thamizhan
07-20 11:25 AM
Is there any thing to do with I-140approved/pending with I-485/ead/ap processing?
This is only to track people who sent their I-485 application documents to USICIS Nebraska Service Center and received by them on the same day.
If you are on that category, please vote.
This is only to track people who sent their I-485 application documents to USICIS Nebraska Service Center and received by them on the same day.
If you are on that category, please vote.
wallpaper tattoo ribs, demi lovato
rockstart
08-05 12:05 PM
I agree, FP does not have anything to do with namecheck. I never received my FP for 15 months but inbetween when I took infopass - it was confirmed that my name check was done
I was under the same impression that it was FP that triggered the name check. But this is what the lawyer told them that their names were struck in NC and that is why they never got FP and now that NC is over they received FP notices. The interesting part is that within 3 weeks of FP one person got a notice that his application has been sent to USCISlocal office for further processing which I assume means interview notice in few days.
I was under the same impression that it was FP that triggered the name check. But this is what the lawyer told them that their names were struck in NC and that is why they never got FP and now that NC is over they received FP notices. The interesting part is that within 3 weeks of FP one person got a notice that his application has been sent to USCISlocal office for further processing which I assume means interview notice in few days.
needhelp!
05-30 01:38 AM
I just watched the piece on Spelling Bee by Jimmy Falon on Late Night.. seems like they went all out to "encourage" Tim Ruiter for next year, because he is "origin Virginia". Did any of you guys watch this?
Aren't all the kids American kids?
Aren't all the kids American kids?
2011 demi lovato tattoo 2011.
vin13
08-04 11:43 AM
The fact that India and china priority dates are same for EB-2 suggests some spill over has already occured from ROW. We just do not know how much more spill over is possible.
more...
kshitijnt
11-16 02:55 AM
Bill rate? 70/30 basis?? Contract??? I would like the OP to report his employer to DoL. DoL and USCIS will kick both the OP and the employer. It is easy to get carried away saying that the employer is blood sucker etc. But very clearly, you should know that there can't be these kinds of contracts on H1. The employer knows that people who go to them are on thin ice, and so does the employee (employer is there to do business -- he is not running charity).
Maybe you guys want OP to go to DoL so that both the employer and OP get kicked out of this country (that is good for all of us) due to obvious immigration fraud.
To top it, OP goes on an offensive when people point of the bitter truth to him. This site should not promote illegal behavior, anybody seeking advise on these topics should be severely castigated, because they broke the law too (and they know it, just dont want to admit it). Or maybe we should encourage these people to report to DoL so that all of them can be punished for misusing the laws.
While I did not suggest him to go to DOL. Let me tell you that working on hourly wages is legal on H1. The best solution is to find the job quietly. How do you know how much is his employer making and what he has got? There could be very significant difference.
Maybe you guys want OP to go to DoL so that both the employer and OP get kicked out of this country (that is good for all of us) due to obvious immigration fraud.
To top it, OP goes on an offensive when people point of the bitter truth to him. This site should not promote illegal behavior, anybody seeking advise on these topics should be severely castigated, because they broke the law too (and they know it, just dont want to admit it). Or maybe we should encourage these people to report to DoL so that all of them can be punished for misusing the laws.
While I did not suggest him to go to DOL. Let me tell you that working on hourly wages is legal on H1. The best solution is to find the job quietly. How do you know how much is his employer making and what he has got? There could be very significant difference.
panky72
06-24 03:18 AM
There has been time check used to be payable to:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security - USCIS
Now at some places it is shortened to:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
And at other places it is shortened to:
USCIS
I think, they are interchangeable.
On USCIS site: Fees should be made payable to Department of Homeland Security or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. refer to first dotted instruction of http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
It does not talk about putting US in front of Department of Homeland Security. Going exactly by USCIS instructions, lawyer did mistake - but it is OK.
Look at the PDF file for I-765 and I-131 Instructions from USCIS website (Checkout page 8)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-131instr.pdf
Here is the relevant info from the USCIS instructions:
Use the following guidelines when you prepare your check or
money order for the Form I-765 fee:
1. The check or money order must be drawn on a bank or
other financial institution located in the United States
and must be payable in U.S. currency; and
2. Make the check or money order payable to U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, unless:
A. If you live in Guam and are filing your petition
there, make it payable to Treasurer, Guam.
B. If you live in the U.S. Virgin Islands and are filing
your petition there, make it payable to
Commissioner of Finance of the Virgin Islands.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security - USCIS
Now at some places it is shortened to:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
And at other places it is shortened to:
USCIS
I think, they are interchangeable.
On USCIS site: Fees should be made payable to Department of Homeland Security or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. refer to first dotted instruction of http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
It does not talk about putting US in front of Department of Homeland Security. Going exactly by USCIS instructions, lawyer did mistake - but it is OK.
Look at the PDF file for I-765 and I-131 Instructions from USCIS website (Checkout page 8)
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-131instr.pdf
Here is the relevant info from the USCIS instructions:
Use the following guidelines when you prepare your check or
money order for the Form I-765 fee:
1. The check or money order must be drawn on a bank or
other financial institution located in the United States
and must be payable in U.S. currency; and
2. Make the check or money order payable to U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, unless:
A. If you live in Guam and are filing your petition
there, make it payable to Treasurer, Guam.
B. If you live in the U.S. Virgin Islands and are filing
your petition there, make it payable to
Commissioner of Finance of the Virgin Islands.
more...
chanduv23
02-11 12:48 PM
I think u will be fine, just file a MTR. All the best.
2010 tattoo demi lovato hair 2011.
franklin
04-27 12:49 AM
Franklin,
We have members from all over the world. And as far as EB-3 is concerned the entire category retrogressed -- all countries. We feel that this is a problem that affects all highly skilled workers.
One thing to remember is that reporters take snippets from hours of interviews, and then their editors edit the article down further.
best,
Berkeleybee
Hi BerkleyBee
I totally understand that reporters may skew facts to their specific needs and know first hand that the EB-3 category is retrogressed across all nationalities. I am one of your members that is not from either background mentioned.
I was responding to a post on this forum (and not the press in general) that implied that this issue affects people from specific ethnic backgrounds, which is false.
I do have a general issue that people seem to forget that.
I applaud all core member efforts, however negative this post seems.
Respectfully
We have members from all over the world. And as far as EB-3 is concerned the entire category retrogressed -- all countries. We feel that this is a problem that affects all highly skilled workers.
One thing to remember is that reporters take snippets from hours of interviews, and then their editors edit the article down further.
best,
Berkeleybee
Hi BerkleyBee
I totally understand that reporters may skew facts to their specific needs and know first hand that the EB-3 category is retrogressed across all nationalities. I am one of your members that is not from either background mentioned.
I was responding to a post on this forum (and not the press in general) that implied that this issue affects people from specific ethnic backgrounds, which is false.
I do have a general issue that people seem to forget that.
I applaud all core member efforts, however negative this post seems.
Respectfully
more...
vina92
02-23 03:31 PM
What our wonderful Rehman said were not simple words but very powerful. All our lives
we have the choice between love and hate. He chose love over hate and he reached the pinnacle of his career. It's a great honor to be recognized by the best of the artists in the world, as the greatest. It's no simple feat. It takes lifetimes to get there!
It's a beautiful message said in simple terms and all of us should try to follow it!
He made India proud at Oscars and all Indians are very proud of him. Time to rejoice.
He did prove that music and art have no barriers.
I am also proud to live in such wonderful country who are open to any new talent and do not hesitate to honor anyone irrespective of their color,race and religion.
I wish all countries take inspiration from it.
we have the choice between love and hate. He chose love over hate and he reached the pinnacle of his career. It's a great honor to be recognized by the best of the artists in the world, as the greatest. It's no simple feat. It takes lifetimes to get there!
