Libra
08-31 12:01 PM
All midwest members please go to this thread and cast your vote
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12599
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12599
wallpaper BMW M5 Wallpapers:: Best Cars
dilbert_cal
04-06 02:03 AM
Thanks for a very good analysis. I was hoping someone will do it and my heartfelt gratitude to you for stepping up.
Lydia
06-18 11:26 AM
perm2gc,
Thank you for ur suggestion... I am planning to reply to my RFE stating the same(employer denying with his and company details) and additionally another coworker of the same company reference letter.
Thank you for ur suggestion... I am planning to reply to my RFE stating the same(employer denying with his and company details) and additionally another coworker of the same company reference letter.
2011 mw cars wallpapers for
jsb
01-29 01:03 PM
Oh yeah, we are demainding an RFE (request for evidence) to substantiate this gossip....
...not demanding an RFE, but making an RFE and demanding an answer. The initiator of this thread must have heard it as a wish, but wishfully being optimistic, reported it as a news.
...not demanding an RFE, but making an RFE and demanding an answer. The initiator of this thread must have heard it as a wish, but wishfully being optimistic, reported it as a news.
more...
a_yaja
06-25 10:34 AM
I though such contracts are illegal in US?....It is employment at will.....that means they can kick you out anytime or you can leave anytime....maybe someone can clarify
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
It is "at will". But employers can have what is known as a "termination" clause. This clause can be anything (as long as it is legal):
- You cannot quit and join a competitor within 2 yrs
- You have to return all money paid for relocation if you quit within one yr
- You have to pay all costs associated with GC processing if you quit within 2 yrs
It looks like "2 yrs" is the max. time allowed by the law.
As long as the terms are reasonable, it will stand in the court of law. However, stuff like "you cannot do any programming for 2 yrs after quitting" will not hold in the court of law, because the agreement is preventing you from earning a livelyhood - which is illegal.
sukhwinderd
02-17 09:06 AM
but how do we know it reaches everyone waiting for GC. i think people active on IV are willing to contribute in one way or another, but we are unable to spread the message across EB community. as someone suggested, we need to send email to everyone registered on IV website and ask them to contribute in whichever way they can.
more...
indio0617
12-07 09:56 AM
Hi,
I am EB-3 ROW, PD in Nov.03, I-140 approved. I am planning on changing my current employer (non profit) to for-profit company.
I am in my H-1 B fifth year. I renewed once on my third year. By the time I change my job to the new employer, I will have about one year left in my current H-1B.
If I change the employer, will I be subject to H-1 B visa quota restriction?
I have stayed with my current employer (University) for five years just for the hope of green card. But I think this is time to move on. Staying in my current job is so detrimental to my career.
However, if the new company that may hire me, cannot find any H-1 B visa quota left for me, I will be in trouble if it is the case.
I would appreciate your advice very much.
Thank you always.
You will be counted against the cap when you move from a cap exempt (non -profit) to for profit. I was in a similar situation when i switched jobs few months ago. There were no H-1Bs left for the fiscal year. I thus switched from a non-profit to another non - profit.
I am EB-3 ROW, PD in Nov.03, I-140 approved. I am planning on changing my current employer (non profit) to for-profit company.
I am in my H-1 B fifth year. I renewed once on my third year. By the time I change my job to the new employer, I will have about one year left in my current H-1B.
If I change the employer, will I be subject to H-1 B visa quota restriction?
I have stayed with my current employer (University) for five years just for the hope of green card. But I think this is time to move on. Staying in my current job is so detrimental to my career.
However, if the new company that may hire me, cannot find any H-1 B visa quota left for me, I will be in trouble if it is the case.
I would appreciate your advice very much.
Thank you always.
You will be counted against the cap when you move from a cap exempt (non -profit) to for profit. I was in a similar situation when i switched jobs few months ago. There were no H-1Bs left for the fiscal year. I thus switched from a non-profit to another non - profit.
2010 BMW Z4 2009 Car Wallpaper
pappu
07-09 09:07 AM
I am starting this thread to see if IV can help CP (consular processing) filers (who are already in the US) who are the worst affected due to retrogression.
Issues:
1. CP filers do not have any interim benefits like EAD, AP, AC21 provision.
2. CP filers lose their GC application if the employer closes down business and they have to start all over from scratch (after finding a sponsor).
3. CP filers are the ones actually stuck with the same employer due to not having EAD.
4. Most CP filers would not have got the income tax rebate ($600 per individual and $300 per child) if they had filed return jointly with their spouse and if the spouse was not working. This is just insane.
As we are losing sight of, the only rescue for CP filers, recapturing bill - the only other option will be to enable CP filers to file for 485 even if their PD is not current. I am assuming this does not need a change to the legislation and can be done by DOS/USCIS. I may be wrong. Otherwise, CP filers especially EB3 India with PD 2002/2003 have high risks if they have to lose their current GC application, which I think is quite unfair.
I know, even IV hardly cares for CP filers as there is not even a provision to enter CP details in the tracker, however, just wanted to try our luck.
If IV thinks this is too much for the asking, feel free to delete this thread.
If anyone can't resist the urge to ask us, why the heck did you file for CP, well, nobody would have anticipated this plight and above all CP is not illegal!
It is untrue that IV does not care for CP filers.
One should not blame IV for not taking up a cause. IV is everyone. Core team is simply assisting the community in the general management of the organization. It is the community that powers all efforts.
We have had mostly AOS members till now and thus the focus has been on AOS. If you wanted CP in the tracker, let us know and we will add it.It is a minor issue. We haven't had anyone telling us till now or even telling us the bugs in the tracker so that we can improve it.
If you feel strongly that this is a genuine problem for CP filers, and everyone stuck in it can present compelling case for it, please feel free to lead the effort. IV will help you with guidance. Recently several members stuck in Perm audit delays approached IV and they took the initiative to start a campaign. I think this is how IV should evolve for future so that people can help themselves using this platform. IV is willing to help anyone stuck in the EB immigration system. Could you find more people like yourself stuck in CP filing in one place on this forum and discuss amongst yourself various ideas and strategies to find a solution to the problem. IV core will be available for guidance and advice.
Issues:
1. CP filers do not have any interim benefits like EAD, AP, AC21 provision.
2. CP filers lose their GC application if the employer closes down business and they have to start all over from scratch (after finding a sponsor).
3. CP filers are the ones actually stuck with the same employer due to not having EAD.
4. Most CP filers would not have got the income tax rebate ($600 per individual and $300 per child) if they had filed return jointly with their spouse and if the spouse was not working. This is just insane.
As we are losing sight of, the only rescue for CP filers, recapturing bill - the only other option will be to enable CP filers to file for 485 even if their PD is not current. I am assuming this does not need a change to the legislation and can be done by DOS/USCIS. I may be wrong. Otherwise, CP filers especially EB3 India with PD 2002/2003 have high risks if they have to lose their current GC application, which I think is quite unfair.
I know, even IV hardly cares for CP filers as there is not even a provision to enter CP details in the tracker, however, just wanted to try our luck.
If IV thinks this is too much for the asking, feel free to delete this thread.
If anyone can't resist the urge to ask us, why the heck did you file for CP, well, nobody would have anticipated this plight and above all CP is not illegal!
It is untrue that IV does not care for CP filers.
One should not blame IV for not taking up a cause. IV is everyone. Core team is simply assisting the community in the general management of the organization. It is the community that powers all efforts.
We have had mostly AOS members till now and thus the focus has been on AOS. If you wanted CP in the tracker, let us know and we will add it.It is a minor issue. We haven't had anyone telling us till now or even telling us the bugs in the tracker so that we can improve it.
If you feel strongly that this is a genuine problem for CP filers, and everyone stuck in it can present compelling case for it, please feel free to lead the effort. IV will help you with guidance. Recently several members stuck in Perm audit delays approached IV and they took the initiative to start a campaign. I think this is how IV should evolve for future so that people can help themselves using this platform. IV is willing to help anyone stuck in the EB immigration system. Could you find more people like yourself stuck in CP filing in one place on this forum and discuss amongst yourself various ideas and strategies to find a solution to the problem. IV core will be available for guidance and advice.
more...
rameshvaid
03-12 09:48 PM
Received a mail for myself and my wife. welcome to USA. But no email from CRIS.
:):):):):):)
Enjoy the freedom..
rv
:):):):):):)
Enjoy the freedom..
rv
hair BMW 750Li
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
more...
gc28262
08-27 08:13 PM
I don't think OP can do that, because I140 does not belong to you, it belongs to the company.
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the concept is you are asking for copies of documents that you have filed and since you have to attach a copy of 140 along with 485, you have the right to ask for a copy. but since OP has not yet filed 485 or more precisely, has not attached a copy of 140 approval for anything, he/she cannot ask for the same.
I have heard getting docs from USCIS under FOIA takes about a year or even longer(no experience though).
Please refer to the following thread. One member has already got it. There are many members who used this to get the approval notice.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum80-visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/219826-use-foia-for-i-140-and-other-immigration-records.html
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the concept is you are asking for copies of documents that you have filed and since you have to attach a copy of 140 along with 485, you have the right to ask for a copy. but since OP has not yet filed 485 or more precisely, has not attached a copy of 140 approval for anything, he/she cannot ask for the same.
I have heard getting docs from USCIS under FOIA takes about a year or even longer(no experience though).
Please refer to the following thread. One member has already got it. There are many members who used this to get the approval notice.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum80-visa-bulletin-status-tracker-processing-times/219826-use-foia-for-i-140-and-other-immigration-records.html
hot Amazing Bmw Wallpapers : Cars
chanukya
05-25 11:09 PM
Thank you very much from our hearts to QGA.
Thank you for taking up our cause.....
Thank you for helping us.....
Thank you for saving us....
Thank you......for beleiving in our real and genuine issues
Thank you.....Thank you....Thank you....
Thank you for taking up our cause.....
Thank you for helping us.....
Thank you for saving us....
Thank you......for beleiving in our real and genuine issues
Thank you.....Thank you....Thank you....
more...
house car wallpapers
tikka
08-07 07:56 PM
and bump///
tattoo Latest Bmw Cars Wallpapers.
singhsa3
07-12 09:01 AM
I am trying to upload the document but it not allowing me to do so. Also, I cannot load any document on a public website as it forbidden from my place of work. Can I e-mail this to any one.
All suggestions are good but let them all collect first and we can then modify it later
All suggestions are good but let them all collect first and we can then modify it later
more...
pictures Wallpaper 2009 BMW M3 Coupe
miguy
04-18 08:37 AM
Are companies hiring people on H1b for permanent jobs? I seem to have a tough time finding companies that sponsor H1b. I thought the Big 5 Consulting firms did not sponsor H1b or GC? But, it seems from this post that I was wrong. Can someone tell me what companies (Fortune 500) companies sponsor H1b/GC or is there a list I can get from somewhere.
thanks,
thanks,
dresses BMW M3 ALMS Race Car 2009
vin13
07-28 10:41 AM
As others have already mentioned each state has a different rule. Based on your state, you may be eligible for unemployment benefits. But what is more important is that now you are saying you do not have a job by claiming unemployment. Green Cards are for future job. If you are on unemployment compensation, how would you prove your eligibility for green card if questioned.
Dependent family members can avail unemployment without much concern of jeopardizing their Green Card.
Dependent family members can avail unemployment without much concern of jeopardizing their Green Card.
more...
makeup 2009 BMW X5 Security Plus Cars
gccovet
11-17 07:57 AM
IV gurus Please help.
My friend joined an X company short time ago. He was about to file GC with that company. The company laid of people in the last week.
Now they are saying to my friend that they cannot file for his labor as they have laid of people and they have to wait 6 months before filing.
Is it true if a company laid of people it should wait 6 month before it files for labor again?
Is there a way to avoid the waiting period.
My friend is in 5 th year of his H1B
Thanks
I went thru the same thing 5-6 years back, Big blue(IBM) was laying off people they were not filing for LC's for 6 months.
I guess, your friend needs to find some company to file his GC while he still continues with his current employer. Once LC is approved, he can opt to join the LC sponsorer employer.
GCCovet
My friend joined an X company short time ago. He was about to file GC with that company. The company laid of people in the last week.
Now they are saying to my friend that they cannot file for his labor as they have laid of people and they have to wait 6 months before filing.
Is it true if a company laid of people it should wait 6 month before it files for labor again?
Is there a way to avoid the waiting period.
My friend is in 5 th year of his H1B
Thanks
I went thru the same thing 5-6 years back, Big blue(IBM) was laying off people they were not filing for LC's for 6 months.
I guess, your friend needs to find some company to file his GC while he still continues with his current employer. Once LC is approved, he can opt to join the LC sponsorer employer.
GCCovet
girlfriend BMW Car Wallpaper
tikka
05-31 01:06 PM
Confirmation Number: 56Y67421A1299244L.
thank you
anyone else?
thank you
anyone else?
hairstyles Labels: BMW Cars 2009
tikka
06-03 01:14 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4618&page=23
Thank you
Thank you
satishku_2000
08-23 10:01 PM
Response times are now determined by service centers. Earlier it used be be 12 weeks but now it depends on evidence type
Memo accoring to murthy.com
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_restim.html
USCIS Clarification on Response Time for RFEs/NOIDs
Posted Jun 22, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS is implementing changes with respect to the deadlines for responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers were informed of the final rule on flexible response times for RFEs in our May 4, 2007 article, USCIS Regulation on Response Time for RFEs and NOIDs.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS now has issued further clarification regarding timeframes for RFE and NOID responses in its June 1, 2007 interoffice memorandum. This guidance was issued to the appropriate USCIS directors in order to clarify procedures that became effective on June 18, 2007. This guidance is intended to establish the proper RFE and NOID deadlines, now that we will no longer be operating under the earlier, standard 12-week response time for an RFE and 30-day response time for a NOID.
