later 485 approval too.
Hopefully with IV efforts USCIS will stop this drama in future.
- Ram
Hi Ram or Prince_charming,
Just wanted to find out can you check the below msg that is what mine has been updated to , So does itmean that they just opned the case and ar
e now reviewing and theywill update it to approved once they through or this is final msg. wanted to find out basing on the info you got.
Thanks,
Sri
Current Status: Case reopened or reconsidered based on USCIS determination, and the case is now pending.
We reopened this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS , and are now reviewing our earlier decision. We also mailed you a notice describing the next steps in the process. Please follow any instructions on this notice. Our review should be completed within 30 days. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you.
You are back on track and adjustment status.
All the best for later 485 approval too.
Hopefully with IV efforts USCIS will stop this drama in future.
- Ram
Hi Ram or Prince_charming,
Just wanted to find out can you check the below msg that is what mine has been updated to , So does itmean that they just opned the case and ar
e now reviewing and theywill update it to approved once they through or this is final msg. wanted to find out basing on the info you got.
Thanks,
Sri
Current Status: Case reopened or reconsidered based on USCIS determination, and the case is now pending.
We reopened this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS , and are now reviewing our earlier decision. We also mailed you a notice describing the next steps in the process. Please follow any instructions on this notice. Our review should be completed within 30 days. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you.
sledge_hammer
03-05 07:38 AM
LOL
I like the way you tihnk! (in a good way :))
i think if we are paying for something we should have the ownership it too.
lets format a reply saying that 5K is too much for the job...if they can give us their Data Model diagram, we can give them the code in a week without any cost.
I like the way you tihnk! (in a good way :))
i think if we are paying for something we should have the ownership it too.
lets format a reply saying that 5K is too much for the job...if they can give us their Data Model diagram, we can give them the code in a week without any cost.
more...
vdlrao
07-14 12:04 PM
Please find out the visa numbers allotment for EB1, EB2 and EB3 till now. Till now there is about 100k visa numbers allotment for EB3 every year due to the vertical fallout. From now on there would be around 100K allotment in EB2 due to the change to Horizontal Fall out of visa numbers. Out of these 100k EB2 visa numbers, India will get greatest share of around 50k + visas. Please see the below.
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2007/table06d.xls
Type and class of admission 1998-- 1999-- 2000-- 2001-- 2002-- 2003-- 2004-- 2005-- 2006-- 2007
Employment-based preferences 77,413-- 56,678-- 106,642--178,702--173,814--81,727--155,330--246,877--159,081--162,176
First: Priority workers 21,375-- 14,844-- 27,566-- 41,672-- 34,168-- 14,453-- 31,291-- 64,731-- 36,960-- 26,697
Second: advanced degrees or exceptional ability 14,362--8,557-- 20,255-- 42,550-- 44,316-- 15,406-- 32,534 --42,597-- 21,911-- 44,162
Third: Skilled workers 34,282 --27,920--49,589--85,847-- 88,002-- 46,415-- 85,969-- 129,070--89,922-- 85,030
Fourth: Special immigrants 6,570-- 5,072-- 9,014-- 8,442-- 7,186-- 5,389-- 5,407-- 10,133-- 9,539-- 5,481
Fifth: (investors) 824-- 285-- 218-- 191-- 142-- 64-- 129-- 346-- 749-- 806
See the link below for reference:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2007/table06d.xls
kopguy
05-27 01:42 PM
Krupa and Sreedhar
Thanks for sharing your experience of on line filling for Advance Parole.
I thought I should mention that I got my AP papers on May 22, 2009 that is just under one month after my application (4/24) and sending them a letter with following documents �
1. Bio metric page of Passport, (I guess photo copy of drivers license is also acceptable)
2. I 797 action notice for your 485 application to prove your 485 is pending
3. Two passport size photos
4. Confirmation receipt received after e-filling for AP.
Thanks for sharing your experience of on line filling for Advance Parole.
I thought I should mention that I got my AP papers on May 22, 2009 that is just under one month after my application (4/24) and sending them a letter with following documents �
1. Bio metric page of Passport, (I guess photo copy of drivers license is also acceptable)
2. I 797 action notice for your 485 application to prove your 485 is pending
3. Two passport size photos
4. Confirmation receipt received after e-filling for AP.
more...
mshelat
05-21 01:48 PM
It happened because of relentless canvasing of the media until the story got out and embarrassed the government. "Supporting the troops" is a no-brainer for a politician wanting to score political points. Most Americans could care less about immigrants or other citizens who are married to them. So there is no political urgency to solve that "problem." Although the media has reported that the exclusion of legal immigrants was "unintended," my sources say that the exclusion was intentional.
I had hoped to embarrass the government further by exposing the connection to a known "hate group," but the media has refused to report that part of the story. If I could get the media to expose the racist origins of this law, we might have some hope, but don't count on it.
The next phase is to focus on legal options.
This is really interesting. Legal immigrants - their rights and well-being hinges on political points over which legal immigrants have no influence. Very interesting and disappointing at the same time.
You tried your best Totoro. Thanks for all the efforts you have been making and have made so far.
I had hoped to embarrass the government further by exposing the connection to a known "hate group," but the media has refused to report that part of the story. If I could get the media to expose the racist origins of this law, we might have some hope, but don't count on it.
The next phase is to focus on legal options.
This is really interesting. Legal immigrants - their rights and well-being hinges on political points over which legal immigrants have no influence. Very interesting and disappointing at the same time.
You tried your best Totoro. Thanks for all the efforts you have been making and have made so far.
prince_charming
09-17 09:06 PM
Exactly the point that leads me to believe this:
ARE THEY SENDING EVERYTHING TO THE OLD LAWYER???
If they never updated the lawyer info....(AC21 papers being lost is not unusual at all, it happens commonly, as there is no set form for it, mail room does not know what to do with it and so it gets misplaced). However, even if they did not have AC21 info, they would have sent an RFE or at least NOID. All these could be LOST if they went to OLD attorney.
So Infopass is a good idea. To at least get this info and also to get the actual denial notice which may have to to the old attorney as well (to see on what grounds they denied it so you can file MTR accordingly).
Of course, a good attorney is a must.
All in all, I think, it should be ok at the end of the day (just a painful waiting period full of uncertainty) unless they revoked it based on some misrepresentation.
Good Luck.
I tried to get the denial reason but InfoPass doesn't seem to have that information or doesn't wanted to provide me because it;s denied on 12th they wanted me to wait for 2-3 days more for denial notice.
ARE THEY SENDING EVERYTHING TO THE OLD LAWYER???
If they never updated the lawyer info....(AC21 papers being lost is not unusual at all, it happens commonly, as there is no set form for it, mail room does not know what to do with it and so it gets misplaced). However, even if they did not have AC21 info, they would have sent an RFE or at least NOID. All these could be LOST if they went to OLD attorney.
So Infopass is a good idea. To at least get this info and also to get the actual denial notice which may have to to the old attorney as well (to see on what grounds they denied it so you can file MTR accordingly).
Of course, a good attorney is a must.
All in all, I think, it should be ok at the end of the day (just a painful waiting period full of uncertainty) unless they revoked it based on some misrepresentation.
Good Luck.
I tried to get the denial reason but InfoPass doesn't seem to have that information or doesn't wanted to provide me because it;s denied on 12th they wanted me to wait for 2-3 days more for denial notice.
more...
vandanaverdia
09-13 11:53 AM
I have been thinking about whether to attend the rally or not from past few weeks. Attending the rally would require me to take a day off. Finally today without thinking twice I just went to my manager asked if I can take day off on 9/18 instead compensate the work in the following saturday. It was approved and I am attending the rally on 9/18!
I am feeling so good now.
Also, I live in DC area and can help if somebody needs to be picked from airport to the rally and drop them back if needed.
Hope to see thousands on 9/18th...
ALL THE BEST TO OUR CAUSE!
Regards.
Great job anucks. You will be proud be there & let your voice be heard!! And trust me, you will not regret it one bit!
See you in DC!!!
Go IV!!!
I am feeling so good now.
Also, I live in DC area and can help if somebody needs to be picked from airport to the rally and drop them back if needed.
Hope to see thousands on 9/18th...
ALL THE BEST TO OUR CAUSE!
Regards.
Great job anucks. You will be proud be there & let your voice be heard!! And trust me, you will not regret it one bit!
See you in DC!!!
Go IV!!!
franklin
09-26 12:53 PM
The Melting Pot diversity policies from the '60s were devised on a spirit of Family Reunification, but also to ensure that the US was not overwhelmed by any one country
In this spirit the concept of Per Country Quota makes some sense.
Hermoine, it is not an argument about whether X more go to India or whatever country.
The problem with Per Country limits makes no sense when the same theory is applied to visa's granted because of Skill. Employability has nothing to do with ethnicity (in fact, there are laws that prevent this type of discrimination by employers). It just so happens that currently India and China, due to their educational focus has a lot of people with skills that American industry wants. Who knows, in 10 years this could change and those skills could come from Mauritius and Lichtenstein and then they would be backlogged instead.
The main objection with per country caps for skilled employment is that it places discrimination based on ethnicity. It should be fair for everyone, not ones that happen to be from under subscribed countries. The concept of FIFO should be upheld.
Yes, I'm ROW, and will argue to my dying breath that per country caps for employment must be abolished. It exasperates backlogs and in discrimantory
In this spirit the concept of Per Country Quota makes some sense.
Hermoine, it is not an argument about whether X more go to India or whatever country.
The problem with Per Country limits makes no sense when the same theory is applied to visa's granted because of Skill. Employability has nothing to do with ethnicity (in fact, there are laws that prevent this type of discrimination by employers). It just so happens that currently India and China, due to their educational focus has a lot of people with skills that American industry wants. Who knows, in 10 years this could change and those skills could come from Mauritius and Lichtenstein and then they would be backlogged instead.
The main objection with per country caps for skilled employment is that it places discrimination based on ethnicity. It should be fair for everyone, not ones that happen to be from under subscribed countries. The concept of FIFO should be upheld.
Yes, I'm ROW, and will argue to my dying breath that per country caps for employment must be abolished. It exasperates backlogs and in discrimantory
more...
sensor
07-23 12:38 PM
My I-140 was filed on July 6 and arrives at USCIS on July 9.
The check was cashed on July 12 and I was able to get the receipt number. BUT BY NOW I HAVE NOT RECEIVE THE RECEIPT. It seems many people are in the same boat. What we can do about it?
Anybody knows how many days it would take between they cash the check and mail out the receipt? What address do they use?
The check was cashed on July 12 and I was able to get the receipt number. BUT BY NOW I HAVE NOT RECEIVE THE RECEIPT. It seems many people are in the same boat. What we can do about it?
Anybody knows how many days it would take between they cash the check and mail out the receipt? What address do they use?
go_guy123
08-20 12:22 PM
I used David Cohen at Canada Immigration - Information on Immigration to Canada (http://www.canadavisa.com/)
They did a good job. My only complaint with they kept changing the paralegal that was handling my case like 3 times during the whole process. Otherwise no problems.
Canada rules are not complicated at all. You don't need any agent for doing paperwork.
Either you are eligible or not.
They did a good job. My only complaint with they kept changing the paralegal that was handling my case like 3 times during the whole process. Otherwise no problems.
Canada rules are not complicated at all. You don't need any agent for doing paperwork.
Either you are eligible or not.
more...
nixstor
03-20 06:41 PM
Mr. Gotcher posts this today.
Controversy over calculation of "fall across" visa numbers (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4610)
Long to short, Mr. Gotcher thinks the explanation of Apr. VB is an error.
I will just quote the last two paragraphs. If you are interested with this topic, you can follow the link to see detail.
************************************************
This is where the controversy arises. Do these provision require the Visa Office to let unused visa number from higher preference categories �fall down� into lower preference categories before being made available to single state quotas, or can they move unused numbers from a worldwide preference category over to single state quotas while there is still demand in the lower worldwide categories?
The Visa Office interpretation is that if there are unused numbers within a specific worldwide category, those numbers may be made available to single state quotas even if lower worldwide preference categories have visa cutoff dates because they are oversubscribed. I believe that this is an error.
The visa office's interpretation is correct and if you read 202 (a) (5) it clearly says that the country limits should be ignored for unused visa numbers.
Remember that these numbers are first categorized and then assigned to applicants on a per country basis. In other words, a visa number if it is EB2, should be assigned to EB2 (no matter what) before it goes to EB3. If it is EB1 visa number and for it to become a EB2 visa number, there should not be any need for that number in EB1 category.
One reasoning why this was difficult to see is because CIS has essentially wasted so many numbers that people are unable to tell where the movement is coming from.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories. In 202 (a)
(5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
B T W Ron G is very selective in deciding who/what should (be) post(ed) on his forum. This is his third thought about how we ended up here.
Controversy over calculation of "fall across" visa numbers (http://immigration-information.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4610)
Long to short, Mr. Gotcher thinks the explanation of Apr. VB is an error.
I will just quote the last two paragraphs. If you are interested with this topic, you can follow the link to see detail.
************************************************
This is where the controversy arises. Do these provision require the Visa Office to let unused visa number from higher preference categories �fall down� into lower preference categories before being made available to single state quotas, or can they move unused numbers from a worldwide preference category over to single state quotas while there is still demand in the lower worldwide categories?
The Visa Office interpretation is that if there are unused numbers within a specific worldwide category, those numbers may be made available to single state quotas even if lower worldwide preference categories have visa cutoff dates because they are oversubscribed. I believe that this is an error.
The visa office's interpretation is correct and if you read 202 (a) (5) it clearly says that the country limits should be ignored for unused visa numbers.
Remember that these numbers are first categorized and then assigned to applicants on a per country basis. In other words, a visa number if it is EB2, should be assigned to EB2 (no matter what) before it goes to EB3. If it is EB1 visa number and for it to become a EB2 visa number, there should not be any need for that number in EB1 category.
One reasoning why this was difficult to see is because CIS has essentially wasted so many numbers that people are unable to tell where the movement is coming from.
I have gone through the sections of 202 (a) (5) and 203 (b) and the text of the law does not say that prefer country limits over categories. In 202 (a)
(5) it actually says assign visa numbers wasted in any category can be assigned with out per country limits. If you look at how they overflow from one category to another, those visa numbers belong to that category before they do NOT belong to a oversubscribed state or belong to ROW.
B T W Ron G is very selective in deciding who/what should (be) post(ed) on his forum. This is his third thought about how we ended up here.
eastwest
04-26 01:45 PM
Guys,
Keep up the good work, signed up for $50 a month.
Unique Transaction ID #171210094T036761N
I am recently out of project and looking for job but that would not discourage me from contributing.
BTW I have EAD.
I would like all the members to atleast contribute $50 even if one time.
Togather we can win.
Thanks
Keep up the good work, signed up for $50 a month.
Unique Transaction ID #171210094T036761N
I am recently out of project and looking for job but that would not discourage me from contributing.
BTW I have EAD.
I would like all the members to atleast contribute $50 even if one time.
Togather we can win.
Thanks
more...
franklin
09-27 01:58 PM
Franklin, yes, Ombudsman report includes ALL I-485 numbers, plus ALL naturalizations. Among all of them EBs are a small number.
What I was trying to understnd by running the numbers, where does the "leacky bucket" go over time. Imagine EB category as a leacky bucket - new workers on H1Bs are getitng their documents done, that goes to adds, and approvals are being given out, that goes to substracts. If the expected new petititons being ready are more than 140K, the total bucket will grow. If it is less, it will shrink. What I am basically saying, it is between 10K and 20K less adds than deletes, so the backlog should shrink over time (not tomorrow, of course). And it will start shrinking from EB3 ROW, because that is where the unused numbers end up. By watching EB3 ROW number we should be able to tell how fast the pool is shrinking.
Also, in the concept of the leaky bucket, it becomes essential not to lose any numbers, this is why 10K lost numbers a year is unacceptable. Personally, I think advocating number recapture is a waste of time (better off advocating quota increases), but we should be vigilant about CIS not losing numbers going forward.
Efficiency of precessing, in my opinion, is not an issue at all, at least on the USCIS side. FBI is a different story, but even for them, it is rare that cases are stuck for more than two years. Retrogression is the real culpit - being stuck in retro for 5 years is not unusual, and this is a whole lot worse than namecheck. By the way, because naturalizations are also subject to namechecks, there is enough outrage out there that I think namecheck issue will be solved in the next year or so.
The numbers game is really a 6 of one, half a dozen of the other - since we can only best guess it all - as I think this healthy debate has shown!
Efficiency of processing is a HUGE problem! Why do you think the visa numbers have gone unused? Your statement perplexes me somewhat. The name check isn't the only reason that there are delays. The Ombudsman's 1st 3 annual reports documents where the inefficiencies are.
In reality, its a complex problem that is a combination of many things;Inefficiencies in processing,Retrogression, country limits etc etc
I'm sorry, you just piqued my interest. You just seemed to be saying "there is no problem"
What I was trying to understnd by running the numbers, where does the "leacky bucket" go over time. Imagine EB category as a leacky bucket - new workers on H1Bs are getitng their documents done, that goes to adds, and approvals are being given out, that goes to substracts. If the expected new petititons being ready are more than 140K, the total bucket will grow. If it is less, it will shrink. What I am basically saying, it is between 10K and 20K less adds than deletes, so the backlog should shrink over time (not tomorrow, of course). And it will start shrinking from EB3 ROW, because that is where the unused numbers end up. By watching EB3 ROW number we should be able to tell how fast the pool is shrinking.
Also, in the concept of the leaky bucket, it becomes essential not to lose any numbers, this is why 10K lost numbers a year is unacceptable. Personally, I think advocating number recapture is a waste of time (better off advocating quota increases), but we should be vigilant about CIS not losing numbers going forward.
Efficiency of precessing, in my opinion, is not an issue at all, at least on the USCIS side. FBI is a different story, but even for them, it is rare that cases are stuck for more than two years. Retrogression is the real culpit - being stuck in retro for 5 years is not unusual, and this is a whole lot worse than namecheck. By the way, because naturalizations are also subject to namechecks, there is enough outrage out there that I think namecheck issue will be solved in the next year or so.
The numbers game is really a 6 of one, half a dozen of the other - since we can only best guess it all - as I think this healthy debate has shown!
Efficiency of processing is a HUGE problem! Why do you think the visa numbers have gone unused? Your statement perplexes me somewhat. The name check isn't the only reason that there are delays. The Ombudsman's 1st 3 annual reports documents where the inefficiencies are.
In reality, its a complex problem that is a combination of many things;Inefficiencies in processing,Retrogression, country limits etc etc
I'm sorry, you just piqued my interest. You just seemed to be saying "there is no problem"
nonimmi
04-11 05:00 PM
This month also didnt improve EB3 (I) condition!!
Does this mean more and more will convert to EB3 whose PD is 2001-2004?
Does this mean more and more will convert to EB3 whose PD is 2001-2004?
more...
maverick6993
04-27 10:16 PM
This email confirms that you have paid Immigration Voice$100.00 USD using PayPal.
This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *IMMIGRATION".
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Payment Details
-----------------------------------
Transaction ID: 04D304632D882583C
Item Price: $100.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Order Description: Contributions
Item/Product Number: Contributions
This credit card transaction will appear on your bill as "PAYPAL *IMMIGRATION".
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Payment Details
-----------------------------------
Transaction ID: 04D304632D882583C
Item Price: $100.00 USD
Total: $100.00 USD
Order Description: Contributions
Item/Product Number: Contributions
eb3_nepa
06-25 05:22 PM
Actually you are partly right. Only those who had paid the revised higher fee last year are eligible to get renewals for free. All those who had paid the regular fee (July filers) pay for renewal everytime
Yes and ALL July 2nd Filers HAVE to pay the EAD and AP fees over and over again. Coz everyone that benefitted from the July 2nd drama was not granted the multiple ead renewal free deal. I am VERY sure about that.
Yes and ALL July 2nd Filers HAVE to pay the EAD and AP fees over and over again. Coz everyone that benefitted from the July 2nd drama was not granted the multiple ead renewal free deal. I am VERY sure about that.
eb3_nepa
05-25 08:08 PM
Hi Guys,
I was looking at the AP renewal instructions. It says:
1. If you are in the United States, you must attach:
a. A copy of any document issued to you by USCIS showing your present status in the United States; and
b. An explanation or other evidence showing the circumstances that warrant issuance of an advance parole document; or
c. If you are an applicant for adjustment of status, a copy of a USCIS receipt as evidence that you filed the adjustment application;
d. If you are traveling to Canada to apply for an immigrant visa, a copy of the U.S. consular appointment letter.
So what I gather from this is that they need:
a) Our H1B status papers and the previous copies of the advanced parole documents.
b) A letter stating why we need the advanced parole.
c) The I-485 receipt copies.
Now it DOES NOT say anything about the photographs if you are filing within the US.
Can someone who has applied for the Advanced Parole (NOT the EAD), please share their experience and what documents are needed. The EAD filing seems to be elaborately covered.
Thanks.
I was looking at the AP renewal instructions. It says:
1. If you are in the United States, you must attach:
a. A copy of any document issued to you by USCIS showing your present status in the United States; and
b. An explanation or other evidence showing the circumstances that warrant issuance of an advance parole document; or
c. If you are an applicant for adjustment of status, a copy of a USCIS receipt as evidence that you filed the adjustment application;
d. If you are traveling to Canada to apply for an immigrant visa, a copy of the U.S. consular appointment letter.
So what I gather from this is that they need:
a) Our H1B status papers and the previous copies of the advanced parole documents.
b) A letter stating why we need the advanced parole.
c) The I-485 receipt copies.
Now it DOES NOT say anything about the photographs if you are filing within the US.
Can someone who has applied for the Advanced Parole (NOT the EAD), please share their experience and what documents are needed. The EAD filing seems to be elaborately covered.
Thanks.
snathan
02-09 11:01 PM
Hello ... I m responding to a some one who dis-respected my fellow citizens . So what do you say English speaking guys are great IT professionals ? To work on computers you need brian and understand bits and bytes not english .
I think you got my message wrong all I m saying is you dont have to be a great english communicator to qualify for EB2 , unless you are applying as professor .
In 70s most of the towns having only local language schools and stuided in local language schools , thay may be part of reason why some of them dont communicate well ..That doesnt mean they can not work on computers ...
Well thats our opinion/preception or even truth. If you need to work in the US, you need to be good in english as its their national laungage.
I am giving this one for example...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7317794.stm
So even if you are a greate talent and could not speak even a word in english forget about coming to US.
I think you got my message wrong all I m saying is you dont have to be a great english communicator to qualify for EB2 , unless you are applying as professor .
In 70s most of the towns having only local language schools and stuided in local language schools , thay may be part of reason why some of them dont communicate well ..That doesnt mean they can not work on computers ...
Well thats our opinion/preception or even truth. If you need to work in the US, you need to be good in english as its their national laungage.
I am giving this one for example...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7317794.stm
So even if you are a greate talent and could not speak even a word in english forget about coming to US.
gc_lover
07-05 11:19 AM
Matthew OH is playing with words since yesterday. I am not even sure if he knows what he is talking about. Did you guys read the stuff about 485 filing. The phrase "Untangling the tangled mess" was mentioned 3-4 times. After reading his notices, one has to wonder what the heck is he talking about.
Well...he is working hard to get "14 million hits" on his website. 13 million is not really enough you see :)
Well...he is working hard to get "14 million hits" on his website. 13 million is not really enough you see :)
No comments:
Post a Comment