gcdreamer05
09-19 12:39 PM
If I go for appointment and they put case under PIMS review as I just got ext approval last months. Will they take passport with them ? if Not can I travel with passport and ask to close case of stamping ?
I read in IV forums that few ppl had sent their 797 copy to kentucky center asking to check in to PIMS, you ca ntry that.
Ya they will take ur passport, if you request to release you need to basically cancel stamping and use ur EAD/AP to enter back but that will make you in to parolee status.
Please do post your experience after you go for stamping.
I read in IV forums that few ppl had sent their 797 copy to kentucky center asking to check in to PIMS, you ca ntry that.
Ya they will take ur passport, if you request to release you need to basically cancel stamping and use ur EAD/AP to enter back but that will make you in to parolee status.
Please do post your experience after you go for stamping.
mallikonnet
07-19 11:01 PM
As per the last revised visa bulletin, the extension period for filling I-485 is Aug 17. But it talks about only I485 and not about I-140.
So can anyone confirm, if one can file I-140 and I-485 concurrently from Aug 1 to Aug 17.
why not. i dont see why they would not accept cuncurrent filing of I-140/I-485
So can anyone confirm, if one can file I-140 and I-485 concurrently from Aug 1 to Aug 17.
why not. i dont see why they would not accept cuncurrent filing of I-140/I-485
admin
01-29 11:50 AM
Earlier many of us were happy that as per AILA's report, the effect of retrogression might be significantly reduced. Now lawyer Mathew Oh has come out with the some analysis as to why this exuberance might be showtlived and why we need to fight for legislative reform with respect to Employment Based Green Cards. So remember "It aint over till its over".
Here is an excerpt of his analysis from http://www.immigration-law.com/
The State Department's new prediction is derived from two changed circumstances. One is the slow-down of I-485 adjudications by the USCIS and the resultant decrease of the EB visa numbers demand on the part of the USCIS. The second factor is the delays in processing of the old labor certification cases in the Backlog Eliminination Centers of the DOL. It is not clear what has caused the decreased visa number demand from the USCIS EB-485 proceedings, but it may have something to do with the on-going reengineering of the USCIS processing and adjudication system. As for the Backlog Elimination Centers, they have yet to complete the ground work of data entry and 45-day letters, before they can focus on adjudication of the backlog applications. Currently, the USCIS is scheduled to complete the reengineering by the end of September 2006 and the DOL is scheduled to complete the ground work of data entries and 45-day letter processing by approximately the end of June 2006. As we reported earlier, a substantial number of these BEC cases are known to be 245(i) cases, meaning that the cases were filed in traditional regular application type of EB-3 in most cases on or before April 30, 2001. A substantial number of these cases have yet to go through the "supervised" recruitment process to complete the labor certification processing and it will take a substantial period of time before these cases will move into the USCIS I-485 processing system.
From the foregoing analysis, one can predict that the big winners of the new prediction may include (1) those old priority date I-485 cases pending before the USCIS including 245(i) cases which may be approved within next several months; (2) those old priority date I-140 cases pending before the USCIS which may at least move into the I-485 phase and getting the benefits of EAD, AP, and AC 21 change of employment eligibility; and (3) those old priority date backlog labor certification cases which can move into the I-140/I-485 concurrent filing phase upon approval of the delayed backlog labor certification processing with the ancillary benefits that come along with the filing of I-485 applications such as EAD, AP, and AC-21 change of employment benefits. It is anticipated that the cases under the foregoing (3) may remain very limited in numbers due to the BEC processing delays.
The real losers may turn out to be those with late priority dates. Once the USCIS reengineering work is completed by the end of this fiscal year and the BECs start processing backlog cases en masse around the end of this fical year, the stream of visa number demand will move into the State Department visal allocation system. The pressure to the allocation system will mount tremendously as time passes, and unless the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation brings a cure to the current ailing immigrant visa quota system within this year, it is likely that these late priority date cases may experience tremendous difficulties due to the stand-still or further retrogression of the visa numbers and the resultant unavailability of the ancillary benefits of EAD, AP, and AC 21 change of employment opportunities. It is anticipated that the real crisis may be witnessed beginning the end of this calendar year as by that time it is anticipated that the BECs are expected to pump out certifications of backlog cases.
It is thus obvious that the new prediction of the State Department can turn out to be a short-lived relief for a limited number of immigrants and a sign of foreseeable dark cloud and storm moving into the visa number system for most of the immigrants. The only answer to the clogged employment-based immigration system lies with the reform of the employment-based immigrant quota allocation system and related reform, including but not limited to (1) dependants immigration without taking out visa numbers from the employment-based quota system and (2) eligibility of I-485 applications for those who attained the labor certification approvals or I-140 petitions even during the period of visa number unavailability. For these reasons, the immigrant community should not stop its efforts to bring back (1) the legislative proposals which were reflected in the failed Section 8001 and 8002 of S. 1932 and (2) the adjustment of EB-immigrant quota substantially upward as reflected in the McCain-Kennedy bill.
Here is an excerpt of his analysis from http://www.immigration-law.com/
The State Department's new prediction is derived from two changed circumstances. One is the slow-down of I-485 adjudications by the USCIS and the resultant decrease of the EB visa numbers demand on the part of the USCIS. The second factor is the delays in processing of the old labor certification cases in the Backlog Eliminination Centers of the DOL. It is not clear what has caused the decreased visa number demand from the USCIS EB-485 proceedings, but it may have something to do with the on-going reengineering of the USCIS processing and adjudication system. As for the Backlog Elimination Centers, they have yet to complete the ground work of data entry and 45-day letters, before they can focus on adjudication of the backlog applications. Currently, the USCIS is scheduled to complete the reengineering by the end of September 2006 and the DOL is scheduled to complete the ground work of data entries and 45-day letter processing by approximately the end of June 2006. As we reported earlier, a substantial number of these BEC cases are known to be 245(i) cases, meaning that the cases were filed in traditional regular application type of EB-3 in most cases on or before April 30, 2001. A substantial number of these cases have yet to go through the "supervised" recruitment process to complete the labor certification processing and it will take a substantial period of time before these cases will move into the USCIS I-485 processing system.
From the foregoing analysis, one can predict that the big winners of the new prediction may include (1) those old priority date I-485 cases pending before the USCIS including 245(i) cases which may be approved within next several months; (2) those old priority date I-140 cases pending before the USCIS which may at least move into the I-485 phase and getting the benefits of EAD, AP, and AC 21 change of employment eligibility; and (3) those old priority date backlog labor certification cases which can move into the I-140/I-485 concurrent filing phase upon approval of the delayed backlog labor certification processing with the ancillary benefits that come along with the filing of I-485 applications such as EAD, AP, and AC-21 change of employment benefits. It is anticipated that the cases under the foregoing (3) may remain very limited in numbers due to the BEC processing delays.
The real losers may turn out to be those with late priority dates. Once the USCIS reengineering work is completed by the end of this fiscal year and the BECs start processing backlog cases en masse around the end of this fical year, the stream of visa number demand will move into the State Department visal allocation system. The pressure to the allocation system will mount tremendously as time passes, and unless the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation brings a cure to the current ailing immigrant visa quota system within this year, it is likely that these late priority date cases may experience tremendous difficulties due to the stand-still or further retrogression of the visa numbers and the resultant unavailability of the ancillary benefits of EAD, AP, and AC 21 change of employment opportunities. It is anticipated that the real crisis may be witnessed beginning the end of this calendar year as by that time it is anticipated that the BECs are expected to pump out certifications of backlog cases.
It is thus obvious that the new prediction of the State Department can turn out to be a short-lived relief for a limited number of immigrants and a sign of foreseeable dark cloud and storm moving into the visa number system for most of the immigrants. The only answer to the clogged employment-based immigration system lies with the reform of the employment-based immigrant quota allocation system and related reform, including but not limited to (1) dependants immigration without taking out visa numbers from the employment-based quota system and (2) eligibility of I-485 applications for those who attained the labor certification approvals or I-140 petitions even during the period of visa number unavailability. For these reasons, the immigrant community should not stop its efforts to bring back (1) the legislative proposals which were reflected in the failed Section 8001 and 8002 of S. 1932 and (2) the adjustment of EB-immigrant quota substantially upward as reflected in the McCain-Kennedy bill.
chanukya
02-20 10:35 PM
I hope IV is ready for this.
Arise and awake....get ready for the final battle
http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm?changedate=02/26/07
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2555
"Comprehensive Immigration Reform "
Senate Judiciary Committee
Full Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: February 28, 2007
TIME: 10:00 AM
ROOM: Dirksen-226
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:
February 20, 2007
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on �Comprehensive Immigration Reform� for Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
By order of the Chairman
Arise and awake....get ready for the final battle
http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm?changedate=02/26/07
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2555
"Comprehensive Immigration Reform "
Senate Judiciary Committee
Full Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: February 28, 2007
TIME: 10:00 AM
ROOM: Dirksen-226
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:
February 20, 2007
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on �Comprehensive Immigration Reform� for Wednesday, February 28, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
By order of the Chairman
more...
mnkaushik
03-12 08:01 AM
As far as I know, one is only required to file taxes on foreign accounts if they have $10000 or more in their accounts at any time during the financial year. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, check: Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148849,00.html)
One is supposed report tax even if they make a dollar but they dont need to fill out the FBAR form if the value of all accounts put together is less than 10K.
Even i started including it my tax last year and did my FBAR form. NRE account will not be TDS only NRO accounts have TDS. Infact, you dont have to pay IT in India for NRE accounts. Thats the reason people from Middle East put their money in NRE accounts.
For 200$ they will not come after you. It is small pickings. I think you should include while filing your taxes and depending upon how much you have in the accounts you may or may not file FBAR. Remember it is all your accounts that inlcudes any savings account, mutual fund accounts, post office etc. If you have paid any tax in India then you could potentially show that in your US tax and get credit for that. I personally have not done it because my income is less than the initial tax slab in india.
One is supposed report tax even if they make a dollar but they dont need to fill out the FBAR form if the value of all accounts put together is less than 10K.
Even i started including it my tax last year and did my FBAR form. NRE account will not be TDS only NRO accounts have TDS. Infact, you dont have to pay IT in India for NRE accounts. Thats the reason people from Middle East put their money in NRE accounts.
For 200$ they will not come after you. It is small pickings. I think you should include while filing your taxes and depending upon how much you have in the accounts you may or may not file FBAR. Remember it is all your accounts that inlcudes any savings account, mutual fund accounts, post office etc. If you have paid any tax in India then you could potentially show that in your US tax and get credit for that. I personally have not done it because my income is less than the initial tax slab in india.
cherish37
10-24 02:16 PM
Anyone still not able to check online status for receipt number starts with SCR08007? It's been two weeks from the notice date.
more...
gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
adde72
06-30 10:58 AM
and do it in PM. Someone asked is in a situation due to the attorney. He didn't seek or initiate LS.
Keep it polite. Moderators, watch and close this thread, if it becomes rowdy here.
If he can buy a Labor why cant the advise also ..this is a public forum for a cause - Retrogression - not for encouraging subtitution cases .
Members
Please dont answer any questions relating to that topic .Kick the guys out
Keep it polite. Moderators, watch and close this thread, if it becomes rowdy here.
If he can buy a Labor why cant the advise also ..this is a public forum for a cause - Retrogression - not for encouraging subtitution cases .
Members
Please dont answer any questions relating to that topic .Kick the guys out
more...
ajm
03-24 10:49 AM
Don't the per-country limits apply to the total number of immigrants (all categories of family and employment preferences) from a country? If so, it is incorrect to say that there will be only 4350 visas (10% of 15% of 290,000) available in each EB category for any one country. The correct reading, in my opinion, is that no country can get more than 77,000 immigrant visas (10% of 480,000+290,000) in any year.
immigrant2007
03-01 08:25 PM
Yes, AC21 applicable. But as i said, you "ported off of a unapproved I140". You have to keep that in mind. If you currently don't have a lawyer, get a paid consultation.
Question 3 : I never worked for my sponsoring employer. It was a future job offer. Can I use AC21 portability? TOP
Yes, under the same circumstances as Question 2. However, USCIS is more likely to question your past intent to work for the sponsoring employer.
MurthyDotCom : AC21 Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html#3)
Quikc question
Want to understand how your files 485 in June2008 for EB3? Was it for India or some oter country?
Question 3 : I never worked for my sponsoring employer. It was a future job offer. Can I use AC21 portability? TOP
Yes, under the same circumstances as Question 2. However, USCIS is more likely to question your past intent to work for the sponsoring employer.
MurthyDotCom : AC21 Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html#3)
Quikc question
Want to understand how your files 485 in June2008 for EB3? Was it for India or some oter country?
more...
gvenkat
03-20 04:04 PM
i think any form of protest will get u arrested.. rally is a diff thing... ppl have to realise all these immigration benefits are a privilege and not a right... its just so plain unlucky that so many of us with Master's Degree were forced to file in EB3.
Change of government is the only way. Bottom line is no one cares about us... cos we dont have a vote, we play the taxes, we pay SS/Medicare.. they know we will be here until we are forcefully pushed out....
P.S: before anyone starts a question asking what i have done.. I'm a responsible "immigrant" and have done and will do whatever i can
Change of government is the only way. Bottom line is no one cares about us... cos we dont have a vote, we play the taxes, we pay SS/Medicare.. they know we will be here until we are forcefully pushed out....
P.S: before anyone starts a question asking what i have done.. I'm a responsible "immigrant" and have done and will do whatever i can
lostinbeta
10-05 04:40 PM
:) :) :) =)
more...
suwarnapatel
07-27 07:55 PM
I have to be out of the country for almost a year, beginning August and until 15th of July.
To prepare for this I applied for my AP in June, thinking that it will take about 30-45 days to be approved. As Luck would have it, my AP was accepted in a week and now I have an expiry on it for the 1st week of June.
Here are my questions:
I still have 2 weeks before I leave for my trip, now is it advisable to apply for another AP this week and wait for it to come?
Will that application make my current AP invalid?
From what I understand, you need to be here in the US while you apply for your AP, but can travel on your older AP while this one is still in process. Is this correct?
Is there a chance for AP denial, and how does that affect the chance of an AP extension in Future?
Regards,
SP
To prepare for this I applied for my AP in June, thinking that it will take about 30-45 days to be approved. As Luck would have it, my AP was accepted in a week and now I have an expiry on it for the 1st week of June.
Here are my questions:
I still have 2 weeks before I leave for my trip, now is it advisable to apply for another AP this week and wait for it to come?
Will that application make my current AP invalid?
From what I understand, you need to be here in the US while you apply for your AP, but can travel on your older AP while this one is still in process. Is this correct?
Is there a chance for AP denial, and how does that affect the chance of an AP extension in Future?
Regards,
SP
alex99
05-28 10:37 AM
This is nothing new. please close this thread.
more...
inder123
11-05 05:38 PM
Any one with july 3rd recvd date at NEBRASKA recvd AP?
Mine is July 2nd received date at Nebraska. I got my A/P just today. My attorney had no info about it. I got it directly.
Mine is July 2nd received date at Nebraska. I got my A/P just today. My attorney had no info about it. I got it directly.
dush0805
11-25 01:32 PM
I am in the same position guys, I have a approved H1b visa (started oct 2010), I am flying to mumbai through Munic, so I probably wont need a transit visa....
But let me ask you a dumb question, what does AP stand for?
But let me ask you a dumb question, what does AP stand for?
more...
vactorboy29
10-09 12:29 PM
Thanks.
Any more info on this
Any more info on this
mirage
07-11 03:54 PM
I'm not sure if most of the people here knows the reason behind EB-3 Disaster. Clinton gave amnesty to thousands of illegal workers and ask them to file Labor Certs. They were all taken as EB-3 with PD Apr'01-2001. I think they are called 245 I cases. Google it and find out.
That is the reason EB3-I is not moving and will not go anywhere as other people may file in EB-2 and move on, but 1000s of illegal workes are stuck ahead of us...
That is the reason EB3-I is not moving and will not go anywhere as other people may file in EB-2 and move on, but 1000s of illegal workes are stuck ahead of us...
thomachan72
11-30 12:10 PM
I have a passport expiry and new visa stamping conflict. My last visa stamping expired on Oct 01, 2009. And my current (Indian)passport expiration date is July 04, 2011. Also, my H1b approval is under the transfer process (so I don't have the new I-797 as yet). I'm planning to travel to India sometime in January, expecting the new H1b approval soon now.
Should i get my passport renewed here before leaving for India ? I believe you can renew one year in advance of pasport expiry date either here or in IndiaI'm worried if they will give me a new passport valid only for a year as a note on the website says "A passport is also issued for one year in cases of expiry of valid U.S. residence visa. In such cases, applicants have to apply for extension of validity as soon as valid U.S. Residence visa is approved. There is no fee for extension of validity of passport."
Since my last visa stamping has expired and I will soon have a new H1B, if i go for a new visa stamping, will I be given a visa with validity until my passport expiry ? Or, I can get my passport renewed in India and then go for the stamping? you will be given visa for the duration you are eligible for and not based on the pasport expiry date, however, when renetering your I-94 could be limited to the pasport expiry date even though visa is of longer duration. So ideally you would get pasport extended here and then go for the stampingI'm afraid I may not have enough days to squeeze in both when I visit. Or, if i get my passport renewed here, are they going to give me a new passport only valid for a year since I don't have any valid visa stamping but a valid I797? Dont understand why you would be given a one year passport?? Never heard about that but others might help out with that information
Please advise.
Thank you.
Best
Should i get my passport renewed here before leaving for India ? I believe you can renew one year in advance of pasport expiry date either here or in IndiaI'm worried if they will give me a new passport valid only for a year as a note on the website says "A passport is also issued for one year in cases of expiry of valid U.S. residence visa. In such cases, applicants have to apply for extension of validity as soon as valid U.S. Residence visa is approved. There is no fee for extension of validity of passport."
Since my last visa stamping has expired and I will soon have a new H1B, if i go for a new visa stamping, will I be given a visa with validity until my passport expiry ? Or, I can get my passport renewed in India and then go for the stamping? you will be given visa for the duration you are eligible for and not based on the pasport expiry date, however, when renetering your I-94 could be limited to the pasport expiry date even though visa is of longer duration. So ideally you would get pasport extended here and then go for the stampingI'm afraid I may not have enough days to squeeze in both when I visit. Or, if i get my passport renewed here, are they going to give me a new passport only valid for a year since I don't have any valid visa stamping but a valid I797? Dont understand why you would be given a one year passport?? Never heard about that but others might help out with that information
Please advise.
Thank you.
Best
sayonara
09-11 05:17 PM
Does your Attorney says that counter will start from Aug 28, 2007 ?
Did he say anything about Aug 28, 2007 falling out of Aug 17, 2007 limit date for filing AOS and can that cause any issues?
I am still waiting for an answer from my Attorney. Will post the details here as soon as I hear anything from them.
Nope...And he is one of those who stops answering if there are too many questions...maybe i will get these answers next week :rolleyes:
Did he say anything about Aug 28, 2007 falling out of Aug 17, 2007 limit date for filing AOS and can that cause any issues?
I am still waiting for an answer from my Attorney. Will post the details here as soon as I hear anything from them.
Nope...And he is one of those who stops answering if there are too many questions...maybe i will get these answers next week :rolleyes:
aperregatturv
10-26 04:01 PM
Can you type in all your details , like category,country, etc. Is your PD Current?
PD Feb 2004 - EB3 - India
I140 Approved - May 2007
EAD Approved - Oct 3
EAD recd Oct 10
H1B Status Valid - 2010.
PD Feb 2004 - EB3 - India
I140 Approved - May 2007
EAD Approved - Oct 3
EAD recd Oct 10
H1B Status Valid - 2010.
0 comments:
Post a Comment