�MurthyDotCom
TYPES OF FILINGS FOR RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS
�MurthyDotCom
Missing or Incomplete Initial Evidence
�MurthyDotCom
According to the USCIS's June 1, 2007 guidance, applicants and petitioners can be given 30 days to submit missing initial evidence that the form requires, regardless of the nature of the form. Initial evidence is essentially basic, required documentation that is fundamentally necessary in each case.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS can deny a case outright for a lack of initial evidence. The issuance of an RFE is purely discretionary on the part of the USCIS, when, in their opinion, the initial evidence was not provided with the filing.
�MurthyDotCom
I-539 Requests to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS also established a 30-day response time to any RFE issued with regard to Form I-539 (Request to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status). The Memo explained that the USCIS determined lengthy RFE response times to be inconsistent with the purpose of Form I-539. Therefore, RFEs related to Form I-539 filings will have 30 days to respond.
�MurthyDotCom
OTHER TYPES OF RFE RESPONSES
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence Available within the U.S. : 42 Days
�MurthyDotCom
If the USCIS believes that the missing evidence is available within the U.S., the RFE response typically will be 42 days. This applies to all forms, other than the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence to be Obtained from Abroad
�MurthyDotCom
If missing evidence is available only from outside the U.S., then the USCIS typically will provide applicants and/or petitioners with up to a total of 84 days to respond to the RFE. This also applies to all forms, with the exception of the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
CONCLUSION
�MurthyDotCom
It is now more important than ever to make every effort to completely document a case before filing. The importance of providing all of the initial required evidence is going to become even more important now than before. Failure to respond to an RFE, with all the required evidence and in a timely fashion, will likely result in a denial. It is important to take the time to file correctly, rather than rush. At the Murthy Law Firm, we believe that it is always better to obtain a slow approval than a quick denial!
Memo accoring to murthy.com
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_restim.html
USCIS Clarification on Response Time for RFEs/NOIDs
Posted Jun 22, 2007
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS is implementing changes with respect to the deadlines for responses to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs). MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers were informed of the final rule on flexible response times for RFEs in our May 4, 2007 article, USCIS Regulation on Response Time for RFEs and NOIDs.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS now has issued further clarification regarding timeframes for RFE and NOID responses in its June 1, 2007 interoffice memorandum. This guidance was issued to the appropriate USCIS directors in order to clarify procedures that became effective on June 18, 2007. This guidance is intended to establish the proper RFE and NOID deadlines, now that we will no longer be operating under the earlier, standard 12-week response time for an RFE and 30-day response time for a NOID.
�MurthyDotCom
TYPES OF FILINGS FOR RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS
�MurthyDotCom
Missing or Incomplete Initial Evidence
�MurthyDotCom
According to the USCIS's June 1, 2007 guidance, applicants and petitioners can be given 30 days to submit missing initial evidence that the form requires, regardless of the nature of the form. Initial evidence is essentially basic, required documentation that is fundamentally necessary in each case.
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS can deny a case outright for a lack of initial evidence. The issuance of an RFE is purely discretionary on the part of the USCIS, when, in their opinion, the initial evidence was not provided with the filing.
�MurthyDotCom
I-539 Requests to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status
�MurthyDotCom
The USCIS also established a 30-day response time to any RFE issued with regard to Form I-539 (Request to Extend / Change Nonimmigrant Status). The Memo explained that the USCIS determined lengthy RFE response times to be inconsistent with the purpose of Form I-539. Therefore, RFEs related to Form I-539 filings will have 30 days to respond.
�MurthyDotCom
OTHER TYPES OF RFE RESPONSES
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence Available within the U.S. : 42 Days
�MurthyDotCom
If the USCIS believes that the missing evidence is available within the U.S., the RFE response typically will be 42 days. This applies to all forms, other than the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
Evidence to be Obtained from Abroad
�MurthyDotCom
If missing evidence is available only from outside the U.S., then the USCIS typically will provide applicants and/or petitioners with up to a total of 84 days to respond to the RFE. This also applies to all forms, with the exception of the I-539, discussed above.
�MurthyDotCom
CONCLUSION
�MurthyDotCom
It is now more important than ever to make every effort to completely document a case before filing. The importance of providing all of the initial required evidence is going to become even more important now than before. Failure to respond to an RFE, with all the required evidence and in a timely fashion, will likely result in a denial. It is important to take the time to file correctly, rather than rush. At the Murthy Law Firm, we believe that it is always better to obtain a slow approval than a quick denial!
sapota
08-31 11:33 AM
believe that American companies are telling the truth when they claim there is a lack of qualified talent in the U.S. for the high tech industry?
Even though the disclaimer says unscientific poll, this is outrageously biased.
Please forward to all hi tech companies. Let it come from the horses mouth.
Even though the disclaimer says unscientific poll, this is outrageously biased.
Please forward to all hi tech companies. Let it come from the horses mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment