cptbaseball
05-14 11:59 AM
Since your H-1B change of status is approved, you are in H-1B Status now. In order to continue working on H-1B status after overseas trip, you must enter USA using H-1B visa stamp. This may require you to apply and get new H-1B visa stamp.
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
H-1B is approved from Oct/1/2009. Currently I should be on L-1B. As per this article, I think I can travel without jeopardizing my future status. They call it the 'Hernandez letter'. Is this true?
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
Please consider getting professional advice from your attorney before making any travel plans and what visa to use for re-entering.
______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.
H-1B is approved from Oct/1/2009. Currently I should be on L-1B. As per this article, I think I can travel without jeopardizing my future status. They call it the 'Hernandez letter'. Is this true?
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_cosapp.html
Thanks..
wallpaper University of Phoenix Stadium
gc28262
07-16 06:44 PM
If you have an appointment letter and a relieving letter from your past employer, that should prove that you worked for that employer.
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A detailed experience certificate as mentioned above could prove your experience in the specified skillset.
Here is another notarized affidavit format
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT FROM CO-WORKER
I COLLEAGUE residing at COLLEAGUE''s ADDRESS being first duly sworn, depose and state that:
I was an employee of COMPANY NAME, COMPANY ADDRESS from Month-Day-Year to Month-Day-Year.
YOUR NAME was also an employee of company as a YOUR DESIGNATION around this time and I am aware of YOUR NAME�s responsibilities as we were colleagues.
His/Her duties during this period included YOUR SKILL SET HERE
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Colleagues� Name & Signature
Sworn to before me this on MM/DD/YYYY
(Notary Public's signature & seal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prioritydate
07-25 11:11 AM
Here is the calculation I came up with USCIS processing of our I-485 applications.
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
USCIS should allocate 140,000 applications in a fiscal year. So, in a month they need to process, at least, 140,000/ 12 = 11,667 applications.
Assuming that they have, at least, 20 working days in a month, they need to process 11,667/ 20 = 584 applications.
So, now the question is, how many employees does USCIS have and are dedicated to the I-485 processing? We don�t know the exact number. Considering that USCIS is getting lot of revenue, they should have, at least, 50 employees doing this work.
So, 584/50 = 12(Approx) applications they need to process in a day, per person.
So, do you think it is viable? Of course, it is�
What they need to process the I-485 application? They are not doing any FBI names check, or background check (Assuming that everything is done by other organization). So, how long does it take to review the I-485 application? Well, when I filled the application, it took me about 1 hour. So, to review it, let�s us say, it takes about 1/2 the time fill the application; that�s about half an hour. Considering the calculation that we made, it takes an about 6 hours to process 12 candidates. With this assumption, they still have 2 hours left to do miscellaneous tasks. Now the question is what the heck they are doing all the time? Why did they process only 80,000 applications in about 8 months? Are they lazy? Don�t they have enough employees (This shouldn�t be; an average Indian consultant company will have at least 20 employees!!). This is really a mystery. Anyways, if the USCIS really and whole heartedly wants to process the applications, they can; but they really don�t care about immigrants or their plights. :rolleyes:
2011 Your university of phoenix
scorpion00
10-06 02:43 PM
Hi Manish,
I hope everything goes well with you.
Did the officials call you or come to see you in person?
I hope everything goes well with you.
Did the officials call you or come to see you in person?
more...
Dhundhun
09-02 08:47 PM
Folks,
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
As I remember, the validity is one year.
Due to the priority data transfer issue my I-485 application was rejected in June'08 (submitted based on June'08 visa bulletin).
As part of my application necessary medical exam tests were conducted in May'08. If I were to submit my application today based on the new visa bulletin do you think I need to take all medical exams again and re-submit? Won't the first set of medical exams have any validity?
Also, on the forums there is a talk about medical forms being changed? Can anyone confirm?
Thanks in advance for all your responses.
As I remember, the validity is one year.
mchundi
02-14 07:42 PM
It is almost 3-4 months for me tracking the progress of S-1932 and the comprehensive immigration reform process. I know some of u here have been lobbying for this even longer.
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
To begin with a few of the immigration bills were to be taken up last september, then Bill Frist said "he will schedule immigration bills in 2006 only". Well i thought we have to wait till jan '06. Then from the blue came the S-1932, it had everything in it that i was waiting for. It was definitely an overkill, No wonder it did not go thru. If it had just the recapture of the unused numbers it would have probably gone thru.
Now the comprehensive immigration bill is not likely to be taken up until end march. If something else more important comes in, then it might be postponed to the next year.
We r caught in the politics of one-upmanship. The administration wants immigration reform. May be it wants to take credit for it. Some dont want it. The Senate majority leader is not interested in it. May be it is him we should lobby.
May be we should change of tactic now. PACE has a good chance of going thru this year. May be we should lobby to tag the unused numbers into the PACE. That will atleast keep the PD current for a couple of years, before which the CIR can be taken up.
Just a thought.
--MC
more...
gsc999
06-26 12:41 PM
Lou Doubs live on CSPAN Live from National Press Club in Washington D.C. :rolleyes:
This surely is a desperate measure on Lou's part.
Lou, as expected, bashing the passage of cloture. Says amendments haven't been distributed among the Senators. Says, strong possibility of passage in the Senate. Doubs uses his regular tool of fear, says common Americans should be concerned by this.
This surely is a desperate measure on Lou's part.
Lou, as expected, bashing the passage of cloture. Says amendments haven't been distributed among the Senators. Says, strong possibility of passage in the Senate. Doubs uses his regular tool of fear, says common Americans should be concerned by this.
2010 University of Phoenix
go_guy123
07-26 02:52 PM
No idea what to say, yes they have all rights but doesn't this never ends?
Or Are these cases rare ?
Some one entered into US legally in 2001, slogged(ing) 8 or more years for GC...so 2009..then 5 more years for citizen ship so 2014....with this news it looks like they need to keep up the paper work and employer contacts for 12 years, as well the family need to realize that their stay in US is temporary ???
Oh my god too much of reality.
This the very reason why one should file for citizenship after 5 years of GC. GC is yet another type of visa which one can lose. De-naturalization process is harder and more cumbersome.
Or Are these cases rare ?
Some one entered into US legally in 2001, slogged(ing) 8 or more years for GC...so 2009..then 5 more years for citizen ship so 2014....with this news it looks like they need to keep up the paper work and employer contacts for 12 years, as well the family need to realize that their stay in US is temporary ???
Oh my god too much of reality.
This the very reason why one should file for citizenship after 5 years of GC. GC is yet another type of visa which one can lose. De-naturalization process is harder and more cumbersome.
more...
IfYouSeekAmy
01-20 02:45 PM
OK OK, EB1 kicks ass too !!!! :D
If they are so good, Show the list of names.
Any EB3 started big company after getting Greencard? Any EB3 invented after getting Greencard?
If they are so good, Show the list of names.
Any EB3 started big company after getting Greencard? Any EB3 invented after getting Greencard?
hair university of phoenix
jbr
02-27 06:55 PM
Not sure if the conference call mentioned in the previous post has already been held. I wouldn't mind joining in future calls. Thanks.
more...
shreekhand
07-29 10:55 AM
Is your "baby" 21 yrs old yet ;) if not wait before before it turns 21 for sponsorship!
hot THQ Phoenix Logo.jpg
chanduv23
06-07 07:39 AM
Thanks Chandu! Reasons to relocate are family and weather. At this point, I've a decent job in Chicago. Do you think this may be the right time to relocate to an Atlanta area given the economic climate....Also, how r the overall job prospects..
Not quite sure. I don't live there anymore. Cost of living is low compared to Chicago and also the salaries are low. Weather is good. It is hot, mild and cold - thunderstorms are common, big city, well connected by delta airlines. City is full of new immigrants and it is lively and bubbly.
Not quite sure. I don't live there anymore. Cost of living is low compared to Chicago and also the salaries are low. Weather is good. It is hot, mild and cold - thunderstorms are common, big city, well connected by delta airlines. City is full of new immigrants and it is lively and bubbly.
more...
house University of Phoenix#39;s Curious Take on the Law
pd_recapturing
08-05 10:31 PM
One of my friends AOS got rejected just because his attorney rescheduled his interview. Somehow, USCIS local office did not acknowledge his request for interview reschedule and they sent a rejection letter saying that, he did not appear for the interview so they are rejecting his application. So the bottomline is 1) Try your best to not to reschedule it 2) If you have to, make sure that USCIS acknowledges your application to reschedule it.
tattoo W Nhl Phoenix Coyotes Logo
Desertfox
11-09 05:33 PM
Is it possible to change this thread title to "Indian doctors win legal battle in UK"??
more...
pictures University of Phoenix
knowDOL
05-19 02:18 PM
I have not heard of anyone filing I485 without notifying the sponsoring employer and if it is feasible to do like that. however, there is nothing wrong in finding the I485 form in uscis.gov website and read through the info. May be you will get some idea on what you want to get it done is something possible or not. good luck. Think coolly. have some coffee or mint.
dresses University of Phoenix Stadium
gcformeornot
05-29 04:26 PM
For the record I do not have a problem. Employer is a very large company and I have worked in the same location for close to 10 years with a well maintained LCA history. So chill. My eyes are wide open in matters important to me.
The reason for being pissed is that these bull issues are manufactured for a commercial reason (by ) and with the express purpose to distract from the main and important goals for advocacy to solve this frustrating retrogession problem.
You on the other hand is a desperate fool on someone's illegitimate (from a moral perspective) payroll. Seriously man have some shame. BTW Are you and EASTINDIA the same person? You sound like you are.
Murthy Law Firm Attorney 6
Attorney posted May 29, 2010 12:34 PM
Call the Murthy Law Firm after the holiday weekend and get some help.
We have started to see this issue. The USCIS trying to deny I-485s due to LCA failures. The reason the LCAs aren't proper, usually, is that the employer relocated the person w/o doing a new LCA. The employee usually has no idea, since the LCA is the employer's filing and there used to be a lot less attention/awareness about LCA issues.
We have developed a number of arguments regarding this matter....including the "no fault of your own" concept and arguments regarding status violations vs LCA violations etc. This is a new development.
The reason why it is important is that it is necessary to be in status when filing the I-485. Prior status violations exceeding 180 days prior to or after filing the I-485 are grounds for I-485 denials.
It is a complicated topic. If the USCIS persists in this matter, there are going to be a lot of cases with this type of problem.
Urgent Notice of Intent to Deny I-485, LCA amendment not filed - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=8951088502&r=1511058602#1511058602)
The reason for being pissed is that these bull issues are manufactured for a commercial reason (by ) and with the express purpose to distract from the main and important goals for advocacy to solve this frustrating retrogession problem.
You on the other hand is a desperate fool on someone's illegitimate (from a moral perspective) payroll. Seriously man have some shame. BTW Are you and EASTINDIA the same person? You sound like you are.
Murthy Law Firm Attorney 6
Attorney posted May 29, 2010 12:34 PM
Call the Murthy Law Firm after the holiday weekend and get some help.
We have started to see this issue. The USCIS trying to deny I-485s due to LCA failures. The reason the LCAs aren't proper, usually, is that the employer relocated the person w/o doing a new LCA. The employee usually has no idea, since the LCA is the employer's filing and there used to be a lot less attention/awareness about LCA issues.
We have developed a number of arguments regarding this matter....including the "no fault of your own" concept and arguments regarding status violations vs LCA violations etc. This is a new development.
The reason why it is important is that it is necessary to be in status when filing the I-485. Prior status violations exceeding 180 days prior to or after filing the I-485 are grounds for I-485 denials.
It is a complicated topic. If the USCIS persists in this matter, there are going to be a lot of cases with this type of problem.
Urgent Notice of Intent to Deny I-485, LCA amendment not filed - Topic Powered by Infopop (http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=1474093861&m=8951088502&r=1511058602#1511058602)
more...
makeup University of Phoenix Stadium
paskal
08-05 09:23 PM
delighted to hear you are finalizing your plans
let me know when you have things in place, also if i can help you in any way. we should encourage more mn members to join us in DC, maybe even plan on making some calls. your motivation should serve as inspiration to others!
let me know when you have things in place, also if i can help you in any way. we should encourage more mn members to join us in DC, maybe even plan on making some calls. your motivation should serve as inspiration to others!
girlfriend reacts to a first-quarter touchdown at University of Phoenix Stadium.
immilaw
09-17 05:58 PM
Folks,
I need some guidance from experienced folks particularly those who hold MBBS degree from India and are already in US in medical profession.
My brother has received MBBS about 5 years go and he is doing his practice in rural area. His wife is also MBBS and also holds a diploma on OB/GYN area.
My question is if they want to immigrate to US what are various paths they can follow to get here?
Thanks in advance.
PAN123
It looks like your brother is on J-1 Visa waiver program. My advise to him is to speak with an attorney.
I need some guidance from experienced folks particularly those who hold MBBS degree from India and are already in US in medical profession.
My brother has received MBBS about 5 years go and he is doing his practice in rural area. His wife is also MBBS and also holds a diploma on OB/GYN area.
My question is if they want to immigrate to US what are various paths they can follow to get here?
Thanks in advance.
PAN123
It looks like your brother is on J-1 Visa waiver program. My advise to him is to speak with an attorney.
hairstyles University of Phoenix
ramrrec
03-08 10:06 AM
Extremely sorry Prem for interrupting your thread.
Hi Ann Ruben,
I am kindly requesting you to respond to my thread mentioned below as soon as possible as it is really URGENT.
My Thread Title: URGENT-Is it legally allowed to enter US with H1B visa stamp of 'CLOSED' company? .
This thread is available in same category on this site.
Appreciate your quick response in advance!!
Thanks and regards
Ramrrec
Hi Ann Ruben,
I am kindly requesting you to respond to my thread mentioned below as soon as possible as it is really URGENT.
My Thread Title: URGENT-Is it legally allowed to enter US with H1B visa stamp of 'CLOSED' company? .
This thread is available in same category on this site.
Appreciate your quick response in advance!!
Thanks and regards
Ramrrec
logiclife
08-03 07:23 PM
Hi logiclife,
I agree with you. You're spot on. My other friend, please take a note of Logiclife's comments.
Do you have any sections from USCIS, which states that there is no need of job duties on the experience letter and just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. much appreciated. Thx.
No, I dont have any code or INA section for that. And I never said that just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. No, that wont suffice, coz that only shows what happened in the past. The employer letter is supposed to assure USCIS that the job offer is still valid and if USCIS gives you greencard then the employer is still offering employment which was the basis for filing greencard. The future component is a must. What happened in past and what happened so far (up until 485 filing) is irrelevant. Therefore just the title and dates of employment ARE NOT ENOUGH.
What is relevant is the job described in labor cert is still available to you IN FUTURE and whether employer is willing to say it on a letter to USCIS that "Hey, take care of this guy's 485 coz I still plan to hire him on XYZ position IN FUTURE ".
I am telling you from my own experience with what my lawyer had prepared for my HR to sign.
My employer's letter simply states that A) they will pay me X amount at the minimum (which is my current salary) and B) the job is still being offered as per job described in ETA 750 and I-140.
That covers everything. Labor cert has job description. 140 has other credentials. If a letter with 485 says that job offer is still valid a per job described in labor and 140, that covers everything.
I agree with you. You're spot on. My other friend, please take a note of Logiclife's comments.
Do you have any sections from USCIS, which states that there is no need of job duties on the experience letter and just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. much appreciated. Thx.
No, I dont have any code or INA section for that. And I never said that just the job title and dates of employment will suffice. No, that wont suffice, coz that only shows what happened in the past. The employer letter is supposed to assure USCIS that the job offer is still valid and if USCIS gives you greencard then the employer is still offering employment which was the basis for filing greencard. The future component is a must. What happened in past and what happened so far (up until 485 filing) is irrelevant. Therefore just the title and dates of employment ARE NOT ENOUGH.
