9years
04-08 05:59 PM
My Details:
EB3 India
PD: October 15 2003
I-485 filed on July 2nd 2007
I-140 Approved on Aug 15th 2007
Texas Service Center
EB3 India
PD: October 15 2003
I-485 filed on July 2nd 2007
I-140 Approved on Aug 15th 2007
Texas Service Center
wallpaper Best Wallpaper
chanduv23
09-25 10:44 AM
We should send this to all lawmakers - post it on IV and post it on blogs - print and distribute
milind70
04-27 06:05 PM
Thank you amslonewolf but i already had this one with me. At Mandal Revenue office(MRO) people are not accepting this format.
If there is any other formatt that will be great to me. Once again thanks for you help on this..
I think I had a birth certificate in native language(devangiri) and it had no name since I was named in a naming ceremony as per the customs and culture. I spoke to my attorney about this.She advised me that i get the BC transalated to english and for no name get affidavites by two people saying that the birth certificate was indeed me and i was named later as per customs and culture.I got affidavtes sworn by my mother and father.
Also I dont think that you should have names of both father and mother in BC . ninety pecenty of Birth Certificates issued in India only have fathers name on it.
This is my expereince but i would suggest please consult an attorney.
If there is any other formatt that will be great to me. Once again thanks for you help on this..
I think I had a birth certificate in native language(devangiri) and it had no name since I was named in a naming ceremony as per the customs and culture. I spoke to my attorney about this.She advised me that i get the BC transalated to english and for no name get affidavites by two people saying that the birth certificate was indeed me and i was named later as per customs and culture.I got affidavtes sworn by my mother and father.
Also I dont think that you should have names of both father and mother in BC . ninety pecenty of Birth Certificates issued in India only have fathers name on it.
This is my expereince but i would suggest please consult an attorney.
2011 Download 40 Best 3D Fantasy
DSLStart
11-04 09:36 AM
Just replace the word Dil with GC in that song from Dil and it fits perfect :D
ok , here is the best ..
Mujhe Nind Na aaye , nind na aaaye hai , mujhe chen na aaye ,chane na aaye ...
YouTube - Mujhe neend Na Aaye - Dil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypMIhmEfK2w)
Another one but really goes with it ,
Aisi deewangi dekhi nahin ...
YouTube - aisi deewangi (Deewana) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXmL7WpMyu4&feature=related)
ok , here is the best ..
Mujhe Nind Na aaye , nind na aaaye hai , mujhe chen na aaye ,chane na aaye ...
YouTube - Mujhe neend Na Aaye - Dil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypMIhmEfK2w)
Another one but really goes with it ,
Aisi deewangi dekhi nahin ...
YouTube - aisi deewangi (Deewana) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXmL7WpMyu4&feature=related)
more...
masala dosa
05-12 09:43 AM
Great Job.I heard your call & I think you tried your best to explain our issues.I'm sure that something will surely change for the legal community in coming months.We have taken enough s..... till now.
Once again, nice job buddy
Keep up the spirits,we will get there
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I cannot open the audio file on internet explorer/Windows media player
can anyone tell me why?
Once again, nice job buddy
Keep up the spirits,we will get there
Thanks
GCcomesoon
I cannot open the audio file on internet explorer/Windows media player
can anyone tell me why?
singhsa3
08-19 12:48 PM
Yep, just passed level III , today. Now will start applying for the charter.
good to find a fellow CFA candidate/member here... are you done with the exams?
good to find a fellow CFA candidate/member here... are you done with the exams?
more...
InTheMoment
06-09 12:52 PM
I would love to believe that - some predictabilty in the assignment of files to AIO's - but that is certainly not true atleast from what we see from data !
Even though your pd is current, It is quite possible that they have not assigned a visa number yet to your case. So they are probably assigning by order of PD's
Example: Sept 2003, before Oct 2003,....So on..so they are assigning earlier PDs Visa numbers first.
Second possibility is that there could be too many eligible before your date or exactly your date and in which case they will go with RD..which in your case is July 2nd, 2007. There could be people with 485 RD's in 2005 when the dates were current.
This is pure guess work and speculation, I really do not know how they do this. But if they really have enough visas for EB2, yours will still be current next month.
-------------------------------------------
India EB3- PD: June 2003
Contributed $480 + Monthly Recurring contributor.
Even though your pd is current, It is quite possible that they have not assigned a visa number yet to your case. So they are probably assigning by order of PD's
Example: Sept 2003, before Oct 2003,....So on..so they are assigning earlier PDs Visa numbers first.
Second possibility is that there could be too many eligible before your date or exactly your date and in which case they will go with RD..which in your case is July 2nd, 2007. There could be people with 485 RD's in 2005 when the dates were current.
This is pure guess work and speculation, I really do not know how they do this. But if they really have enough visas for EB2, yours will still be current next month.
-------------------------------------------
India EB3- PD: June 2003
Contributed $480 + Monthly Recurring contributor.
2010 20 Best 3D Wallpapers
digitalborealis
01-10 10:51 AM
That probably was unnecessary and may triggered the additional check due to export control of high end researches.
I can imagine.. I work on Assisted GPS platform on US Wireless Carrier Phones. So When he heard GPS, he (VO) must have raised the flag. Having said that, I am a direct employee, not through any consulting company or so. it is just a matter of time. Just wait and watch.
I will update any reply I would get.
D
I can imagine.. I work on Assisted GPS platform on US Wireless Carrier Phones. So When he heard GPS, he (VO) must have raised the flag. Having said that, I am a direct employee, not through any consulting company or so. it is just a matter of time. Just wait and watch.
I will update any reply I would get.
D
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hair 3D Wallpapers Collection
BharatPremi
03-11 02:17 PM
Person "A" on H1B with 4 yrs of experience, Green Card filed, EAD received (both husband and wife), I-140 pending, Wife Dependant (has her own H1B), Wife opens a training institute.
1. Can "A" work for his wife and also get paid in check?
2. Can "A" have a second job in his wife's company and retain his original job?
3. Can "A" have a different occupation anywhere else on EAD not related to his original job role? and then can "A" get paid in check?
4. Can "A" work for his wife's company and instead wife gets the check or paid? Is that legal?
5. Can "A"'s wife open a company on EAD and also keep working on her H1B?
6. Can "A" and his wife after EAD work for 2 different jobs if the job description/roles are different?
7. Can "A" work as volunteer in his wife's company?
8. Can a software analyst working with a software company work as a trainer in a training institute on EAD with I-140 either pending or approved?
You are not DESI... How dare you to think about working for wife...Thst's not in true DESI's blood.. Wife should work for you:p:)
1. Can "A" work for his wife and also get paid in check?
2. Can "A" have a second job in his wife's company and retain his original job?
3. Can "A" have a different occupation anywhere else on EAD not related to his original job role? and then can "A" get paid in check?
4. Can "A" work for his wife's company and instead wife gets the check or paid? Is that legal?
5. Can "A"'s wife open a company on EAD and also keep working on her H1B?
6. Can "A" and his wife after EAD work for 2 different jobs if the job description/roles are different?
7. Can "A" work as volunteer in his wife's company?
8. Can a software analyst working with a software company work as a trainer in a training institute on EAD with I-140 either pending or approved?
You are not DESI... How dare you to think about working for wife...Thst's not in true DESI's blood.. Wife should work for you:p:)
more...
yabadaba
06-18 12:44 PM
thanks reno john!
hot free 3d wallpaper. animated 3d
pani_6
11-16 04:15 PM
Celebrated for Krishna killing of the evil Narakasura.Unfortunately..this has become commercial like chirstmas and people forget the real reason and start interpreting thier own stories..it also marks Ram's return to Ayodhya after defeating Ravan.
more...
house of the est animated films
snathan
06-10 09:18 AM
I am very thankful for such a generous response in such a short span of time.
I have everything back with me except I-94 and VISA ( which can be had in india).
I owe this forum a lot.....:) and i will have to repay it ...
I am happy to know that your 'thefted' issue is solved . Is there any way you can help IV. There is a fund drive going on to solve some immigrant issue. If possible please contribute.
I have everything back with me except I-94 and VISA ( which can be had in india).
I owe this forum a lot.....:) and i will have to repay it ...
I am happy to know that your 'thefted' issue is solved . Is there any way you can help IV. There is a fund drive going on to solve some immigrant issue. If possible please contribute.
tattoo Best Animated Wallpaper for
man-woman-and-gc
03-09 06:44 PM
I and my wife got this update from CRIS. Anyone seen this before or know what it means?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***
The last processing action taken on your case
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On March 9, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under Case Status and Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL ***
The last processing action taken on your case
Receipt Number: LINXXXXXXXX
Application Type: I485 , APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: This case has been sent to another office for processing because it has jurisdiction over the case.
On March 9, 2009, we transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our NATIONAL BENEFITS CENTER location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
If you have questions or concerns about your application or the case status results listed above, or if you have not received a decision from USCIS within the current processing time listed*, please contact USCIS Customer Service at (800) 375-5283.
*Current processing times can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under Case Status and Processing Dates.
*** Please do not respond to this e-mail message.
Sincerely,
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
more...
pictures Best Wallpapers amp; Backgrounds
san752000
07-11 10:02 PM
Your wife should NOT have any problems if she is still in her 6 years of her first H1B. My wife had the same case and she got her H1B in 15 days and it was NOT counted against the quota.
dresses Best Animated Wallpaper for
Hey Ram GC
04-08 11:45 AM
webm: what is the status of your application ( 485), is your NC, SC or fingurprints all clear. Did you speak to any IO about any update on your case as your PD is current ( 01 Oct).
more...
makeup animated wallpaper desktop
mdipi
10-28 09:15 PM
eberth, did you do the bed?
girlfriend est wallpapers. 3d Best
mbartosik
03-28 11:10 AM
For nationality/changeability a ROW category is needed.
hairstyles Best 3D Wallpapers
royus77
06-30 05:27 PM
Guys and Gals,
It's all speculation... Wait and see... we will all be fine... if you have your papers ready then file it.......
I'am staying positive..... Want y'all to do it too....
All the best....
I will fly to Nebraska on sunday night and deliver it on Monday
It's all speculation... Wait and see... we will all be fine... if you have your papers ready then file it.......
I'am staying positive..... Want y'all to do it too....
All the best....
I will fly to Nebraska on sunday night and deliver it on Monday
bmoni
08-20 03:21 PM
@acecupid: Thanks for the response. For me it is Chicago consulate it will take 10-15 days.
which comes pretty close to my travel date. As you mentioned i do hope it will not be a problem.
Also today I talked to the Indian consulate in Chicago they told me I can travel without any problem. As long as the passport is valid even it is the last day of the validity I should be fine with the travel. There shouldn't be a problem with the immigration officers during travel based on that.
@kanakabyraju: Thanks for the advise. I might try that.
For a valid visa stamp you need a passport with six month validity. But I have not seen any where for traveling you need a six month validity. If you personally experienced any problem while traveling with less than six valid passport. please post your experience it will help me and others.
Thanks,
which comes pretty close to my travel date. As you mentioned i do hope it will not be a problem.
Also today I talked to the Indian consulate in Chicago they told me I can travel without any problem. As long as the passport is valid even it is the last day of the validity I should be fine with the travel. There shouldn't be a problem with the immigration officers during travel based on that.
@kanakabyraju: Thanks for the advise. I might try that.
For a valid visa stamp you need a passport with six month validity. But I have not seen any where for traveling you need a six month validity. If you personally experienced any problem while traveling with less than six valid passport. please post your experience it will help me and others.
Thanks,
gcformeornot
12-31 10:21 PM
what % have got FP notices. Out of 25500 members I see only few votes...
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق