thepaew
05-26 04:51 PM
We were traveling the Montr�al on Friday and saw this too. The Border Patrol had set up a roadblock on I-93 S and were stopping everyone.
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
While on the way back from White Mountains in NH, our car was stopped on I-93 south by the US border patrol. They were stopping every single vehicle to question. They had over a dozen Govt vehicles with 40-50 people in uniform. My buddy was driving.
Officer : Sir what is your status in the US ?
Buddy: I am on L1 visa
I: H1B
buddy's wife: L2
my wife: H4
officer: is anyone US citizen ?
I: my son is (he was sitting in the car seat)
Officer: (to my buddy) Is your visa still valid ?
Buddy: yes
officer: do you have documents to prove your status?
buddy: i have some papers in my bag which in the the trunk
officer: can you show me?
(buddy got out showed him tax papers and answered some questions)
officer: did they not tell you you are supposed to carry your papers while travelling?
buddy: I came over a year ago so i don't remember
officer: I am letting you go, but i could have fined you $2000; $500 for each pasenger with no papers.
I was so pissed off by this experience, clearly they are doing this to harrase immigrants. theoratically even if I am going for a walk i am supposed to carry immigration papers because a border patrol officer, in theory, could asks me for my papers ?
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/immigration_Border_flyer.pdf
I have decided that if anyone ask me such a stupid question again inside the US and i am just going to remain silent even if that means they detain me for some time.
wallpaper Mindless Behavior, the Ramp;B
neelu
12-12 10:48 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
Hi Logiclife,
If an attorney says that it cannot be done with administrative changes, then I guess, we dont have much to argue.
But I cannot understand the logic behind why it cant be done. I mean, disallowing concurrent processing is possible by an administrative change, why is the reverse (or something similar like allowing 485 filing without pd being current), not possible?
I am sorry for not being to let go of this, but I thought, logic-life can see some logic in this!!! :)
Thank you.
dannyypk
02-22 11:52 PM
Is that mean if eb2 India will move, eb-3 ROW will become current? As eb-2 already used up its quota, and eb-1, eb2 eb4 and eb-5 ROW should go to eb-3 ROW becasue THE COUNTRY QUOTA FOR EB2 INDIA ALREADY USED UP.
2011 Mindless Behavior Prodigy.
yagw
07-13 12:03 PM
yikes !!! so looks like I have to wait then... anyways I was happy for a few moments till I saw this message :)
Sorry for bringing the bad news. You will be current in next bulletin so cheer up!!!
Sorry for bringing the bad news. You will be current in next bulletin so cheer up!!!
more...
neelu
12-13 01:01 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
MDix
02-11 06:56 PM
Dude,
Calm down, PresidenO gave you good comment and you got carried away thinking that President Obama praise you. Just vent your frustration somewhere else.
PresidentO,
I saw your past comment and it seems like you have an Attitude problem.
If something your are not agree or disagree that's fine but there is now way to go this far.
Thanks so much for your kind words.
I don't blame readers who start making noise without basic verification. Most people have difficulty understanding the difference between cap and quota Or Permanent job vs W2 job.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
Calm down, PresidenO gave you good comment and you got carried away thinking that President Obama praise you. Just vent your frustration somewhere else.
PresidentO,
I saw your past comment and it seems like you have an Attitude problem.
If something your are not agree or disagree that's fine but there is now way to go this far.
Thanks so much for your kind words.
I don't blame readers who start making noise without basic verification. Most people have difficulty understanding the difference between cap and quota Or Permanent job vs W2 job.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
Sunx_2004
07-15 01:53 PM
I agree, Don't waste single minute and consult attorney if you haven'nt done so..
Good luck
ajthakur,
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
Good luck
ajthakur,
U r covered under AC-21 if I-140 is not revoked by your previous employer.
Be truthful to USCIS and using a very good attorney firm drat AC-21 and Employment verification letter to USCIS. Since your PD is current chances are after reviewing the new employment letter USCIS might approve your case.
Please dont waste time in on this forum, instead spend some money to consult Rajeev Khanna or Sheela Murthy, it is worth spending every penny on the advice and their services for invoking AC-21.
Per your RFE notice it looks like, USCIS is only interested in verifying your current employment in the similar profession. good employment verification letter and AC-21 draft is good to save your GC.
RFE might have triggered due to previous H1B transfer, it has nothing to do with your employer revoking I-140. Trust me lot of desi consulting companies dont want to take any "Panga" with USCIS and 99% of the time they just ignore employees leaving them. So dont worry, dial in Murthy or Khanna consulting services and see what's their take on your case. If you are getting any help from new Employer's attorney that will be free of cost to you.
Bottomline you need a competent attorney for answering this RFE and invoking AC-21.
2010 Prodigy-mindless-ehavior-fans
Bhargav Goswami
07-13 12:41 PM
Sheela Murthy is not my lawyer but I often check out her office's website as it is quite informative. If she's written a well thought our letter to Chertoff - it's to our benefit...we should welcome any ally we can instead of turning them away.
Some of you who've so viciously attacked her please get a life or get medical help. Why such pain???
Some of you who've so viciously attacked her please get a life or get medical help. Why such pain???
more...
mallu
02-16 03:20 PM
14% Asians Americans in US. (includes indians,chinese koreans, viatnamese, japanese etc)
I dont know about India and china specifically.
There are 2.7 million Indian americans in the U.S and 9.3 Chinese Americans.
You do the math.
Not sure if the totals include GC holders
What i would say is that if folks from a particular country is getting 'edge' in numbers , then the diversity axe should be applied. In that sense i was wondering whether the country quota applied is 'fair' ( i know what is fair is determined by the country which made the rules/laws/practices . ) to India,China .
I dont know about India and china specifically.
There are 2.7 million Indian americans in the U.S and 9.3 Chinese Americans.
You do the math.
Not sure if the totals include GC holders
What i would say is that if folks from a particular country is getting 'edge' in numbers , then the diversity axe should be applied. In that sense i was wondering whether the country quota applied is 'fair' ( i know what is fair is determined by the country which made the rules/laws/practices . ) to India,China .
hair ♥ Mindless Behavior ♥: New
dannyypk
02-22 11:52 PM
Is that mean if eb2 India will move, eb-3 ROW will become current? As eb-2 already used up its quota, and eb-1, eb2 eb4 and eb-5 ROW should go to eb-3 ROW becasue THE COUNTRY QUOTA FOR EB2 INDIA ALREADY USED UP.
more...
Googler
02-21 05:15 PM
I-485: EB2 India with PD June 2003
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
Lord almighty people are getting really carried away. :) This cutoff setting guy hadn't even made up his mind as of Feb 13. Also read my entire post, he won't set the date till he sees the estimate from USCIS.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
I was wondering why I am I getting a LUD in Feb 08? (since EB2 India is 'U').
Now I know why :) it seems USCIS is getting ready for the deluge in April 08' :D
Lord almighty people are getting really carried away. :) This cutoff setting guy hadn't even made up his mind as of Feb 13. Also read my entire post, he won't set the date till he sees the estimate from USCIS.
Btw, my PD is Jan 03 and my LUD is still back in November 07 (when my attorney changed).
hot Prodigy Mindless Behavior:
abstractvision
03-19 12:07 AM
Nixstor did explained his actions and I concur... Controversial handles should be banned... Handle "TALIBAN" was banned and same member opened new handle "TAWLIBANN" saying his name is Tawlibann Foggs...
Anyway we should close this issue.. I do find tawlibann's posts decent and non-offensive.. Only thing is we need to practice some respect to the communitity when chosing a handle... Its just not this.. there could be potentially other offensive handles.. So I'd say there should be a step/check in registration process to monitor/regulate handles... You won't like any handle offending your religious beliefs, dis-respecting your nation or humanity itself...
Just my 2 cents... We should stop this discussion and focus on immigration issues...
Trying to understand why Mr. Foggs was singled out...
May be obscene name: Humm ..much better than existing F---GC,fuckadothead, chumki, chumma, xxxx, coolhokie, ussexy, saksibaby, funkycatspangky, faaltoo and plenty ..check the member list.
May be obscene posts: No...his posts were very decent. He pleaded his case very politely. Never lost his cool even after being banned without being told.
May be meaning of Taliban is wrong: No, It means..someone who is seeking religious knowledge. Nothing wrong in it.
May be bad relation with US: Humm, US may not have good relations now, that was not the case earlier in late eighties and early nineties...not too far back..;)
May be having political cause: What about existing handles like FREE_KASHMIR, us-alien...etc
May be reference to terrorism: Having a same name "AbstractVision" as a terrorist organization somewhere in remote part of the world doesnot make me a terrorist.
May be religious name: Humm...not like existing jaihanuman, saibaba,saint.. .etc
May be country specific: Hum...Jai_Hind, JisDeshMeinGangaBehthiHai etc.. more than 500 handles have meaning related to India and in Hindi, Tamil etc
May be phone call was not received by proper person: Humm..did someone tell him to expect a call..;) Being a member doesnot to be glued to phone 24 hrs waiting for someone to call. A private message with time would have been the right way.
May be phone no. was fake: I had my previous cell number in my profile that I used 2 years back. I corrected this evening after this interesting post. I wasn't red flagged.
May be handle name was a distraction: If handle names are distractions, I wonder how far can we go....no offense. We have got bigger problems to deal with.
May be incorrect details: Why would I put my correct details on the internet. Didn't someone educate me about Identity theft..;)
May be user was unaware of unpublished nomenclature: That sounds like the case. May be admins would like to publish the pool of words they are comfortable with and that may not be distraction.
No offense, but without letting the guy know beforehand is definitely not up to the mark. Give this guy a break.... . Lets not apply any rules retroactively....more than 80% of the handle names are ridiculous and does not seem to be coming from intelligent folks and people with exceptional abilities.
I agree we should respect other members and names should be decent..but I do not agree that names can be regulated by forum administrators with no set rules of engagement ....so many languages in the world...one decent meaning in one country/language can be offensive somewhere else.
What wonders me is that SO MANY easily understood obscene words in memberlist as handle were allowed by admin (F---GC,fuckadothead,xxxx,ussexy etc ) and 'Taliban' got hit by a 800 pound gurilla..;)..got banned....
I am looking forward to a REAL issue discussion and get over this handle issue. Lets move on...
Anyway we should close this issue.. I do find tawlibann's posts decent and non-offensive.. Only thing is we need to practice some respect to the communitity when chosing a handle... Its just not this.. there could be potentially other offensive handles.. So I'd say there should be a step/check in registration process to monitor/regulate handles... You won't like any handle offending your religious beliefs, dis-respecting your nation or humanity itself...
Just my 2 cents... We should stop this discussion and focus on immigration issues...
Trying to understand why Mr. Foggs was singled out...
May be obscene name: Humm ..much better than existing F---GC,fuckadothead, chumki, chumma, xxxx, coolhokie, ussexy, saksibaby, funkycatspangky, faaltoo and plenty ..check the member list.
May be obscene posts: No...his posts were very decent. He pleaded his case very politely. Never lost his cool even after being banned without being told.
May be meaning of Taliban is wrong: No, It means..someone who is seeking religious knowledge. Nothing wrong in it.
May be bad relation with US: Humm, US may not have good relations now, that was not the case earlier in late eighties and early nineties...not too far back..;)
May be having political cause: What about existing handles like FREE_KASHMIR, us-alien...etc
May be reference to terrorism: Having a same name "AbstractVision" as a terrorist organization somewhere in remote part of the world doesnot make me a terrorist.
May be religious name: Humm...not like existing jaihanuman, saibaba,saint.. .etc
May be country specific: Hum...Jai_Hind, JisDeshMeinGangaBehthiHai etc.. more than 500 handles have meaning related to India and in Hindi, Tamil etc
May be phone call was not received by proper person: Humm..did someone tell him to expect a call..;) Being a member doesnot to be glued to phone 24 hrs waiting for someone to call. A private message with time would have been the right way.
May be phone no. was fake: I had my previous cell number in my profile that I used 2 years back. I corrected this evening after this interesting post. I wasn't red flagged.
May be handle name was a distraction: If handle names are distractions, I wonder how far can we go....no offense. We have got bigger problems to deal with.
May be incorrect details: Why would I put my correct details on the internet. Didn't someone educate me about Identity theft..;)
May be user was unaware of unpublished nomenclature: That sounds like the case. May be admins would like to publish the pool of words they are comfortable with and that may not be distraction.
No offense, but without letting the guy know beforehand is definitely not up to the mark. Give this guy a break.... . Lets not apply any rules retroactively....more than 80% of the handle names are ridiculous and does not seem to be coming from intelligent folks and people with exceptional abilities.
I agree we should respect other members and names should be decent..but I do not agree that names can be regulated by forum administrators with no set rules of engagement ....so many languages in the world...one decent meaning in one country/language can be offensive somewhere else.
What wonders me is that SO MANY easily understood obscene words in memberlist as handle were allowed by admin (F---GC,fuckadothead,xxxx,ussexy etc ) and 'Taliban' got hit by a 800 pound gurilla..;)..got banned....
I am looking forward to a REAL issue discussion and get over this handle issue. Lets move on...
more...
house Mindless Behavior have been
coopheal
03-20 11:31 AM
I work for a very reputed company. Lawyers filed EB3 because it was easy for them. At that time everything was current and nobody really cared about EB2/EB3.
Don�t give me moral argument about cutting lines. If someone is qualified for EB2 and position needs EB2 qualified and person is already in process of GC with EB3, he/she has every right to move over to EB2. Don�t even try to equate this with lab subs.
If desi company�s are misusing it then put proper review/audit for it. That doesn�t mean I cannot join an EB2 job and not switch over. You can say however loud you want � no one would listen and no one should listen to you.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
Don�t give me moral argument about cutting lines. If someone is qualified for EB2 and position needs EB2 qualified and person is already in process of GC with EB3, he/she has every right to move over to EB2. Don�t even try to equate this with lab subs.
If desi company�s are misusing it then put proper review/audit for it. That doesn�t mean I cannot join an EB2 job and not switch over. You can say however loud you want � no one would listen and no one should listen to you.
Hi Coopheal:
With Due respects to your Seniority and Agony/ Frustration being retrogessed.
Standard Companies donot opt for having two I140s approved for a particular employees which is a "Logical Fallacy" of EB concept. Leave alone Rat Desi Companies.. They can do anything and turn the boards off..
If your arguement is right: first you have to stop L1s getting Gcs in less than 10 months.. (on an average). Porting EB3 to Eb2 is a big junk and disrepct to the EB2 Qualifier. Now, Qualifying Eb2, if you feel, is not a big deal, why the companies did not preferred it out for Eb3s in first place because lack of Job Requirements. (infact, this portings have to be highlighted to USCIS as Junk technique and illegal).
So the whole arguement doesnot workout. Soon, wait and see Portings would bestopped, with Desi companies messing itaround like Approved labors (infact, it isa refined version of approved labor scams).
Please donot jump on me.. its a waste of time.. But the logic holds good EB2 Vs. EB3. If allowed, People may even qualify for EB1, (People would work it out also sooner or later) Let's respect each other profiles.. and its a matter of time we are all there.
This is my Honest Advice.. Trust me. I am a 2003 eb3 victim.. No way to jump lines.. its inhuman.
Thanks,
tattoo pics of mindless behavior prodigy. mindless behavior prodigy
Madhuri
01-16 03:17 PM
Just set up monthly $20 contribution from my bank account.
more...
pictures pics of mindless behavior prodigy. Talk about prodigy there doesnt seem to
alex99
07-11 01:50 PM
Request More Eb3 Guys To Participate......
Please....
Please....
dresses MINDLESS BEHAVIOR Prodigy
fromnaija
07-24 08:56 AM
We could pose this question to the USCIS Director today. He will be at Ask the White House at 4pm ET today. Pose your question at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask
more...
makeup seen mindless behavior at
neelu
01-02 11:35 PM
Everyone who is doing such excellent job spreading the word about IV on websites:
Please also help the Add ONE Member campaign. Introduce just ONE member to IV, by Jan 31st.
That will go a long way in helping all of us (be it CIR or SKIL or whatever vehicle our provisions ride on).
Please participate and help others participate in the 'Add ONE Member' campaign.
Thank you.
Neelu
Please also help the Add ONE Member campaign. Introduce just ONE member to IV, by Jan 31st.
That will go a long way in helping all of us (be it CIR or SKIL or whatever vehicle our provisions ride on).
Please participate and help others participate in the 'Add ONE Member' campaign.
Thank you.
Neelu
girlfriend The Mindless Behavior boys may
ndbhatt
02-15 01:26 PM
now what the hell is ROW and ICMP ?
ROW = Rest Of World
ICMP = India, China, Mexico and Phillipines
ROW = Rest Of World
ICMP = India, China, Mexico and Phillipines
hairstyles from Mindless Behavior
GCAmigo
12-27 06:55 PM
So you were in Amsterdam for 1 day. ;) Did you visit any of the legal hesh bars? (Just kiddin).
all the stranded formed a group & wnet around the city.. so didn't get he chnace to venture out.. we did go thru' the 'main' area though.. & yes that evening Hooland lost their Worldcup soccer game too..
all the stranded formed a group & wnet around the city.. so didn't get he chnace to venture out.. we did go thru' the 'main' area though.. & yes that evening Hooland lost their Worldcup soccer game too..
WillIWin?
07-23 02:24 PM
My lawyer is going to submit the 485 WITHOUT a letter from my current employer. This is going to be a concurrent I-140 and I-485 application (140 and 485 applied together).
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
I looked at the 485 application form and see that it clearly mentions - page 5, that a letter from the employer is required (mentioning job title, job description and salary). My lawyer still says it is NOT required.
- Are there people who have submitted 485 applications OR who are going to submit the 485 WITHOUT an Employment letter ? Replies/advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
SEP03NY
07-24 01:33 PM
we have to demand for allowing to file for EAD and Advance payrol.
Thanks
Thanks
0 comments:
Post a Comment