It's a beautiful message said in simple terms and all of us should try to follow it!
He made India proud at Oscars and all Indians are very proud of him. Time to rejoice.
He did prove that music and art have no barriers.
I am also proud to live in such wonderful country who are open to any new talent and do not hesitate to honor anyone irrespective of their color,race and religion.
I wish all countries take inspiration from it.
hair tattoo demi lovato 2011 pics.
terriblething
06-12 01:28 PM
Some correction. 2 witness, one is a neighbour in another building. We live in 3rd floor, that woman live in 3rd floor on another building, there is one driveway between 2 building! Another witness is from leasing office staff, she claimed just near that area. That "help" is from that damn staff.
We only move to this apartment in 2 ~3 month, and both of us biz traveled lot, so don't think we bother neighbor much. And one of neighbor knew our miserable experience, he and his wife said would volunteer to support us in court if necessary.
Thanks!!!!!
YOu are right, it would be "STATE" Vs terriblething. I wonder, why the neighbour gave "false" statement of hearing "help!...."?
Terriblething, looks like you were not in good terms with your neighbours or must have pissed them off in one way or other.
GCCovet
We only move to this apartment in 2 ~3 month, and both of us biz traveled lot, so don't think we bother neighbor much. And one of neighbor knew our miserable experience, he and his wife said would volunteer to support us in court if necessary.
Thanks!!!!!
YOu are right, it would be "STATE" Vs terriblething. I wonder, why the neighbour gave "false" statement of hearing "help!...."?
Terriblething, looks like you were not in good terms with your neighbours or must have pissed them off in one way or other.
GCCovet
more...
indiandude
10-16 06:10 PM
Hi All,
My son was born last month and applied for US passport. Once I get the passport I am planning to apply for PIO card in Texas. Can you please let me know if I need to send my son's original passport and the processing time. Can you please also let me know if anyone recently applied?
Thanks
My son was born last month and applied for US passport. Once I get the passport I am planning to apply for PIO card in Texas. Can you please let me know if I need to send my son's original passport and the processing time. Can you please also let me know if anyone recently applied?
Thanks
hot pictures demi lovato tattoo
gc_kaavaali
08-03 03:38 PM
Hi frostrated,
do you have any source/link to prove your point? Just asking.
Thank you
USCIS will go according to the ND. They will not follow PD. PD is used only to make the application eligible for adjudication or to apply for AOS. One filed, it is the application ND that takes priority. For example, if there are two EB2 applications, and the PD for the two are Aug 2002 and Aug 2004, and the ND for these two are June 2006 and Jan 2006 respectively, the applicaiton with ND of Jan 2006 gets priority, provided both PD are current.
do you have any source/link to prove your point? Just asking.
Thank you
USCIS will go according to the ND. They will not follow PD. PD is used only to make the application eligible for adjudication or to apply for AOS. One filed, it is the application ND that takes priority. For example, if there are two EB2 applications, and the PD for the two are Aug 2002 and Aug 2004, and the ND for these two are June 2006 and Jan 2006 respectively, the applicaiton with ND of Jan 2006 gets priority, provided both PD are current.
more...
house Demi Lovato gets new tattoo
makemygc
07-06 11:30 AM
Guys,
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what we must stress on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a week case. Nos USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS decalred "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out ot everbody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the leagl instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able save it face and limit on visa numbers wil automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
How do you define "All effected"?
Here are my thoughts:
---------------------
There are Four group of people (Became current with July bulletin) who are affected and suffered.
1) The people whose applications reached to USCIS before 10:00 AM
07/02/07, i.e. before USCIS's new revision/update.
Note: Legally this group is the SAFEST one as their file reached to the
USCIS table on time while USCIS's first bulletin was in effect. Their
case is strong as far as "Law and Justice" is concerned.
2) The people whose applications reached on 07/02/07 but after USCIS's
declaration of new revision.
Note: This group can be fit in a category "Who did not receive ample
notice from USCIS for its intention to change the bulletin. And so
may be considered "Probable beneficiaries" by the judiciary
3) The people whose applications reached or will reach to USCIS from any
time between 12:00 AM 07/03/07 to 11:59 PM 07/31/07.
Note: This group will have a "Strongest" weak argument and case. Their
act of sending files perhaps may not be considered "Law-abiding" as
they have already received ample notice from USCIS and clear
statement of USCIS about "Rejecting applications upon receiving"
then also this group sent the applications.
4) The People who will not send applications at all with respect to the
USCIS's revision.
Note: In my oinion and mostly I believe in Judiciary's opinion thsi group will
be considered "Law-abiding" and who acted as per USCIS's
instruction within the periphery of respecting legal authority.
Now other points to be noted are as under:
-----------------------------------------
DOS and USCIS screwed up? Yes... Did not happen ever and now it happened , yes.. People suffered stress..expenses.. yes. Now what we must stress on is one time bulletin per month is a tradition and it is a long time tradition but probably DOS has a power to change that... It seems that there is no such law that DOS can not do that so there exactly Lawsuite filer may have a week case. Nos USCIS is supposed to follow DOS and make bulletin as per DOS's guideline and that is what USCIS did so where is the "Law-Breaking" ? USCIS acted perfectly in legal manner. Probably if Lawsuite filer decide to file the lawsuite on the basis of "Why the helll USCIS decalred "All Current" at the first place" then there they have a chance to make a case strong but if they go another route like "Why USCIS revised the bulletin" then I personally do not see "much worth".
Now having said this, to me it looks like whether you file till in July or not OR whether you become plantiff or not, it should not matter. AILF and/or any other organization ethically and perhaps legally can not define "Class" narrowly to the limited group of people. If real justice is prevalent in this country judiciary should not allow any entity to define "Class" narrowly. To me "ALL affected" is the "Class" and if judiciary is considering it as a "class action" then it should consider "All affected" as a class. Now US justice system would go this way, I do not know but if it is not going that way then I would consider that as abig black loop hole in justice system itself. My guess is that if AILF would go defining "Class" narrowly, there will be some mechanism by which individually or with group you should be able to challenge that legally as well.
Now Judiciary, in my opinion may not take stand that ok this is a "Class lawsuite" and now Mr.X has become the plantiff so he would only be the beneficary if lawsuite is won. Either ALL affected should be considered for whatever the benefits come out ot everbody looses it. Same argument goes for people who are not filing. By not filing they are obeying the leagl instruction of government department of USA and for that they should not be punished and can not be punished by not granting any benefit to them whereas granting the benefits to the people who clearly challenged USCIS's revision by filing from 07/03 and onwards....
If USCIS is smart, it should accept all files now and create the process to have them rotted in the queue for years and that way it will be able save it face and limit on visa numbers wil automatically send whole bunch of files for eating the dust for years.
I personally see our strong point only at have reimbursement of the money and time if "We are not getting current before one year (Validity of Medicals)
Any thoughts?
How do you define "All effected"?
tattoo tattoo demi lovato hair 2011
sk082671
01-21 11:07 PM
Hi,
Sorry guys, I found how to contribute, i am mailing my check of $100 today, I appreciate all your effort, I hope we should win finally.
I thank every one on this forum for taking initiative and fighting for common goal.
Thanks
SK260871
Sorry guys, I found how to contribute, i am mailing my check of $100 today, I appreciate all your effort, I hope we should win finally.
I thank every one on this forum for taking initiative and fighting for common goal.
Thanks
SK260871
more...
pictures demi lovato tattoo
chanduv23
10-09 05:34 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
dresses demi lovato tattoo. demi lovato tattoo for fans.
pointlesswait
01-14 12:38 PM
the fact that it applies only for illegals..
`Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
`(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then.
This if i am reading and understanding right may not be too bad. Let me kow if i am missing anything......
`Sec. 245B. (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if the alien--
`(1) was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date on which this provision was enacted and has maintained continuous physical presence since then.
This if i am reading and understanding right may not be too bad. Let me kow if i am missing anything......
more...
makeup Demi Lovato Gets New Wrist
Maverick1
11-08 05:17 PM
LOL and the woman wins ehhh - which happens in all our homes everyday :D:D:D:D
Yeah. That goes without saying :) :)
Yeah. That goes without saying :) :)
girlfriend Demi Lovato Gets New Wrist
chanduv23
04-13 02:45 PM
IT and BPO outsourcing is also leading to Americanization of Indian youth and Indian youth are spending their high salaries on American products. In no time you will see American fast food chains, groceries, and many American MNCs cashing on a Americanized Indian crowd and neutralize ( and will eventually exceed the investments they make).
This is the beginning of Americanization. Most of you will not understand what I say because you are here in US for a long time and being first generation immigrants (on a limbo) keep up with your tradition. Americanization is like a slow bleed. IT and BPO is investment. Returns will come in form of MNCs and businesses and finally benefit American economy.
Just go back to India and look into the ITand BPO companies and lifestyles of people there. it will be 5 times higher than what we follow here as the Americanization is already induced.
Bottomline, do not underestimate America. They know what they do.
This is the beginning of Americanization. Most of you will not understand what I say because you are here in US for a long time and being first generation immigrants (on a limbo) keep up with your tradition. Americanization is like a slow bleed. IT and BPO is investment. Returns will come in form of MNCs and businesses and finally benefit American economy.
Just go back to India and look into the ITand BPO companies and lifestyles of people there. it will be 5 times higher than what we follow here as the Americanization is already induced.
Bottomline, do not underestimate America. They know what they do.
hairstyles Demi-Lovato-tattoo.jpg
logiclife
02-01 02:16 PM
Logiclife,
Below is a recent story on travel on AP. I see many posts where folks are asked at POE by CBP offcials if they are still working from the petitioning employer.
Can you advise why CBP officers are even asking to several AP travellers if they are still working for the GC petitioning employer?
My situation: I am not working for the petitioning employer anymore and dont have an attorney as well and so need to get prepared to answer the CBP officails why i am not working for the petitioning employer at POE and you know, CBP officails dont understand AC-21 etc
Please read below.
================================================== =
japs19
Junior Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 22
My story...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like sharing mine as mine is the most horrifying.
After scanning my expired H-1 and reviewing my AP, I was sent to "secondary check" where they ask you few questions and verify the authenticity of the documents.
I was asked if I work for the original petitioner? I said no, currently I work for another employer. I showed them my H-1 approval (I-797). The CBP officer was about to stamp my AP and he was told by a "side-kick" that I have to be employed at the same employer otherwise what is the guarantee that I will go and work for that employer. I calmly explained the fact that GC is for future employment and per AC-21 I can change after 180 days. The CBP officer said wait here and then he walked in to some room. He returned after 20 minutes and I was told to go and wait and other officer will take care of the situation. From one officer to another and another to another. I was asked if I am trying to do any fraud. Finally after 5 hours of questioning, I somewhat lost my temper and told them that either send me back to home country or let me go. So after making few phone calls, they concluded that they don't have access to all my records on their system and it is very gray situation so the office in downtown will take care of the situation.
They took my passport, AP, H-1 approval letter and told me to go to downtown office after 30 days and they will decide what to do.
My lawyer was kind enough to accompany me as she was also upset with their act. When I went there, we were rudely asked completely out of place questions which had nothing to do with whose employer I work for or anything and I was told that "I" confused CBP officers by showing AP and H-1 and I should have just shown them AP and everything would have been fine. I am the culprit and I choose to get myself in trouble.....
I said nothing and just saw him stamping my AP and walked out. I don't know what to conclude out of it. But A friend of mine had valid H-1 and AP and they asked "has any one applied for AOS for you?" he said yes. They asked him to show 485 and AP if he had and same story,,,one officer to another and another to another which lasted for 3 hours and finally his H-1 was stamped.
So, again I am not sure what they are trying to get out of this but this is happening at the airport. I am not trying to scare anyone but just be prepared to deal with such situation and keep in mind that you are not doing any fraud and keep the honesty.
This is still not a big deal.
Firstly, the lesson learned from this is, dont show your H1 to the officer at counter if that H1 is expired and you are entering on AP. The officer doesnt care what your history is and how many beautiful H1s you had in past that are now expired. If you are entering into US using advanced parole, then show advanced parole. What is the point of showing an expired H1 stamp?
Secondly, as far as JFK is concerned, that airport seems to have procedure that all AP holders are processed in back office (secondary inspection office) and not processed at the counter. In my case, as soon as the officer saw an AP, (that first thing I showed him even before passport and the I-94 filled out), he said "oh parole ... let me grab that and walk down that room", he put all things (parole, I-94, passport) into a plastic bag and took me to a back office. There, another employee entered AP info in the system, stamped the AP and gave it back to me. It did take about 10-15 minutes for them. But they didnt ask any questions.
So, try to make it simple for employees at POE by showing them the authorization for re-entry - WHICHEVER it is. If you are re-entering on H1, then show them h1 stamp that is valid. Dont show AP. If you are re-entering on AP, then show them AP and TELL THEM you are entering on AP, rather than flashing an expired H1 stamp.
Thirdly, this isnt a nightmare, the guy was processed in downtown office, and took a few extra hours. Big deal. Yes, its a hassle, but one must act professionally rather than throwing tantrums like "let me in or let me go back to my home country". That's NOT how government operates, definately not at that level. There are procedures in place. Emotions and rhetorical outbursts are not going to sway the decision. If you have the right authorization to re-enter, then you will be let back in, there is no other alternative. If you dont, then no amount of rhetoric and outburst is going to save you. The decision is driven by paperwork and not by the impression you create on them. The impression matters when you are getting visa for first time in US consulate. But at POE, its more procedural and there isnt that much discretion and leeway to deport people back.
If you want to throw tantrums and use rhetoric, then there are plenty of places to do that, and I'd suggest you start with your congressman and senator's office. Go there and tell them that let's end the probationaly shackles on skilled immigrants and regularize them in American mainstream OR if they are bad for america, then send them all back. That's where the rhetoric and emotional tantrums might work. They wont work at POE at airports or in USCIS offices.
Calm down people, use AP freely and peacefully and also EAD. AP is not just used by us, it is also used by family and marriage immigration cases. Many people get engaged, come here, then get married and then file for green card based on marriage to citizen. Even they use AP. In fact, they have no other choice except AP for re-entry as they dont have H1 or L1 alternatives.
Below is a recent story on travel on AP. I see many posts where folks are asked at POE by CBP offcials if they are still working from the petitioning employer.
Can you advise why CBP officers are even asking to several AP travellers if they are still working for the GC petitioning employer?
My situation: I am not working for the petitioning employer anymore and dont have an attorney as well and so need to get prepared to answer the CBP officails why i am not working for the petitioning employer at POE and you know, CBP officails dont understand AC-21 etc
Please read below.
================================================== =
japs19
Junior Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 22
My story...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like sharing mine as mine is the most horrifying.
After scanning my expired H-1 and reviewing my AP, I was sent to "secondary check" where they ask you few questions and verify the authenticity of the documents.
I was asked if I work for the original petitioner? I said no, currently I work for another employer. I showed them my H-1 approval (I-797). The CBP officer was about to stamp my AP and he was told by a "side-kick" that I have to be employed at the same employer otherwise what is the guarantee that I will go and work for that employer. I calmly explained the fact that GC is for future employment and per AC-21 I can change after 180 days. The CBP officer said wait here and then he walked in to some room. He returned after 20 minutes and I was told to go and wait and other officer will take care of the situation. From one officer to another and another to another. I was asked if I am trying to do any fraud. Finally after 5 hours of questioning, I somewhat lost my temper and told them that either send me back to home country or let me go. So after making few phone calls, they concluded that they don't have access to all my records on their system and it is very gray situation so the office in downtown will take care of the situation.
They took my passport, AP, H-1 approval letter and told me to go to downtown office after 30 days and they will decide what to do.
My lawyer was kind enough to accompany me as she was also upset with their act. When I went there, we were rudely asked completely out of place questions which had nothing to do with whose employer I work for or anything and I was told that "I" confused CBP officers by showing AP and H-1 and I should have just shown them AP and everything would have been fine. I am the culprit and I choose to get myself in trouble.....
I said nothing and just saw him stamping my AP and walked out. I don't know what to conclude out of it. But A friend of mine had valid H-1 and AP and they asked "has any one applied for AOS for you?" he said yes. They asked him to show 485 and AP if he had and same story,,,one officer to another and another to another which lasted for 3 hours and finally his H-1 was stamped.
So, again I am not sure what they are trying to get out of this but this is happening at the airport. I am not trying to scare anyone but just be prepared to deal with such situation and keep in mind that you are not doing any fraud and keep the honesty.
This is still not a big deal.
Firstly, the lesson learned from this is, dont show your H1 to the officer at counter if that H1 is expired and you are entering on AP. The officer doesnt care what your history is and how many beautiful H1s you had in past that are now expired. If you are entering into US using advanced parole, then show advanced parole. What is the point of showing an expired H1 stamp?
Secondly, as far as JFK is concerned, that airport seems to have procedure that all AP holders are processed in back office (secondary inspection office) and not processed at the counter. In my case, as soon as the officer saw an AP, (that first thing I showed him even before passport and the I-94 filled out), he said "oh parole ... let me grab that and walk down that room", he put all things (parole, I-94, passport) into a plastic bag and took me to a back office. There, another employee entered AP info in the system, stamped the AP and gave it back to me. It did take about 10-15 minutes for them. But they didnt ask any questions.
So, try to make it simple for employees at POE by showing them the authorization for re-entry - WHICHEVER it is. If you are re-entering on H1, then show them h1 stamp that is valid. Dont show AP. If you are re-entering on AP, then show them AP and TELL THEM you are entering on AP, rather than flashing an expired H1 stamp.
Thirdly, this isnt a nightmare, the guy was processed in downtown office, and took a few extra hours. Big deal. Yes, its a hassle, but one must act professionally rather than throwing tantrums like "let me in or let me go back to my home country". That's NOT how government operates, definately not at that level. There are procedures in place. Emotions and rhetorical outbursts are not going to sway the decision. If you have the right authorization to re-enter, then you will be let back in, there is no other alternative. If you dont, then no amount of rhetoric and outburst is going to save you. The decision is driven by paperwork and not by the impression you create on them. The impression matters when you are getting visa for first time in US consulate. But at POE, its more procedural and there isnt that much discretion and leeway to deport people back.
If you want to throw tantrums and use rhetoric, then there are plenty of places to do that, and I'd suggest you start with your congressman and senator's office. Go there and tell them that let's end the probationaly shackles on skilled immigrants and regularize them in American mainstream OR if they are bad for america, then send them all back. That's where the rhetoric and emotional tantrums might work. They wont work at POE at airports or in USCIS offices.
Calm down people, use AP freely and peacefully and also EAD. AP is not just used by us, it is also used by family and marriage immigration cases. Many people get engaged, come here, then get married and then file for green card based on marriage to citizen. Even they use AP. In fact, they have no other choice except AP for re-entry as they dont have H1 or L1 alternatives.
engineer
02-28 07:07 PM
Works Cited
Arshad, Mehreen. Personal Interview. 2 May 2006.
"Great Teachers Make Great Public Schools." National Education Association. 06 May 2006 <http://www.nea.org/teacherday/want2teach.html>.
Murthy, Sheela. "Bill Gates Says End H1B Cap." MurthyDotCom. 29 April. 2006
< http://www.murthy.com/news/n_bilgat.html>.
Rosseter, Robert. "Nursing Shortage." American Association of Colleges of Nursing
October 2005. 5 May 2006 <http://www.acn.nche.edu/Media/FactSheets/Nur
singShortage.htm>.
Shah, Shivali. "What is NADISA?" Network of Advocated of Dependent Spouses of America. 14 April 2006 < http://www.hvisasurvey.org/what_is_nadisa.htm>.
Shah, Shivali. "VAWA 2005 Provision Will Assist Thousands of Battered Immigrant
Women Married to Temporary Visa Holders." Network of Advocated of Dependent Spouses of America 5 Feb 2006. 4 May 2006 <http://hvisa
survey.org/VAWA_PressRelease1.htm>.
"Temporary Workers". U.S. Department of of State. 10April.2006 <http:/travel. state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1271.html>.
Arshad, Mehreen. Personal Interview. 2 May 2006.
"Great Teachers Make Great Public Schools." National Education Association. 06 May 2006 <http://www.nea.org/teacherday/want2teach.html>.
Murthy, Sheela. "Bill Gates Says End H1B Cap." MurthyDotCom. 29 April. 2006
< http://www.murthy.com/news/n_bilgat.html>.
Rosseter, Robert. "Nursing Shortage." American Association of Colleges of Nursing
October 2005. 5 May 2006 <http://www.acn.nche.edu/Media/FactSheets/Nur
singShortage.htm>.
Shah, Shivali. "What is NADISA?" Network of Advocated of Dependent Spouses of America. 14 April 2006 < http://www.hvisasurvey.org/what_is_nadisa.htm>.
Shah, Shivali. "VAWA 2005 Provision Will Assist Thousands of Battered Immigrant
Women Married to Temporary Visa Holders." Network of Advocated of Dependent Spouses of America 5 Feb 2006. 4 May 2006 <http://hvisa
survey.org/VAWA_PressRelease1.htm>.
"Temporary Workers". U.S. Department of of State. 10April.2006 <http:/travel. state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1271.html>.
WeldonSprings
09-22 05:44 PM
I called all the representatives except King. Couldn't get to Howard Coble and Berman.
Called all folks who havent said wether they support or oppose the bill...I know its past 5 pm but they are answering phones...so if you just see this message, pick up your phone & CALL!!!!
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
Called all folks who havent said wether they support or oppose the bill...I know its past 5 pm but they are answering phones...so if you just see this message, pick up your phone & CALL!!!!
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)202- 225-5811
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)202- 225-3906 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Dan Lungren (R-Calif.)202- 225-5716
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) 202-225-5911
Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.)202- 225-4176
Rick Boucher (D-Va.) 202-225-3861
Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) (202) 225-8351
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)202- 225-5431
J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)202- 225-6365
Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) 202-225-2706 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Ric Keller (R-Fla.)202- 225-2176
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) 202-225-3035
Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member 202- 225-6906/ 202- 225-4236 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) 202-225-2676
Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) 202-225-3401
Chris Cannon (R-Utah)202- 225-7751
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) 202-225-2216
Howard Coble (R-N.C.) 202-225-3065
Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)202- 225-3265
John Conyers (D-Mich.), Chairman 202-225-5126
William D. Delahunt (D-Mass.)202- 225-3111
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) 202-225-4755
Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)202- 225-4576
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)202- 225-8203
Steve King (R-Iowa)202- 225-4426 (NOT IN FAVOR)
Mike Pence (R-Ind.) 202-225-3021
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) 202-225-4695
No comments:
Post a Comment