kshitijnt
05-05 02:42 PM
I have 3yrs degree(Microbiology) and one year postgraduation diploma in computer science and 9years of work experience, Can I apply on EB2, some peolple saying at I-140 stage it gets problemetic with your degree, my employer says you can eligible to apply on EB2, Iam in real dilama, can any one please help me... thanks
I tend to think that your I140 in EB2 will be a problem. Specially so if your filing center is Nebraska. They have a reputation to be very very strict. Ask your employer if he has previously approved cases for people with your background.
I tend to think that your I140 in EB2 will be a problem. Specially so if your filing center is Nebraska. They have a reputation to be very very strict. Ask your employer if he has previously approved cases for people with your background.
wallpaper stock photo : Young girl
ivp33
05-30 05:56 PM
Hello forum participants.
I am a dependent on an I-485 application, with my father being the primary applicant. The application has been pending since 2001, so I decided to first threaten USCIS with a lawsuit, and then maybe file a writ of mandamus. My question is whether I have authority to do so as a dependent. Can I represent the whole family or at least myself? My father is leaving the country for some time and it will be hard for him to participate in the process.
Thanks!
I am a dependent on an I-485 application, with my father being the primary applicant. The application has been pending since 2001, so I decided to first threaten USCIS with a lawsuit, and then maybe file a writ of mandamus. My question is whether I have authority to do so as a dependent. Can I represent the whole family or at least myself? My father is leaving the country for some time and it will be hard for him to participate in the process.
Thanks!
prads
08-16 03:22 PM
I heard that around 250,000 applications were received by early August!
2011 Exotic Beach Girls by Pink
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
more...
msadiqali
08-31 11:09 AM
rfe for me was to give new job offer letter.
i submitted one two years back. now they had asked for the same thing again,
i submitted one two years back. now they had asked for the same thing again,
Macaca
12-07 10:30 AM
Holding the Hungry Hostage (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri2.html) NY Editorial, December 7, 2007
It is a travesty that the fates of some 35 million Americans who need food aid are tied to the farm bill, which comes up every five years. The House passed an inadequate version last summer, and the Senate has failed to advance its own. It is time to ask why feeding the hungry must include a trough for multibillion-dollar agribusiness.
As it has pressed to keep its subsidies, about $26 billion in the current bill, agribusiness has contributed $415 million to federal political campaigns since 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The hungry don’t have much of a lobby. But those who cannot consistently put food on the table need the help promised in the bill, including more than $4 billion in improvements in the food stamp program and for emergency assistance. If the aid remains in the farm bill, and if it remains in a logjam, aid would continue at current, inadequate levels.
Food stamps regularly help 26 million people get something to eat. But the previous farm bill did not peg benefits to inflation, so as food prices have skyrocketed, families who were just barely getting by are now in a much worse place. Some 800,000 food stamp recipients — disproportionately elderly or disabled — are being told to make due on a minimum benefit of $10 per month. That amount has remained unchanged in 30 years.
As The Times recently reported, food banks and soup kitchens across the nation are being depleted by demand so overwhelming that the needy are being turned away, or given help so minimal, it is hardly worth the energy expended to get it.
Washington needs to do better. The Senate could start by rallying around the sensible legislation sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana. It would replace crop supports with an insurance program to cover actual losses, and put the savings, potentially billions of dollars, to better use, including for food aid.
Or the Congress could make a bold statement and begin to restructure funding. It could get money to food banks faster if it came out of any bill but the farm bill.
The Bush administration has correctly opposed the excesses of the farm subsidies program, but it could do more. It could finance additional and immediate food assistance by dipping deeper into money culled from customs receipts to support farm and nutrition programs.
Since their beginnings, hunger relief and nutrition programs have been inextricably tied to helping farmers. That may have made sense once. But as recent maneuvers on the farm bill have shown, it no longer works.
Republicans — by far the biggest beneficiaries of agribusiness largess — are using the advantage of being a bare minority to try to attach a flurry of amendments on immigration, taxes and any other issue but the desperate one at hand. Farm state senators look the other way so a bill, warts and all, can get done.
They need to put America’s hungry first.
Senators Reach Tentative Farm Deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602408.html) By MARY CLARE JALONICK | Associated Press, December 6, 2007
Senate ends farm bill impasse, may pass in days (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602662.html) By Charles Abbott | Reuters, December 6, 2007
It is a travesty that the fates of some 35 million Americans who need food aid are tied to the farm bill, which comes up every five years. The House passed an inadequate version last summer, and the Senate has failed to advance its own. It is time to ask why feeding the hungry must include a trough for multibillion-dollar agribusiness.
As it has pressed to keep its subsidies, about $26 billion in the current bill, agribusiness has contributed $415 million to federal political campaigns since 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The hungry don’t have much of a lobby. But those who cannot consistently put food on the table need the help promised in the bill, including more than $4 billion in improvements in the food stamp program and for emergency assistance. If the aid remains in the farm bill, and if it remains in a logjam, aid would continue at current, inadequate levels.
Food stamps regularly help 26 million people get something to eat. But the previous farm bill did not peg benefits to inflation, so as food prices have skyrocketed, families who were just barely getting by are now in a much worse place. Some 800,000 food stamp recipients — disproportionately elderly or disabled — are being told to make due on a minimum benefit of $10 per month. That amount has remained unchanged in 30 years.
As The Times recently reported, food banks and soup kitchens across the nation are being depleted by demand so overwhelming that the needy are being turned away, or given help so minimal, it is hardly worth the energy expended to get it.
Washington needs to do better. The Senate could start by rallying around the sensible legislation sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana. It would replace crop supports with an insurance program to cover actual losses, and put the savings, potentially billions of dollars, to better use, including for food aid.
Or the Congress could make a bold statement and begin to restructure funding. It could get money to food banks faster if it came out of any bill but the farm bill.
The Bush administration has correctly opposed the excesses of the farm subsidies program, but it could do more. It could finance additional and immediate food assistance by dipping deeper into money culled from customs receipts to support farm and nutrition programs.
Since their beginnings, hunger relief and nutrition programs have been inextricably tied to helping farmers. That may have made sense once. But as recent maneuvers on the farm bill have shown, it no longer works.
Republicans — by far the biggest beneficiaries of agribusiness largess — are using the advantage of being a bare minority to try to attach a flurry of amendments on immigration, taxes and any other issue but the desperate one at hand. Farm state senators look the other way so a bill, warts and all, can get done.
They need to put America’s hungry first.
Senators Reach Tentative Farm Deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602408.html) By MARY CLARE JALONICK | Associated Press, December 6, 2007
Senate ends farm bill impasse, may pass in days (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602662.html) By Charles Abbott | Reuters, December 6, 2007
more...
karl65
10-27 08:54 AM
Does Lawyer receives AP and sends it to us OR does applicants receive it?
I haven't received AP yet. got EAD/FP/notices.
cheers
Iad
You do not need to open a new tread to ask this. There is a tread about AP trend
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14005
Some lawyers receive the AP and sometimes the applicants. I do not know WHY?????
I haven't received AP yet. got EAD/FP/notices.
cheers
Iad
You do not need to open a new tread to ask this. There is a tread about AP trend
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14005
Some lawyers receive the AP and sometimes the applicants. I do not know WHY?????
2010 Ready for a little Beach Duty.
qtoask
06-20 02:22 PM
please update HERE : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5379
more...
obelix
06-15 02:38 PM
Hi
My 485+140 is currently with my lawyers for filing.
In the meantime, my wife's dates went current. Her lawyer says it is ok to apply her 485 and it is preferred so we have a backup.
However, BCIS might get confused and ask us to pick one 485 at a later date - but the lawyer advises to file it now and face it later.
1) Has anyone does this?
2) Should my wife apply EAD and AP as well or just 485?
3) What are the problems I should expect?
TIA.
My 485+140 is currently with my lawyers for filing.
In the meantime, my wife's dates went current. Her lawyer says it is ok to apply her 485 and it is preferred so we have a backup.
However, BCIS might get confused and ask us to pick one 485 at a later date - but the lawyer advises to file it now and face it later.
1) Has anyone does this?
2) Should my wife apply EAD and AP as well or just 485?
3) What are the problems I should expect?
TIA.
hair Portrait of Girl, Huntington,
ardard2007
03-30 01:07 PM
Pitch in , please :) Experts !
more...
popnfresh24
07-19 11:02 PM
well that's even better... i was thinkink it closed as soon as it turned the 20th haha... ah well :)
hot Portrait of Girl, Huntington,
jmaan
07-18 10:08 AM
My mother is a GC holder since 91. I came to US in 2002 on F1 and then H1 and now GC.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
more...
house Beach Girl 032
Abhishika
10-04 07:37 PM
Anyone ? Any thoughts pls
tattoo California beach girl.
girish.sh
06-14 09:22 PM
Hi
Company A has file for H1B and it got stamped. I came to USA last week and did not join them (Company A) as they were not able to provide me job and were asking me to delay my trip to USA. Now last week monday they (Company A) said they will terminate my visa and will report to USCIS. My new employer has yet not applied for H1B transfer. So i wanted to know how much time do i have left to do it (H1B Trasfer). Suppose Company A filed for visa cancellation on 11th June, Monday. Please let me know if there would be any problem in filing for H1B transfer now as Company A has filed for cancellation before I file for H1B Transfer.
I would appreciate a detiled reply.
Thanks,
Girish
Company A has file for H1B and it got stamped. I came to USA last week and did not join them (Company A) as they were not able to provide me job and were asking me to delay my trip to USA. Now last week monday they (Company A) said they will terminate my visa and will report to USCIS. My new employer has yet not applied for H1B transfer. So i wanted to know how much time do i have left to do it (H1B Trasfer). Suppose Company A filed for visa cancellation on 11th June, Monday. Please let me know if there would be any problem in filing for H1B transfer now as Company A has filed for cancellation before I file for H1B Transfer.
I would appreciate a detiled reply.
Thanks,
Girish
more...
pictures California beach girl look
fromnaija
01-17 09:55 AM
I applied I-140 in EB2 NIW category. I need to apply for H1 extension as this is my 5th year. I need to talk to my employer.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
After 140 approval you can file for H1 extension and get a three year extension.
I see because of retrogression one cannot file for I-485.
Can I file for extension of H1 after I get I-140 approval or do I have to wait for I-1485 filing.
Please advise.
After 140 approval you can file for H1 extension and get a three year extension.
dresses A California beach party in
theOne
12-09 09:40 AM
My labor/I-140 documents show my salary to be 85K, I am yet to receive my I-140 approval from Nebraska Processing Center, filed in June 2006 under EB-2. Would it cause any problems when I file my I-485 ( priority date March 2004 ) next year if the salary for 2006 is less than 85K ? I was unemployed for two months this year unexpectedly. Thank you for your responses.
more...
makeup Southern California beach
kalkix
08-10 02:12 PM
Hi guys,
I am adding my wife's AOS application to my own pending AOS application. Because of whatever reasons we couldn't file our apps together earlier.
I notice that I need to give my wife's Alien registration no (ARN) at a couple of places in the application package, such as in the I-485 form, G-325A form, and at the back of the photographs.
Needless to say, my wife does not have an ARN. I was allocated an ARN when my I-140 got approved. Since she is just a derivative beneficiary, she does not have an ARN yet.
So what should I do about these columns in the form. Should I leave them blank, or should I fill them up with my own ARN.
Please help
Thanks
K
I am adding my wife's AOS application to my own pending AOS application. Because of whatever reasons we couldn't file our apps together earlier.
I notice that I need to give my wife's Alien registration no (ARN) at a couple of places in the application package, such as in the I-485 form, G-325A form, and at the back of the photographs.
Needless to say, my wife does not have an ARN. I was allocated an ARN when my I-140 got approved. Since she is just a derivative beneficiary, she does not have an ARN yet.
So what should I do about these columns in the form. Should I leave them blank, or should I fill them up with my own ARN.
Please help
Thanks
K
girlfriend your Gridiron Girl
Blog Feeds
11-02 08:50 AM
Can a Saturday or a Sunday be a "business day"? It depends on who you ask. The U.S. Department of Labor says yes, while the Department of Homeland Security thinks otherwise. What's an employer to do? On October 12, the Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) issued a decision "In the Matter of Il Cortile Restaurant". This case involves a PERM application for a chef, and has been bouncing around in the Labor Department (DOL) for three years. In May 2007, the employer posted a Notice of Filing (NOF) of a PERM application for ten consecutive days. The Certifying...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/10/uscis-should-follow-balca-on-posting-requirement.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/10/uscis-should-follow-balca-on-posting-requirement.html)
hairstyles quot;California Girlsquot; CLICK
bodhiquest
08-08 02:32 AM
Hello
I am in AOS with priority date of EB2 Dec 2006. We are moving out of USA due to spouse getting a job outside of USA. If we want to retain our priority date and green card, what are we supposed to do before and after we leave USA?
In case we want to make temporary visits to the USA, do we have to apply for visitor visa? I am assuming that we will not have AP since we are not inside USA. Will we even get a visitor/business visa since we have an immigrant visa which is pending with USCIS?
Thanks for your help in advance.
I am in AOS with priority date of EB2 Dec 2006. We are moving out of USA due to spouse getting a job outside of USA. If we want to retain our priority date and green card, what are we supposed to do before and after we leave USA?
In case we want to make temporary visits to the USA, do we have to apply for visitor visa? I am assuming that we will not have AP since we are not inside USA. Will we even get a visitor/business visa since we have an immigrant visa which is pending with USCIS?
Thanks for your help in advance.
Blog Feeds
03-21 09:30 AM
The Highway Patrol officer pulls over a speeder on the freeway. It's a young woman in a Red Camaro. "Do you know how fast you were going?", he questions her. "I don't know, officer", she stammers. "I'm late for a job interview, and I wasn't paying a lot of attention. I'm really sorry." "Not as sorry as I am" replies the officer, who takes out his pistol, and shoots each of her tires. "If I ever catch you speeding again, I'll shoot you!" Then he arrests her and takes her to jail. Did this really happen? Of course not! In...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/they-shoot-speeders-dont-they.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/they-shoot-speeders-dont-they.html)
zofa30
09-15 04:46 PM
Hi,
I am on EB2+PERM. I got LC approved and currently filed for I-140 and 485.
As I understand unless the I-485 is pending for more than 180 days after the approval of I-140, I have to restart the whole process again with the new employer (expect that I can port PD if I want to).
Now are there any chance that if the above scenario happens, and my employer did not revoke I-140 or 485, that I can still receive my GC? Or that will be illegal? Please clarify.
Thanks
I am on EB2+PERM. I got LC approved and currently filed for I-140 and 485.
As I understand unless the I-485 is pending for more than 180 days after the approval of I-140, I have to restart the whole process again with the new employer (expect that I can port PD if I want to).
Now are there any chance that if the above scenario happens, and my employer did not revoke I-140 or 485, that I can still receive my GC? Or that will be illegal? Please clarify.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment