eb3_nepa
06-08 11:09 PM
Just a question, why is everyone so happy that the CIR has Failed and more importantly why does everyone on here feel that if CIR is resurrected it will "haunt" us?
If CIR fails to go into "production" this year, is it not true that we have ZERO reform? I mean would it not be better to ride this wave and try and sneak our provisions into the mix rather than SIMPLY feeling happy that CIR is "dead"?
At this point (even after the PD movement), About 70% of us are still in the retrogression mess and will continue to be in that mess till SOME immigration reform passes. So the question then is: Should we not be trying and praying that CIR passes WITH our provisions (and i know how hard the core team is working and hence i am asking this question). I mean the core team has given an infinite amount of time and energy to this project. Would it not be easier to see a bill finally pass and try and get our provisions in this bill rather than killing this bill?
If CIR fails to go into "production" this year, is it not true that we have ZERO reform? I mean would it not be better to ride this wave and try and sneak our provisions into the mix rather than SIMPLY feeling happy that CIR is "dead"?
At this point (even after the PD movement), About 70% of us are still in the retrogression mess and will continue to be in that mess till SOME immigration reform passes. So the question then is: Should we not be trying and praying that CIR passes WITH our provisions (and i know how hard the core team is working and hence i am asking this question). I mean the core team has given an infinite amount of time and energy to this project. Would it not be easier to see a bill finally pass and try and get our provisions in this bill rather than killing this bill?
wallpaper Biomes : A Food Chain in the
desitechie
09-29 12:58 PM
I agree with the OP that Air India is one of the worst airlines for service. I have travelled a lot in AI due to company policy peviously.
Now that I dont have any obligation, I always prefer Singapore and Cathay pacific. They rock!!!
Excellent service (specially for elderly people and kids), fresh food and reasonable prices.
Now that I dont have any obligation, I always prefer Singapore and Cathay pacific. They rock!!!
Excellent service (specially for elderly people and kids), fresh food and reasonable prices.
asiehouston
06-13 10:32 PM
The Birth Certificate Affadevit posted as a sample soes not have space for 2 people to sign. Should there be nother affidavit submitted by another family member or should the second person just sign below the first persons affadevit?
Some One please explain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributions so far $100
Some One please explain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributions so far $100
2011 An example of a food chain is:
malaGCPahije
03-14 12:28 PM
I agree that porting to EB2 is the best route. But my company was very reluctant to file another labor to port my case to EB2. They thought thur PERM, they may have to hire some applicant if they meet the requirements. The lawyer thinks PERM is risky. I know they are trying to avoid EB2 labor at any cost, though I also know a few friends who had the PERM labor application recently rejected.
Anyway, bottom line for me and others in the same situation is that we are stuck with EB3. And maybe stuck in the rut for a long long time unless something magical happens....
Anyway, bottom line for me and others in the same situation is that we are stuck with EB3. And maybe stuck in the rut for a long long time unless something magical happens....
more...
eb3India
06-09 09:44 AM
I am not sure why we are still behind this bill and wasting our money and resources,
everyone here needs to realize we don't need to sweeping legislative reform to address our concern, all we need few guidelines to impliment current law in more sensible way,
we simply don't have resources/strenght to address this issue letz not fool ourself anymore and letz put our moeny where mouth is
everyone here needs to realize we don't need to sweeping legislative reform to address our concern, all we need few guidelines to impliment current law in more sensible way,
we simply don't have resources/strenght to address this issue letz not fool ourself anymore and letz put our moeny where mouth is
H4_losing_hope
02-12 06:44 PM
please could you top mine off when you have chance so I still feel like I am competing with these long distance runners hehe. Thanks :)
more...
ek_bechara
06-23 04:30 PM
I called an hour ago. The lady said the phones are ringing like crazy for these bills. She was nice to take down the bill numbers, my name, and phone number. I asked her the tipping point when these things get noticed and if we are any close to the number of phone calls. The lady said, call volume is good and it will only help if your community makes more calls.
Please note I'm NOT LYING. The above statements are verbatim.
PLEASE CALL. WE ARE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS
Please note I'm NOT LYING. The above statements are verbatim.
PLEASE CALL. WE ARE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS
2010 Forest food numbers
snathan
03-20 09:41 PM
The H1B visa belongs, in effect, to the company that sponsors it. You cannot work for any other company on that visa other than sponsor. If this is a transfer, then, In a so-called "visa transfer" what actually happens is that the initial visa is cancelled in favor of another one issued for the new employer. What that means is OP's work with old employer is considered as "unauthorized work". Do not consider this as illegal presence, as his legal presence is controlled by a valid I-94.
I hope you assume this as a new H1B not a transfer or else your post is wrong.
Do not give misleading information. When you do the transfer the original visa is not cancelled. In fact you can have more than one H1B at the same time and work for them. For example two part time jobs for different employers. But the only catch you should always work only for the sponsoring company. If you decide not to join them at all, you can do so. But you have to maintain the status thru your current employement or another employer.
For more information on this check the murthy.com
I hope you assume this as a new H1B not a transfer or else your post is wrong.
Do not give misleading information. When you do the transfer the original visa is not cancelled. In fact you can have more than one H1B at the same time and work for them. For example two part time jobs for different employers. But the only catch you should always work only for the sponsoring company. If you decide not to join them at all, you can do so. But you have to maintain the status thru your current employement or another employer.
For more information on this check the murthy.com
more...
snathan
01-13 02:59 PM
I believe we are wasting our energy here. Quarterly spill over is already a law and we need to make DOS/USCIS to implement it. If we have some many people are ready to sue USCIS on country quota issue, why dont we use that energy on the low hanging fruit...
You may argue that only EB2 will benefit...but once EB2 become current, its going to spill over to EB3.
You may argue that only EB2 will benefit...but once EB2 become current, its going to spill over to EB3.
hair The Food Web of the Amazon
mshelat
05-16 12:21 PM
let's keep working on it.
more...
rssb
03-26 12:39 PM
People with EB3 applications should be allowed to port. But these should be EB3 applications which were genuinely applied and not substitute labor which opened during July 2007 fiasco.
Because a EB3 application with substitute labor in July 2007 has a priority date of 2002,2003,2004,2005 or even 2006. Where as a genuinely applied Eb2 prior to that, had the qualifications / job requirements before July 2007 and they are still waiting.
USCIS should realize their mistake in 2007, it encouraged a pay to play scheme, which is putting genuine people at great disadvantage.
Porting like any option was started with a good intention, but because of loop holes it has lost its meaning. There are people who landed in this country during the July 2007 fiasco, paid for the labor and have green cards in their hands now.
Or at least provide the same level of stringent requirements to port like (EB2-->EB1) . Technically a EB3 can port to EB1 also, but porting to EB2 is easier. That way Eb3's can consume Eb1 number and stop spill over to Eb2.
L1A is another one, where people qualify as global project managers with very minimal effort, could have less experience than a EB3 or in some cases they have reported to people in EB3 queue here from 2002 and are ahead of the EB3 within 6 months.
Because a EB3 application with substitute labor in July 2007 has a priority date of 2002,2003,2004,2005 or even 2006. Where as a genuinely applied Eb2 prior to that, had the qualifications / job requirements before July 2007 and they are still waiting.
USCIS should realize their mistake in 2007, it encouraged a pay to play scheme, which is putting genuine people at great disadvantage.
Porting like any option was started with a good intention, but because of loop holes it has lost its meaning. There are people who landed in this country during the July 2007 fiasco, paid for the labor and have green cards in their hands now.
Or at least provide the same level of stringent requirements to port like (EB2-->EB1) . Technically a EB3 can port to EB1 also, but porting to EB2 is easier. That way Eb3's can consume Eb1 number and stop spill over to Eb2.
L1A is another one, where people qualify as global project managers with very minimal effort, could have less experience than a EB3 or in some cases they have reported to people in EB3 queue here from 2002 and are ahead of the EB3 within 6 months.
hot to the Soil Food Web” by
stucklabor
03-20 07:31 AM
stucklabor,
I hope you are right and I am wrong. So, "special handling"
cases do not go through labor certification at all. Do professors have to go through "special handling" labor certification?
If you are right then it means that an advanced degree holder in STEM from a US school with 3 years of prior US experience will be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 right away.
Thanks for clarifying.
PD, please read my post above which you quoted more carefully. "Special handling" cases do go through labor cert, only they get faster better treatment. I am not sure of the rule of University Profs, refer to the post chain that I and Appu did earlier on this thread. I think Univ Profs don't do recruitment twice as is the case for the normal junta. They can use the recruitment results from when they first interviewed. But if they are not going the outstanding researcher route, they do have to undergo labor cert.
I hope you are right and I am wrong. So, "special handling"
cases do not go through labor certification at all. Do professors have to go through "special handling" labor certification?
If you are right then it means that an advanced degree holder in STEM from a US school with 3 years of prior US experience will be able to apply for I-140 and I-485 right away.
Thanks for clarifying.
PD, please read my post above which you quoted more carefully. "Special handling" cases do go through labor cert, only they get faster better treatment. I am not sure of the rule of University Profs, refer to the post chain that I and Appu did earlier on this thread. I think Univ Profs don't do recruitment twice as is the case for the normal junta. They can use the recruitment results from when they first interviewed. But if they are not going the outstanding researcher route, they do have to undergo labor cert.
more...
house forest food web examples.
ram_ram
07-03 08:40 PM
Since Senate already passed the CIR, that included the SKIL, Is it required to vote again in senate if the house somehow passes the SKIL bill?
Too early but just curious.
Thanks.
The SKIL bill was introduced in the Senate in May by Senator John
Cornyn (R-
TX) and was subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive
Immigration Act
of 2006. We discussed its effects on the H-1B and EB categories in the
June
2006 issue of SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE. See
http://shusterman.com/toc-siu.html
Although the legalization and guest worker provisions of the Senate
bill
have been written off by many pundits, we believe that there is an
excellent
chance that some version of the SKIL bill will be enacted into law
before the
end of 2006.
Too early but just curious.
Thanks.
The SKIL bill was introduced in the Senate in May by Senator John
Cornyn (R-
TX) and was subsequently incorporated into the Comprehensive
Immigration Act
of 2006. We discussed its effects on the H-1B and EB categories in the
June
2006 issue of SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE. See
http://shusterman.com/toc-siu.html
Although the legalization and guest worker provisions of the Senate
bill
have been written off by many pundits, we believe that there is an
excellent
chance that some version of the SKIL bill will be enacted into law
before the
end of 2006.
tattoo st consumer ecosystem topic
senthil1
06-27 01:09 AM
This time mostly bill will be passed in the senate. But no one knows how house will handle. If house also passes some form of CIR then Conference commitee will have power for synchronisation of house and Senate. That time some important provisions could be thrown out. Who will be in conference comittee?
as far as i know Reid is smart about this thats why hes using the "clay pigeon" manuevre where all the 24 amendments would be tied as one amendment and then voted to pass on, once its passed then the cloture vote will come in (without the individual amdts yet voted on) once the cloture vote is secured then they will have 30 hours to vote all the individual 24 amdts after whc a simple majority vote ( min 51 votes) wud be needed to clear the bill...real smart
as far as i know Reid is smart about this thats why hes using the "clay pigeon" manuevre where all the 24 amendments would be tied as one amendment and then voted to pass on, once its passed then the cloture vote will come in (without the individual amdts yet voted on) once the cloture vote is secured then they will have 30 hours to vote all the individual 24 amdts after whc a simple majority vote ( min 51 votes) wud be needed to clear the bill...real smart
more...
pictures Hawaii+forest+food+web
felix31
11-08 02:18 AM
too tired to celebrate...but hopeful that something might yet happen that will do something with the retrogression. hubby is already complaining that he reached the top in his senior position and there is no more professional growth for him, so the ability to file I-485 (if it happenes) would be a golden one for both of us... he would not feel so chained by his employer and I will finally say goodbuy to this wretched H4 status.
Will see where things move in the near future and hope for the best..
Will see where things move in the near future and hope for the best..
dresses Will eat food chain using oct
.jpg "+rainforest+food+web")
learning01
03-17 06:46 PM
Article | posted March 16, 2006 (April 3, 2006 issue)
Showdown on Immigration
Marc Cooper
The good news is that after twenty years of inaction and demagogy, the US Senate is considering sweeping immigration reform. Behind that effort is a bipartisan consensus that grew out of a confluence of disparate factors: On the right, American business, desperate for low-wage and unskilled service workers, was clamoring to legalize the immigrant labor market; on the left, organized labor and liberals wanted an end to the illegal status of so many workers. And the sheer number of illegals now living in the United States--three times as many as a decade ago--demanded that something be done.
The bad news is that after arduously fighting its way to the top of the national legislative agenda--Senate majority leader Bill Frist fixed March 27 as the deadline for the Senate to come up with a bill--reform now threatens to be dead on arrival. Intransigence by the Republican right and a failure of nerve by Bush may have doomed a tenuous, years-long push to rewrite a current policy mired in denial and hypocrisy. "We may be on the verge of seeing the Republicans do to immigration what Hillary Clinton did to healthcare in the 1990s," said a prominent immigration attorney. "Set it back several decades."
(The ugly - expected to drag till Nov 06 - this line is my comment)
No one is willing to guess what will come out of the Senate process, no less out of any conference measure that would have to bridge the gap between the Senate and the draconian Sensenbrenner bill, already approved by the House. And if the process drags on closer to the November elections, chances for significant reform will dim considerably. Republicans, and especially the President, will be reluctant to further aggravate their internal party divisions. And even if Bush regains his confidence in pushing for reform, will Democrats--with their eyes now set on winning in November--really be ready to line up behind him?
Read it in full here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060403/cooper
Showdown on Immigration
Marc Cooper
The good news is that after twenty years of inaction and demagogy, the US Senate is considering sweeping immigration reform. Behind that effort is a bipartisan consensus that grew out of a confluence of disparate factors: On the right, American business, desperate for low-wage and unskilled service workers, was clamoring to legalize the immigrant labor market; on the left, organized labor and liberals wanted an end to the illegal status of so many workers. And the sheer number of illegals now living in the United States--three times as many as a decade ago--demanded that something be done.
The bad news is that after arduously fighting its way to the top of the national legislative agenda--Senate majority leader Bill Frist fixed March 27 as the deadline for the Senate to come up with a bill--reform now threatens to be dead on arrival. Intransigence by the Republican right and a failure of nerve by Bush may have doomed a tenuous, years-long push to rewrite a current policy mired in denial and hypocrisy. "We may be on the verge of seeing the Republicans do to immigration what Hillary Clinton did to healthcare in the 1990s," said a prominent immigration attorney. "Set it back several decades."
(The ugly - expected to drag till Nov 06 - this line is my comment)
No one is willing to guess what will come out of the Senate process, no less out of any conference measure that would have to bridge the gap between the Senate and the draconian Sensenbrenner bill, already approved by the House. And if the process drags on closer to the November elections, chances for significant reform will dim considerably. Republicans, and especially the President, will be reluctant to further aggravate their internal party divisions. And even if Bush regains his confidence in pushing for reform, will Democrats--with their eyes now set on winning in November--really be ready to line up behind him?
Read it in full here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060403/cooper
more...
makeup +forest+biome+food+chain
needhelp!
02-25 11:14 AM
This makes me WOW!
I am up to 281!
I am up to 281!
girlfriend A temperate rain forest.
bluekayal
03-17 10:49 AM
SEC. 401. ELIMINATION OF EXISTING BACKLOGS.
(a) Family-Sponsored Immigrants- Section 201(c) (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants- The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(1) 480,000;
`(2) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year;
`(3) the difference between--
`(A) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 minus the number of visas issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(B) the number of visas calculated under subparagraph (A) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.'.
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 201(d) (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
`(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(A) 290,000;
`(B) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
`(C) the difference between--
`(i) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(ii) the number of visas calculated under clause (i) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.
`(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN- Immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).'.
SEC. 402. COUNTRY LIMITS.
Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `, (4), and (5)' and inserting `and (4)'; and
(B) by striking `7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent' and inserting `10 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 5 percent'; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5).
******
(a) Family-Sponsored Immigrants- Section 201(c) (8 U.S.C. 1151(c)) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants- The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(1) 480,000;
`(2) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year;
`(3) the difference between--
`(A) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 minus the number of visas issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(B) the number of visas calculated under subparagraph (A) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.'.
(b) Employment-Based Immigrants- Section 201(d) (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended to read as follows:
`(d) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the worldwide level of employment-based immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of--
`(A) 290,000;
`(B) the difference between the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during the previous fiscal year and the number of visas issued during the previous fiscal year; and
`(C) the difference between--
`(i) the maximum number of visas authorized to be issued under this subsection during fiscal years 2001 through 2005 and the number of visa numbers issued under this subsection during those fiscal years; and
`(ii) the number of visas calculated under clause (i) that were issued after fiscal year 2005.
`(2) VISAS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN- Immigrant visas issued on or after October 1, 2004, to spouses and children of employment-based immigrants shall not be counted against the numerical limitation set forth in paragraph (1).'.
SEC. 402. COUNTRY LIMITS.
Section 202(a) (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `, (4), and (5)' and inserting `and (4)'; and
(B) by striking `7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent' and inserting `10 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 5 percent'; and
(2) by striking paragraph (5).
******
hairstyles jun Hawaii+forest+food+web
furiouspride
07-22 11:15 AM
Not really. Every has the freedom to chose what they like or not. Exactly because of these rude attitude of Hindi People I never speak hindi.
I'm a South Indian and I have never had issues with Hindi or Hindi-speaking people. In fact, many of my friends are Hindi-speaking and I'm quite well-versed with the language as well (why not?). You cannot make a blanket statement saying that everyone speaking a particular language is rude or has bad attitude. Just goes to show one's ignorance.
Just look around and see what's keeping this country together? You can move from NY to LA without having to think twice. Try doing that back home ;)
THINK!
I'm a South Indian and I have never had issues with Hindi or Hindi-speaking people. In fact, many of my friends are Hindi-speaking and I'm quite well-versed with the language as well (why not?). You cannot make a blanket statement saying that everyone speaking a particular language is rude or has bad attitude. Just goes to show one's ignorance.
Just look around and see what's keeping this country together? You can move from NY to LA without having to think twice. Try doing that back home ;)
THINK!
prioritydate
09-12 10:46 PM
Just got the information from Murthy.
RFEs or Denials May Not Be Based on Wikipedia Information
The USCIS has been known to use an ever-growing number of publicly available sources, including internet sources such as Wikipedia. AILA members have been receiving denials based on the USCIS's use of information found on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia to which anyone in the world may contribute information. As such, it should not be considered an objective or completely reliable source of information. SCOPS advised that it has notified the service centers and there should not be additional RFEs or denials based upon Wikipedia.
It should be noted that, as a corollary, applicants and petitioners should not try to use Wikipedia as support for their filings or arguments, since it has been deemed an unreliable source.
RFEs or Denials May Not Be Based on Wikipedia Information
The USCIS has been known to use an ever-growing number of publicly available sources, including internet sources such as Wikipedia. AILA members have been receiving denials based on the USCIS's use of information found on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia to which anyone in the world may contribute information. As such, it should not be considered an objective or completely reliable source of information. SCOPS advised that it has notified the service centers and there should not be additional RFEs or denials based upon Wikipedia.
It should be noted that, as a corollary, applicants and petitioners should not try to use Wikipedia as support for their filings or arguments, since it has been deemed an unreliable source.
wandmaker
03-20 07:47 PM
I have got an RFE for 485 application. USCIS is asking me for Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for the employer I NEVER worked. (I have typed exact message below)
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
Ask your attorney to write a letter in response to RFE and explaining the situation you never took the job with employer X though the H1B transfer or new is approved, this will clear the query of USCIS. One catch, you should have maintained a continuous employment with #2 and demonstrate the same to USCIS. Good luck!
Note H1 to L1, H4 to H1, L1 to H1 is completely different, it is change of status - H1 to H1 is not change of status, so there is no question that you recent h1 is valid and past is invalid. Get an attorney, Good weekend
*
This is my situation-
I worked for 'Employer #1' from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005
Then I started working with 'Employer #2' from Jan-2005 to present. Employer #2 filed my H1/Labor/140/485. I am still working for Employer #2
*
However, I thought of changing job in 2006 and 'Employer X' offered me a job and sponsored my H1 and it got approved too, but I changed my mind and decided to continue with my current employer (Employer #2) and I am still with Employer #2. Please note my latest H1B was sponsored by “Employer X”, but I never worked for this Employer.
*
Please advice-
1) What should I send to USCIS? As I don’t have (can’t get) Employment Letter, Paystubs and W2 for “Employer X”
2) Would you consider this as simple case or complicated?
3) Should I hire attorney? (I self filed my 485 in July-2007)
*
*
This is the exact text - (changed Employer names)
Service records indicate that you were granted an H1-B nonimmigrant worker classification for employment from DEC 11, 2006 to DEC 11, 2009 for “Employer X"-. However, according to the G-325a submitted with your application, you had only worked for "Employer #1" from Jan-2000 to Jan-2005 and for the "Employer #2" from Jan-2005 to the present. Please provide evidence that you were employed with “Employer X". Such evidence may include copies of: employment letter, pay stubs or w2s
Thank you for your time and help.
Ask your attorney to write a letter in response to RFE and explaining the situation you never took the job with employer X though the H1B transfer or new is approved, this will clear the query of USCIS. One catch, you should have maintained a continuous employment with #2 and demonstrate the same to USCIS. Good luck!
Note H1 to L1, H4 to H1, L1 to H1 is completely different, it is change of status - H1 to H1 is not change of status, so there is no question that you recent h1 is valid and past is invalid. Get an attorney, Good weekend
No comments:
Post a Comment