What is relevant is the job described in labor cert is still available to you IN FUTURE and whether employer is willing to say it on a letter to USCIS that "Hey, take care of this guy's 485 coz I still plan to hire him on XYZ position IN FUTURE ".
I am telling you from my own experience with what my lawyer had prepared for my HR to sign.
My employer's letter simply states that A) they will pay me X amount at the minimum (which is my current salary) and B) the job is still being offered as per job described in ETA 750 and I-140.
That covers everything. Labor cert has job description. 140 has other credentials. If a letter with 485 says that job offer is still valid a per job described in labor and 140, that covers everything.
kumarh1b
01-28 05:16 PM
Can some please advice me how to proceed further Please find the denial notice for your reference. All your inputs means a lot to me. Please help me and guide in proper direction.
on Nov 19,2009, the petitioner responded by submitting a copy of a Contract or consulting Services agreement betwwen the petitioner and another software consulting firm, Company X-Which will further Contract the benificiary's services with other firms needing computer related positions to complete thier projects - to show that the petitioner has work for the beneficiary.
However, without valid contracts between CompanyX and the actual end-client firm ultimately involved with the eneficiary's computer related duties, the evidence does not establish the work to be completed; that the duties to be performed are those of a systems administrator and thus a specialty occupation Position and that the work will be avilable for the beneficiary.
The present record fails to demonstrate the specific duties the beneficiary would perform under contract for petitioners clients.The court in defensorv.meissner,201F.3d 384 (5th cir.2000) held that for purposes of determining whether apreferred positions is a specialty occupation,a petitioner acting ina similar manner as the present petitioner is merely a "token employer", while the entity for which the services are to be performed is the "more relevant employer". the defensor court recognized that evidence of the client companies job requirements is critical where the work to be performed is for an entity other than the petitioner. Accordingly, the court held that the legacy immigration and Naturalization service ( Service now CIS) had reasonably interpreted the Act and regulations to require that a petitioner produce evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services.
As Such, the petitioner has not established that the duties of the proferred position for the beneficiary require a speciality occupation and that it has sufficient work for the required priod of intended employment. There for the beneficiary is ineligible for classificationas a specialty occupation worker.
Pursuant to INA 291, the burden of the proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Here that burden has been met.
Consequently, the petiton is hereby denied.
on Nov 19,2009, the petitioner responded by submitting a copy of a Contract or consulting Services agreement betwwen the petitioner and another software consulting firm, Company X-Which will further Contract the benificiary's services with other firms needing computer related positions to complete thier projects - to show that the petitioner has work for the beneficiary.
However, without valid contracts between CompanyX and the actual end-client firm ultimately involved with the eneficiary's computer related duties, the evidence does not establish the work to be completed; that the duties to be performed are those of a systems administrator and thus a specialty occupation Position and that the work will be avilable for the beneficiary.
The present record fails to demonstrate the specific duties the beneficiary would perform under contract for petitioners clients.The court in defensorv.meissner,201F.3d 384 (5th cir.2000) held that for purposes of determining whether apreferred positions is a specialty occupation,a petitioner acting ina similar manner as the present petitioner is merely a "token employer", while the entity for which the services are to be performed is the "more relevant employer". the defensor court recognized that evidence of the client companies job requirements is critical where the work to be performed is for an entity other than the petitioner. Accordingly, the court held that the legacy immigration and Naturalization service ( Service now CIS) had reasonably interpreted the Act and regulations to require that a petitioner produce evidence that the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation on the basis of the requirements imposed by the entities using the beneficiary's services.
As Such, the petitioner has not established that the duties of the proferred position for the beneficiary require a speciality occupation and that it has sufficient work for the required priod of intended employment. There for the beneficiary is ineligible for classificationas a specialty occupation worker.
Pursuant to INA 291, the burden of the proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Here that burden has been met.
Consequently, the petiton is hereby denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment