spgtopper
02-03 09:41 PM
helpful_leo,
I really appreciate your urge and energy for this. We need more and more people like you as volunteers.
I read section 313. I agree with logic life. You should have the ability to transfer to F4.
It is not fair to assume that the legislation is not favourable for "current" students. Does it clearly say that? No. So, don't assume either way.
If you want to be very sure, you can call your senator's and congressman's office (of those who endoresed/creeated the bill), and talk to a person handling immigration matters or specifically this bill. Confirm your belief/assumptions and then write letters etc.
Meanwhile, see if this helps:
313: "Creates a new "F-4" student visa for doctoral candidates studying in the fields of..."
The word new refers to the visa and NOT the student. And, "studying" in implies current students. :-)
So, what is the problem?
S.
I really appreciate your urge and energy for this. We need more and more people like you as volunteers.
I read section 313. I agree with logic life. You should have the ability to transfer to F4.
It is not fair to assume that the legislation is not favourable for "current" students. Does it clearly say that? No. So, don't assume either way.
If you want to be very sure, you can call your senator's and congressman's office (of those who endoresed/creeated the bill), and talk to a person handling immigration matters or specifically this bill. Confirm your belief/assumptions and then write letters etc.
Meanwhile, see if this helps:
313: "Creates a new "F-4" student visa for doctoral candidates studying in the fields of..."
The word new refers to the visa and NOT the student. And, "studying" in implies current students. :-)
So, what is the problem?
S.
wallpaper STACEY DASH HUSBAND BRIAN
trueguy
09-19 07:13 PM
US Govt don't have to worry about it because we don't qualify for UnEmployment Benefits anyways.
Now thats a different story that we pay unemployment and SS taxes but we don't get any benefits out of it.....:(
Now thats a different story that we pay unemployment and SS taxes but we don't get any benefits out of it.....:(
usirit
07-01 12:43 PM
Hi Indiana... :)
If you are stuck :mad: with your PERM LC being auditted by DOL, several of us in the same situation are sending letters to them as well as promoting assistance thru Congressmen.
Some of us have got a response :cool: from DOL already about it, so go to http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19432 for more details and participate.
Regards,
If you are stuck :mad: with your PERM LC being auditted by DOL, several of us in the same situation are sending letters to them as well as promoting assistance thru Congressmen.
Some of us have got a response :cool: from DOL already about it, so go to http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19432 for more details and participate.
Regards,
2011 stacey dash occupations
punjabi
10-19 05:51 PM
This is understandable.
I do wish that you donate $500, before 2012. :)
Thanks to all who decides to chip in.
garybanz:
You are right. We need contributions in present time. There is no attempt to discourage people from contributing now. Instead, just another way to celebrate the green day with a sense of gratitude.
I would donate 500$ if I get the GC before 2012. If not I would reduce it by 50$ a year there after.
I do wish that you donate $500, before 2012. :)
Thanks to all who decides to chip in.
garybanz:
You are right. We need contributions in present time. There is no attempt to discourage people from contributing now. Instead, just another way to celebrate the green day with a sense of gratitude.
I would donate 500$ if I get the GC before 2012. If not I would reduce it by 50$ a year there after.
more...
ONEMOREGCSEEKER
07-15 11:16 PM
Thanks RPAT. With this additional clarification I can say that my case is not similar.
In my case, my employer first applied EB3 (pre-Perm) substitution I-140 with LC priority date of Nov-2004 while my EB2 LC was pending. When in Mar-2007 my Perm EB2 LC was approved, employer asked me if I want to continue with EB3 or want to use new EB2 LC. The day I informed my decision to move with EB2 was the day EB3 I-140 was approved. I think then lawyer used Nov-2004 priority date in my EB2 I-140. Approval for EB2 I-140 was received in Nov-2007 and indicated PD of Nov-2004. My I-485 was filed in Aug-07 as concurrent application. Later my company told me that EB3 I-140 was withdrawn. Now my I-485 is still pending and I suspect it has EB3 classification. I have opened SR early this week. Let's see what's the response.
Thanks for your prompt response. Wish you good luck.
In my case, my employer first applied EB3 (pre-Perm) substitution I-140 with LC priority date of Nov-2004 while my EB2 LC was pending. When in Mar-2007 my Perm EB2 LC was approved, employer asked me if I want to continue with EB3 or want to use new EB2 LC. The day I informed my decision to move with EB2 was the day EB3 I-140 was approved. I think then lawyer used Nov-2004 priority date in my EB2 I-140. Approval for EB2 I-140 was received in Nov-2007 and indicated PD of Nov-2004. My I-485 was filed in Aug-07 as concurrent application. Later my company told me that EB3 I-140 was withdrawn. Now my I-485 is still pending and I suspect it has EB3 classification. I have opened SR early this week. Let's see what's the response.
Thanks for your prompt response. Wish you good luck.
Hassan11
04-14 03:08 PM
what is the fee for I-131 is it $305 or $385? do I need to pay for the biometric fee? I already have my FP done when I applied for I-485. I sent my I-485 before the fee increase so I have to pay each time I renew EAD or apply for Travel document. Please advise. Thanks
more...
hebbar77
09-10 12:28 PM
MY PD is july 2004 (I485 filed on 2 July 2007 with ND date 8/9/2007) and I did not get any approvals so I opened a SR on 09/03/09.
Yesterday I received a "DISTURBING" response to the SR saying that my dates are not current because I am in EB3. I am EB2 and had only I140 approved way back in Nov 2006. So I created another SR (with the help of a nice CSR by calling USCIS yesterday 09/09/09) today morning I went for an infopass appointment in DallaS, TX to check why the USCIS is saying my case is in EB3 and not EB2. Luckily at the Infopass I was assigned to a Desi IO to help me with my issue. He spent lot of time looking researching my case and told me that my case is EB2 and the dates are current. During my Infopass appointment the IO noticed that someone audited my case few seconds before and showed me the screen where it showed that my case was PreAdjudicated. He said it looks like soneone is working on the case and I should hear from USCIS quickly. I am sure that the Second SR triggered some one to look at the case. And might be they corrected the EB category.
Now I am eagerly awaiting my approval (primary + 2 Dependents).
My suggesstion to people who are waiting (With PD's before Feb 2005 ) are to Open SR , make Infopass appointments to check on the status. Its very important to know if there are any problems in your case similar to mine.
If anyone needs any help with Opening SR or creating Infopass PM me and I will be glad to help.
My case looks same as urs! thanks for writing.
I just hung up with USCIS before I read this.
first person transferred the call to someone else , that person gave me an email address to forward the earlier SR response and explain the problem!
Yesterday I received a "DISTURBING" response to the SR saying that my dates are not current because I am in EB3. I am EB2 and had only I140 approved way back in Nov 2006. So I created another SR (with the help of a nice CSR by calling USCIS yesterday 09/09/09) today morning I went for an infopass appointment in DallaS, TX to check why the USCIS is saying my case is in EB3 and not EB2. Luckily at the Infopass I was assigned to a Desi IO to help me with my issue. He spent lot of time looking researching my case and told me that my case is EB2 and the dates are current. During my Infopass appointment the IO noticed that someone audited my case few seconds before and showed me the screen where it showed that my case was PreAdjudicated. He said it looks like soneone is working on the case and I should hear from USCIS quickly. I am sure that the Second SR triggered some one to look at the case. And might be they corrected the EB category.
Now I am eagerly awaiting my approval (primary + 2 Dependents).
My suggesstion to people who are waiting (With PD's before Feb 2005 ) are to Open SR , make Infopass appointments to check on the status. Its very important to know if there are any problems in your case similar to mine.
If anyone needs any help with Opening SR or creating Infopass PM me and I will be glad to help.
My case looks same as urs! thanks for writing.
I just hung up with USCIS before I read this.
first person transferred the call to someone else , that person gave me an email address to forward the earlier SR response and explain the problem!
2010 stacey dash
GCNaseeb
10-12 04:42 PM
See signature
more...
harish357
03-15 12:26 AM
I believe that you need the actual diploma (you send a photocopy of it to USCIS) for getting counted in the M.S. quota. Most schools give the diploma once you have finished all requirements.
How come they cannot consider my EAD, Official transcripts, Graduate status letter?
Regarding Status letter, I have seen students applying like this and getting query later. What do you say about the students graduating in May (who files like me with OPT card and status letter) and applying for H1 in April?
How come they cannot consider my EAD, Official transcripts, Graduate status letter?
Regarding Status letter, I have seen students applying like this and getting query later. What do you say about the students graduating in May (who files like me with OPT card and status letter) and applying for H1 in April?
hair stacey dash in playbpy
lazycis
12-29 09:36 AM
It's OK to stay while change of status (COS) is pending if COS was filed before I-94 expiration (your case). Even though your wife will be technically out of status after 1/3/09, she is not going to accumulate unlawful presence because her stay is authorized by US Attorney General. Out of status is not a big deal. A person who came on H1 and filed for AOS does not have any status if H1 expires, but that person is lawfully present in US.
So wait for a decision on COS and if it is denied, your wife has 180 days to get a lawful status or to pack and leave without any adverse consequences.
So wait for a decision on COS and if it is denied, your wife has 180 days to get a lawful status or to pack and leave without any adverse consequences.
more...
TheOmbudsman
09-01 03:17 PM
Ah, so Berkeleybee is she. Oh, that makes sense, that's why she is a bee.
That was a hard working moderator who seems to have disappeared off of the face of the earth in early June 2006. I don't think she was abducted by aliens, because she is one.
I wanted to start this thread in members only, but it wouldn't let me.
Thanks.
That was a hard working moderator who seems to have disappeared off of the face of the earth in early June 2006. I don't think she was abducted by aliens, because she is one.
I wanted to start this thread in members only, but it wouldn't let me.
Thanks.
hot |Pictures of stacey dash|
hopelessGC
01-21 04:38 PM
The fact that you are moving to a new employer using your EAD is in essence using the AC-21 portability provision. This new employer will now have to support your AC-21 claim.
You don't have to do anything further. In case employer A revokes your I-140, then USCIS might send an NOID. This can be easily reversed by sending in your AC-21 documents via the new employer.
There is no such thing as "continuing your GC process with your old employer" in your case. It is only true if you are working for your new employer using H1-B or other type of a visa, NOT EAD.
If anyone has doubts about what I said then please correct me.
You don't have to do anything further. In case employer A revokes your I-140, then USCIS might send an NOID. This can be easily reversed by sending in your AC-21 documents via the new employer.
There is no such thing as "continuing your GC process with your old employer" in your case. It is only true if you are working for your new employer using H1-B or other type of a visa, NOT EAD.
If anyone has doubts about what I said then please correct me.
more...
house Jamie foxx forstacey dash kids
Dhundhun
08-09 12:52 PM
11. All the files are stacked. IOs are making best effort to pick files from bottom. However stretching full arm (fishing) is not able to reach 2004 cases, instead 2005 or 2006 cases comes in hand.
12. 2004 cases are supposed to be at bottom. But because of Name Check, Infopass, etc. they are not in their expected locations. So later cases are being picked.
12. 2004 cases are supposed to be at bottom. But because of Name Check, Infopass, etc. they are not in their expected locations. So later cases are being picked.
tattoo stacey dash free nude
oldguynewguy
11-17 04:08 PM
Hello,
I am currently on H-1B with AoS pending. My visa stamp has expired (over a year ago) but 797 is valid. My AP has also expired. I am planning to travel to India. Do you recommend renewing my H-1B stamp which is valid for another 1.5 years or renew Advance Parole and travel on that.
Do I need to extend my EAD even if I am on H-1B and would like to stay on H-1B and do I need to extend my wife's EAD at this time. She is currently not working and there is no immediate need. Can I renew it at a later time.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
I am currently on H-1B with AoS pending. My visa stamp has expired (over a year ago) but 797 is valid. My AP has also expired. I am planning to travel to India. Do you recommend renewing my H-1B stamp which is valid for another 1.5 years or renew Advance Parole and travel on that.
Do I need to extend my EAD even if I am on H-1B and would like to stay on H-1B and do I need to extend my wife's EAD at this time. She is currently not working and there is no immediate need. Can I renew it at a later time.
Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
more...
pictures Jamie Foxx and Stacey Dash
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
dresses Stacey Dash
praveenuppaluri
02-21 08:02 PM
nmdial and sac-r-ten
thanks for your responses. I am going forward with "do not apply" option for now.
thanks for your responses. I am going forward with "do not apply" option for now.
more...
makeup surfaced that stacey dash
jkm2282
01-07 09:06 PM
Thanks. The VO did said that the visa has been issued and the PP would be delivered to me in 5-7 days. It's been over a week now and i am getting all tensed about this whole thing. Can i just go over to the consulate and enquire about it? There is no appointment needed?
girlfriend actress Stacey Dash,
gc_chahiye
08-26 09:47 PM
Here's my story, I'll try to make it short. Aug. '04 LC applicant. Filed for I-140 & I-485 (conc.) in Feb. '07. FP done in April. Received an e-mail from USCIS on 8.17.07 stating that an RFE letter has been issued for me on 8.16.07. Last friday (8.24.07) called my attorney, she said they haven't received it. She said they (their law firm) have changed their office location and informed USCIS in general, but not for each specific application they have filed, so it might take 3 weeks before we receive the FRE letter and usually there's a 30 day deadline for applicant to respond. Well, I got scared a little. I called USCIS customer service. The operator said she doesn't have access to specifics of case, e.g. nature of RFE letter, timeline for response (30, 42, 84 days) & etc. She also said there's zero chance for an extension to be granted to the applicant, if he can't provide the requested document within the timeline allowed by USCIS.
I called my attorney again. She said she had mailed all documents along with the application, except for previous work experience (which will be from my home country since I've worked for only 1 employer since I came to the U.S. in 2004)
Now my question is:
1- What if I don't receive the RFE letter in time?
2- Any loops to gain an extension if I can't make it before 30 days?
3- Any ways to find out about the nature of FRE letter?
4- Does this mean that I'll easily lose everything including 4 years of waiting if I just don't receive the RFE letter in time and can't provide them with what they're asking for? (Someone please answer NO to this question! :( )
5- Any advices, suggestions, similar experiences, ideas or solutions?
I appreciate any kind of feedback on this, since I'm almost shaking in here!
If you dont respond to the RFE because you did not even receive it, they will deny the I-140 because of abandonment, however you can immediately appeal and it will be re-opened. you have 30 odd days to file the MTR/Appeal; talk to your lawyer to confirm.
If you suspect the RFE is for work experience letter, make sure you have a copy ready (Fax it over to your attorney ASAP; USCIS only needs a copy, not the original). If there is some other issue like your education not matching teh LC requirements, get the equivalency evaluation done asap.
I called my attorney again. She said she had mailed all documents along with the application, except for previous work experience (which will be from my home country since I've worked for only 1 employer since I came to the U.S. in 2004)
Now my question is:
1- What if I don't receive the RFE letter in time?
2- Any loops to gain an extension if I can't make it before 30 days?
3- Any ways to find out about the nature of FRE letter?
4- Does this mean that I'll easily lose everything including 4 years of waiting if I just don't receive the RFE letter in time and can't provide them with what they're asking for? (Someone please answer NO to this question! :( )
5- Any advices, suggestions, similar experiences, ideas or solutions?
I appreciate any kind of feedback on this, since I'm almost shaking in here!
If you dont respond to the RFE because you did not even receive it, they will deny the I-140 because of abandonment, however you can immediately appeal and it will be re-opened. you have 30 odd days to file the MTR/Appeal; talk to your lawyer to confirm.
If you suspect the RFE is for work experience letter, make sure you have a copy ready (Fax it over to your attorney ASAP; USCIS only needs a copy, not the original). If there is some other issue like your education not matching teh LC requirements, get the equivalency evaluation done asap.
hairstyles Check out Stacy Dash leaving
number30
03-14 06:17 PM
Hi Attorneys/Seniors,
Application Type:H1 Transfer(Premium Processing)
Processing Centre:VSC
FedEx Delivery Date:03/04/2010
Sofar(End of day 03/13/2010) My Employer have not received the receipt no from vermont Service Center. My Employer himself took LCA and Applied H1 transfer.He sent Cashier cheque with the documents.My Employer is an American company where I have to start working once it is approved.
Please help me regarding this.
Today is 10 nth day since my Documents delivered to VSC Premium Processing Center.
How soon we receive the receipt no in premium processing case.
Do you think my employer can contact VSC regarding the receipt no or shall I wait for the whole 15 days.
Please help me
It is better to send regular check . In that case you will know if USCIS is en-cashed check . Also this check contains receipt numbers in most of the cases.
Application Type:H1 Transfer(Premium Processing)
Processing Centre:VSC
FedEx Delivery Date:03/04/2010
Sofar(End of day 03/13/2010) My Employer have not received the receipt no from vermont Service Center. My Employer himself took LCA and Applied H1 transfer.He sent Cashier cheque with the documents.My Employer is an American company where I have to start working once it is approved.
Please help me regarding this.
Today is 10 nth day since my Documents delivered to VSC Premium Processing Center.
How soon we receive the receipt no in premium processing case.
Do you think my employer can contact VSC regarding the receipt no or shall I wait for the whole 15 days.
Please help me
It is better to send regular check . In that case you will know if USCIS is en-cashed check . Also this check contains receipt numbers in most of the cases.
mbawa2574
07-07 07:56 PM
IV core leadership has to change and so is the stratergy. Current Lobbying efforts have clearly not worked out. I call for elections to elect the new core team. All these conference calls and inaction is just wastage of time and things are getting worse. We need an aggressive stratergy and may need to take names and hit people openly to get our agenda pushed. IV leadership clearly lacks these skills.
amitpan007
06-21 10:15 AM
I did it few years (i think 4-5yrs) ago at CGI - SFO and it took about 4 weeks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment