shreiks
06-22 10:22 AM
My lawyer recommends to do independent filing without the spouse. He says you get 2 bites at the apple. When the dates becomes current,USCIS won't adjudicate immediately. We have time to add the derivative spouse later on.
Making AOS filing is not acceptable to USCIS and may trigger personal interviews and confusion. He also said take the spouse approved 140 and do an addendum to the 485 saying he/she is doing an independent 485 though we are married.
Making AOS filing is not acceptable to USCIS and may trigger personal interviews and confusion. He also said take the spouse approved 140 and do an addendum to the 485 saying he/she is doing an independent 485 though we are married.
wallpaper golden retriever pups
desitechie
09-16 06:12 PM
Airtel call quality is really good and it's cheap compare to reliance....I stopped using reliance almost 3 years......if you pay 9.99+taxes will give you 600 minutes talk time and 45 days validity...I also used for australia and singapore, call quality was great...never had any problems...
Thanks. The 45 days validity period starts from the buying day or first use day?
Thanks. The 45 days validity period starts from the buying day or first use day?
sc3
08-21 12:43 PM
Ok, I had hoped not to bite the bait, but I am human, nothing recharges and roils like someone saying "you are EB3, you are worthless compared to US the mighty EB2s".
The misleading continues
1) "VDLRAO" (no disrespect to his prediction capabilities) says EB2 will be current soon, so why are you raising this voice.
Well, if it is going to be current soon enough, then any action to redirect EB1 numbers should not be a cause of concern for EB2s should it? If you are going to become current soon, then it means there aren't many people waiting in the queue.
2) We should support the visa recapture
You all are assuming that EB3 does not support it. Unlike me, most EB3s are very active in calling, contributing and supporting those events. I have personal reservations about asking for a change in law when I am the direct beneficiary (I feel like those big oil companies who use their clout to get laws favourable to them, nothing wrong, just that I dont like to do it). Having said that, I have no problems in asking and demanding that the law be applied as written.
Once I have my GC done with, I intend to write to the representatives that barring progressive experience in the same company rule should be removed, because it is the experience that matters, not where you get it. Why should someone who chooses to be loyal be discriminated against another who has no qualms about his company's future.
3) You dont have the law on your side, USCIS/DOS only implements the law.
Some within EB2 concede that the law is fuzzy, while others claim there is no basis for our campaign here. Well, there was no basis for so many things that IV has accomplished, and yet, most people accept that we are better off in some ways compared to pre-IV. If you believe that we have no basis, then why bother dissing us? We will make ourselves look like fools. If you believe the law is fuzzy, then you should realize that current interpretation is your luck, not your right.
The misleading continues
1) "VDLRAO" (no disrespect to his prediction capabilities) says EB2 will be current soon, so why are you raising this voice.
Well, if it is going to be current soon enough, then any action to redirect EB1 numbers should not be a cause of concern for EB2s should it? If you are going to become current soon, then it means there aren't many people waiting in the queue.
2) We should support the visa recapture
You all are assuming that EB3 does not support it. Unlike me, most EB3s are very active in calling, contributing and supporting those events. I have personal reservations about asking for a change in law when I am the direct beneficiary (I feel like those big oil companies who use their clout to get laws favourable to them, nothing wrong, just that I dont like to do it). Having said that, I have no problems in asking and demanding that the law be applied as written.
Once I have my GC done with, I intend to write to the representatives that barring progressive experience in the same company rule should be removed, because it is the experience that matters, not where you get it. Why should someone who chooses to be loyal be discriminated against another who has no qualms about his company's future.
3) You dont have the law on your side, USCIS/DOS only implements the law.
Some within EB2 concede that the law is fuzzy, while others claim there is no basis for our campaign here. Well, there was no basis for so many things that IV has accomplished, and yet, most people accept that we are better off in some ways compared to pre-IV. If you believe that we have no basis, then why bother dissing us? We will make ourselves look like fools. If you believe the law is fuzzy, then you should realize that current interpretation is your luck, not your right.
2011 golden retriever puppies
bobzibub
05-07 12:49 AM
Hi friends,
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
We may be talking about the same thing...I believe that ALIA as asked USCIS for clarificatin about spouses both filing (my wife and I both have.) Only I have no EADs or AP on my application. Just straight 485. My wife's 485 has EADs, APs, for both of us. Now both of our lawyers said it would be fine. It is not about what USCIS wants, however--it is about what they will lose court cases over. They can't possibly dissallow multiple applications after the fact, after we've paid for them. If USCIS was going to x-nay this, their window of opportunity is over. By not barring it, they've defacto allowed it.
Cheers,
-b
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
We may be talking about the same thing...I believe that ALIA as asked USCIS for clarificatin about spouses both filing (my wife and I both have.) Only I have no EADs or AP on my application. Just straight 485. My wife's 485 has EADs, APs, for both of us. Now both of our lawyers said it would be fine. It is not about what USCIS wants, however--it is about what they will lose court cases over. They can't possibly dissallow multiple applications after the fact, after we've paid for them. If USCIS was going to x-nay this, their window of opportunity is over. By not barring it, they've defacto allowed it.
Cheers,
-b
more...
esivaa
01-03 10:39 AM
Hi,
My wife attented interview on dec14th at Chennai counslate.
She did not receive the passport yet.
My wife attented interview on dec14th at Chennai counslate.
She did not receive the passport yet.
InTheMoment
10-02 01:42 AM
It is simply crazy of USCIS, but it is not beyond commonsense for us to realize that the notice was mailed in last few hours of the previous FY, so there might have been those hiccups between USCIS and DoS systems releasing the last few visa numbers.
Understand that you might well be current for this FY but the notice was generated in September. So now you should do your best to make sure your file is not relegated under a big heap somewhere... as others so rightly suggest, the congressperson route should serve well.
I recieved 2 notices in mail today.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
Understand that you might well be current for this FY but the notice was generated in September. So now you should do your best to make sure your file is not relegated under a big heap somewhere... as others so rightly suggest, the congressperson route should serve well.
I recieved 2 notices in mail today.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
more...
ys2jax
06-29 03:57 PM
www.aila.org
has a link "Update on July Visa Availability"
but only members can access it.
has a link "Update on July Visa Availability"
but only members can access it.
2010 golden retriever puppies
gccovet
11-03 12:44 PM
guys, please act on sending letters. This is very important.
thank you.
GCCovet
thank you.
GCCovet
more...
styrum
07-12 01:01 PM
Although much older anouncements and news are still there.
Apparently they want everybody to forget about this ASAP, let alone attract any further interest or god forbid inquiries. I don't know who in the world can still beleive that they are a "service" and we are "customers".
Apparently they want everybody to forget about this ASAP, let alone attract any further interest or god forbid inquiries. I don't know who in the world can still beleive that they are a "service" and we are "customers".
hair golden retriever puppies
sparklinks
09-14 09:06 AM
FYI..
I just received CPO mail.
Thanks a lot to IV and friends here.
I just received CPO mail.
Thanks a lot to IV and friends here.
more...
krishmunn
03-31 11:50 AM
Hi GC ON DEMAND, I think you are right... Looks like we did not receive any spill over from EB1 and EB2 ROW --- Here are the calcs...
Regular EB2 ROW gets 34,436 -- see below for break down
We know that EB2 gets 140,000 * 28.6% of visas which is 40,040.
Out of 40,040, 7% is allocated to china and an other 7% goes to India.
So EB2 ROW = 40,040 - 2*(40,040*7%) = 34,436 -------------------------------------------- (1)
In the document that you have, EB2 ROW received 27, 406 visas... How? see below
Total allocation for Eb2 (A1) - 53,872
India received (B1) - 19,961
China's received (C1) - 6,505
-------------------------------------------------
EB2 (ROW) net = A1-(B1+C1) = 27,406 -------------------------------------------------------- (2)
--------------------------------------------------
EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} = 5,604 -------------------------------------------(3)
(1) - (2) - (3) gives the spill over from EB2 ROW to EB2 (I&C), which is 1,426
Which means EB2 ROW to EB2 I&C spill over is mere 1,426 ???? Hope we are wrong... this looks scary...
The calculation looks incorrect.
You considered the I+ C allocations and subtracted those in line 1. You again subtracted those in your final calculation.
The straight forward calculation is EB2 ROW is entitled to 34,436 (1) and they used 27,406 (2). So splillover was around 7 K.
Regular EB2 ROW gets 34,436 -- see below for break down
We know that EB2 gets 140,000 * 28.6% of visas which is 40,040.
Out of 40,040, 7% is allocated to china and an other 7% goes to India.
So EB2 ROW = 40,040 - 2*(40,040*7%) = 34,436 -------------------------------------------- (1)
In the document that you have, EB2 ROW received 27, 406 visas... How? see below
Total allocation for Eb2 (A1) - 53,872
India received (B1) - 19,961
China's received (C1) - 6,505
-------------------------------------------------
EB2 (ROW) net = A1-(B1+C1) = 27,406 -------------------------------------------------------- (2)
--------------------------------------------------
EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} = 5,604 -------------------------------------------(3)
(1) - (2) - (3) gives the spill over from EB2 ROW to EB2 (I&C), which is 1,426
Which means EB2 ROW to EB2 I&C spill over is mere 1,426 ???? Hope we are wrong... this looks scary...
The calculation looks incorrect.
You considered the I+ C allocations and subtracted those in line 1. You again subtracted those in your final calculation.
The straight forward calculation is EB2 ROW is entitled to 34,436 (1) and they used 27,406 (2). So splillover was around 7 K.
hot golden retriever puppies for
Brightsider
09-25 11:12 AM
I saw this link Murthy's email too. The total pre-adjudicated cases in the chart is matching with the total in the document. Well now there are more un-answered questions:
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
Guys,
If I may suggest.
Take a look at the pending 1-130 (Pref). Over 800k are pending and adjudication has been deferred in those cases. Those are FB cases for sure. Now if USCIS has deferred action in those cases, can we infer that all the 279k I-485 cases relate only to EB? Cant say for sure.
However as it was pointed out in another forum, Texas and Nebraska process only EB cases. In their cases, the rate of preadjudication is very high....over 90% in Texas. I cant fathom the Nebraska numbers.
The preadjudication numbers, in my opinion, are of the EB cases. The data, on the whole, needs to be explained by USCIS, better.
1. Does all other pending 485 include employment based ? If yes what % are employment based ? Obviously we do not have any country specific data on these.
2. Is there any way to know whether individual case is pre-adjudicated or not ?
USCIS has fooled us again. No good statistical analysis can be done on incomplete/inaccurate data. I am going from hopeful to hopeless again. I am EB2-I Feb 2006.
Thanks a lot for staying on top of this and posting your analysis.
Guys,
If I may suggest.
Take a look at the pending 1-130 (Pref). Over 800k are pending and adjudication has been deferred in those cases. Those are FB cases for sure. Now if USCIS has deferred action in those cases, can we infer that all the 279k I-485 cases relate only to EB? Cant say for sure.
However as it was pointed out in another forum, Texas and Nebraska process only EB cases. In their cases, the rate of preadjudication is very high....over 90% in Texas. I cant fathom the Nebraska numbers.
The preadjudication numbers, in my opinion, are of the EB cases. The data, on the whole, needs to be explained by USCIS, better.
more...
house girlfriend golden retriever
milind70
05-06 01:12 PM
while we are on the topic, how long does it take to get a I-140 approval notice from TSC
approval notice can take anywhere from 7 to 30 days
approval notice can take anywhere from 7 to 30 days
tattoo golden retriever puppies
inderman
10-23 05:11 PM
try all routes possible... call ombudsman, call senator, email NSC , go for an Infopass...
Dosn't make sense to take the words as is... mite not b fully true...
Good Luck
Dosn't make sense to take the words as is... mite not b fully true...
Good Luck
more...
pictures Puppies for Sale More Details.
ChainReaction
05-27 11:36 AM
Guys-
Any benefit in filing 485 on the first week of June versus last week of June? Any FIFO implications?
Yes, the I485 filing fee will be tripled anytime, the longer U wait the more likely it is you have to pay the increased fee. If you are family of 4 it will be 4K just in visa fee + Medical + lawyer fee...etc:(
Any benefit in filing 485 on the first week of June versus last week of June? Any FIFO implications?
Yes, the I485 filing fee will be tripled anytime, the longer U wait the more likely it is you have to pay the increased fee. If you are family of 4 it will be 4K just in visa fee + Medical + lawyer fee...etc:(
dresses 2011 golden retriever puppies
virtual55
01-24 12:11 PM
01/24/2006: Senate May Table Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bills As Early As February 2, Thursday
Unconfirmed sources indicate that the Senate may table this bill earlier than expected. Since there is the nightmarish Sensenbrenner border protection bill that will come up with the comprehensive immigration reform legislation, it appears that the pro-immigration forces may have to energize their forces and start working on the critical immigration legislation.
courtesy: www.immigration-law.com
Unconfirmed sources indicate that the Senate may table this bill earlier than expected. Since there is the nightmarish Sensenbrenner border protection bill that will come up with the comprehensive immigration reform legislation, it appears that the pro-immigration forces may have to energize their forces and start working on the critical immigration legislation.
courtesy: www.immigration-law.com
more...
makeup Dogs for Sale
Nil
04-09 11:42 AM
After seeing the May bullettin, it seems what the US is actually giving us is either a A kick in the back or a slap on the face?
May be we can create a poll for that send the results to the president.
Well it is their country. We are serving through our volition.
We have an expectation, but in a free market it is demand and supply.
i am Not trying to be negative - just a reality check on where we stand and how we can approach.
It is a fact that immigration from Asia shot up at the turn of the millennium. This may look disproportionate to proponents of diversity.
Now 1/6th of the world population comes from one country. But the quota for Iceland and India remains the same.
Consequently many like us cannot: change employers, give up opportunities (lure of which we came here for) and wait for the same outcome that others achieve much faster, simply because they were born somewhere else or their employers & lawyer decided their immigration category. So much for free country and meritocracy.
i believe our main point should be a level playing field and transparent
system so that expectations are clear.
For those of us who have suffered due to lack of clarity, for all fairness, must lobby for a chance to parity after multiple (say 10) years of serving LEGALLY.
May be we can create a poll for that send the results to the president.
Well it is their country. We are serving through our volition.
We have an expectation, but in a free market it is demand and supply.
i am Not trying to be negative - just a reality check on where we stand and how we can approach.
It is a fact that immigration from Asia shot up at the turn of the millennium. This may look disproportionate to proponents of diversity.
Now 1/6th of the world population comes from one country. But the quota for Iceland and India remains the same.
Consequently many like us cannot: change employers, give up opportunities (lure of which we came here for) and wait for the same outcome that others achieve much faster, simply because they were born somewhere else or their employers & lawyer decided their immigration category. So much for free country and meritocracy.
i believe our main point should be a level playing field and transparent
system so that expectations are clear.
For those of us who have suffered due to lack of clarity, for all fairness, must lobby for a chance to parity after multiple (say 10) years of serving LEGALLY.
girlfriend golden retriever puppies
sanju
08-07 09:23 AM
There is another thread on the issue and some of us think that we do have a case. Initial response from a certain lawyer has been positive.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20669
The affected parties (i.e. us) need to show damage in certain way and I do have some points that can be used.
Any lawyer will tell you that you have a case because he wants to make more money. Its like going to Walmart and Walmart telling you that the product does provide value for your family. You take any case to any lawyer, 99.9% lawyers will tell you that you have a case. You go with an idea that you should be the President of the country, they will tell you "Ya I can clearly see why you feel like that and I totally agree, so you may have a case there". My suggestion is, please do not waste your money if some lawyer is saying you that "you have a case". They know that is what you - the potential client, wants to hear.
Our primary point is that the spirit of law has not been upheld.
I bet this is what your lawyer told you. Do you realize how vague this term "spirit of the law" is. But, as long as you are ok to put you money in fire, who cares. Go right ahead, knock yourself, I am right behind you and best of luck, you sure need a lot of it. :p
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20669
The affected parties (i.e. us) need to show damage in certain way and I do have some points that can be used.
Any lawyer will tell you that you have a case because he wants to make more money. Its like going to Walmart and Walmart telling you that the product does provide value for your family. You take any case to any lawyer, 99.9% lawyers will tell you that you have a case. You go with an idea that you should be the President of the country, they will tell you "Ya I can clearly see why you feel like that and I totally agree, so you may have a case there". My suggestion is, please do not waste your money if some lawyer is saying you that "you have a case". They know that is what you - the potential client, wants to hear.
Our primary point is that the spirit of law has not been upheld.
I bet this is what your lawyer told you. Do you realize how vague this term "spirit of the law" is. But, as long as you are ok to put you money in fire, who cares. Go right ahead, knock yourself, I am right behind you and best of luck, you sure need a lot of it. :p
hairstyles Golden Retriever for sale at
mhathi
09-09 11:46 AM
Here is a select list that I was working on since morning. Someone else please post the numbers for others.
Hank Johnson, GA - 202-225-1605
Betty Sutton, OH - 202-225-3401
Brad Sherman, CA - 202-225-5911
Anthony Weiner, NY - 202-225-6616
Adam Schiff, CA - 202-225-4176
Artur Davis, AL - 202-225-2665
Keith Ellison, MN - 202-225-4755
Tammy Baldwin, WI - 202-225-2906
Hank Johnson, GA - 202-225-1605
Betty Sutton, OH - 202-225-3401
Brad Sherman, CA - 202-225-5911
Anthony Weiner, NY - 202-225-6616
Adam Schiff, CA - 202-225-4176
Artur Davis, AL - 202-225-2665
Keith Ellison, MN - 202-225-4755
Tammy Baldwin, WI - 202-225-2906
baburob2
01-07 04:46 PM
Here is a summary of the bills, their bill numbers and the Sections:
Sen. Chuck Hagel's Bill (Section 202 of S. 1918)
-High-tech workers who have worked in the U.S. for 3 years would be allowed to adjust to permanent resident status without regard to the annual employment-based immigrant visa cap of 140,000.
-The spouses and children of immigrant workers would also be allowed to adjust status without regard to this cap.
McCain/Kennedy Bill (Sections 601 and 602 of S. 1033)
-Increases quota on EB immigrants to 290,000 to alleviate retrogression
-Recapture unused visas between 2001 and 2005
-Increase the per country limit from 7% to 10%
Cornyn/Kyle Bill (Sections 1001 and 1002 of S. 1438)
-Recapture of the unused visas between 2001 through 2005
-Removal of diversity visa and reallocation of these. Since this is mentioned under EB, the implication seems to be reallocation to EB but am not sure.
-Increase of the country limit from 7% to 10%
It is understood that there would be a merging of these to make the final comprehensive immigration bill
Added to the above Senator Arlen Specter's bill is a good bill:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
Sen. Chuck Hagel's Bill (Section 202 of S. 1918)
-High-tech workers who have worked in the U.S. for 3 years would be allowed to adjust to permanent resident status without regard to the annual employment-based immigrant visa cap of 140,000.
-The spouses and children of immigrant workers would also be allowed to adjust status without regard to this cap.
McCain/Kennedy Bill (Sections 601 and 602 of S. 1033)
-Increases quota on EB immigrants to 290,000 to alleviate retrogression
-Recapture unused visas between 2001 and 2005
-Increase the per country limit from 7% to 10%
Cornyn/Kyle Bill (Sections 1001 and 1002 of S. 1438)
-Recapture of the unused visas between 2001 through 2005
-Removal of diversity visa and reallocation of these. Since this is mentioned under EB, the implication seems to be reallocation to EB but am not sure.
-Increase of the country limit from 7% to 10%
It is understood that there would be a merging of these to make the final comprehensive immigration bill
Added to the above Senator Arlen Specter's bill is a good bill:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Introduces Largest Immigration Increase in U.S. History
Printer-Friendly Version
Send this article to a friend!
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) needed the assistance of the White House in early 2005 to overcome opposition within his own party to his chairmanship. In late November, Specter repaid the Bush Administration by unveiling draft legislation that would bring about a massive increase in government- mandated immigration to the U.S.
President Bush, in his immigration address on November 28, pledged to work for an increase in the number of green cards issued each year and stated his intent to work with Sen. Specter to bring it about. Specter�s draft legislation would send government mandated immigration levels into the 2 million-a-year range.
Under Specter�s draft legislation, the cap on family-preference immigration would be increased by 254,000 visas annually and hundreds of thousands of additional relatives would be exempted from annual limits. In addition, Specter proposes raising the cap on employment-based immigration by 150,000 a year, and allocating any unused visas to other preference categories.
If enacted, Specter�s legislation would mandate the largest increase in immigration in this nation�s history. Moreover, according to FAIR�s analysis, such legislation would fuel the demand for still higher levels of immigration as more extended family members line up to follow an ever-growing number of immigrants streaming into our country.
1/06
aristotle
05-22 06:32 PM
If you can restart ur app in Eb2, you should be fine dates wise. Unless CIR messes it up.
Approximately 2 months for PERM and then you can file 140+485 concurrently.
All the best!
Company A applied for my GC in Oct 2002. I received I140 and left the company on good terms and joined company B. company A promised that when my date becomes current they will authorize my 485. Now that my date is current, the company A is saying they cannot give me an employment letter because they are not doing well financially. The company has not more than 3-4 employees and they had been suffering losses for last few years. Now even if they have good intentions for me, they are unable to file for me.
What options do I have now? restart GC process with company B and utilize my priority date?
Please help. For a day I was excited about my date getting current but after al there was no reason for me to be happy.
thanks,
Kapil
Approximately 2 months for PERM and then you can file 140+485 concurrently.
All the best!
Company A applied for my GC in Oct 2002. I received I140 and left the company on good terms and joined company B. company A promised that when my date becomes current they will authorize my 485. Now that my date is current, the company A is saying they cannot give me an employment letter because they are not doing well financially. The company has not more than 3-4 employees and they had been suffering losses for last few years. Now even if they have good intentions for me, they are unable to file for me.
What options do I have now? restart GC process with company B and utilize my priority date?
Please help. For a day I was excited about my date getting current but after al there was no reason for me to be happy.
thanks,
Kapil