jy1021
02-15 08:53 AM
yes, you can. I did it last summer. the first officer at the border did not know the rule and said we could not enter, then an older officer came and said we could. they let us in with expired visa but approved h-1b extension notice
gcwait2007
07-07 01:38 PM
I have applied 485 during the july07 fiasco,I got 2 eads and aps,they have not even touched my case since april08.Is my case preadjudicated?
If you have not yet received any RFE, you are a lucky person and your I-485 application has been filed perfectly. As per USCIS announcements, they have almost completed (99.99%) review of all pending AOS cases and pre-adjudicated most of them. I will presume that your case has been pre-adjudicated and all set to go Green whenever visa number is available.
One way to find out whether your case been pre-adjudicated is to call USCIS thro POJ method and talk to a IO (not customer service person) and they will be able to tell you.
If you have not yet received any RFE, you are a lucky person and your I-485 application has been filed perfectly. As per USCIS announcements, they have almost completed (99.99%) review of all pending AOS cases and pre-adjudicated most of them. I will presume that your case has been pre-adjudicated and all set to go Green whenever visa number is available.
One way to find out whether your case been pre-adjudicated is to call USCIS thro POJ method and talk to a IO (not customer service person) and they will be able to tell you.
sri1309
10-23 07:08 PM
Thanks guys,
One more related question.
If one has 3 year H1B extension BASED on approved I-140, and a July 07 filer. What about in that case. Will the 485 denial affect that extended H1. Assume in this case that the EAD is not used at any point by primary or spouse who is on her own H1
One more related question.
If one has 3 year H1B extension BASED on approved I-140, and a July 07 filer. What about in that case. Will the 485 denial affect that extended H1. Assume in this case that the EAD is not used at any point by primary or spouse who is on her own H1
chacha
03-05 02:33 PM
I'm assuming you are Indian like most of us on this site. remember THIS country would be in big trouble with Indians working in all kinds of institutions working in the sciences and IT. The whole country would go down the pan. I work for an IT recruitment firm, 80% of our employees that are out on assignment are Indian and i think the govenment knows that..
more...
desimass77
05-11 01:56 PM
Yes, my school did query with USCIS and got the confirmation that I am at AOS stage. I got AP valied for one year, but I did talk to the school stating that since I am within USA I will not get I-94 as I-94 is given to people who are entering from outside. As my new AP is issued by USCIS it is a valied document.
My FAO communicated with their International Students office who handles immigration issues to confirm this and I got my Loan approved.
Good Luck
Hi desimass77. How do you convince the school that you are qualified?
My wife has a similar situation. We tried to convince school that we are qualified under "parolee" category. However, my wife's I-94 expires (she entered US using AP last June). Her school uses this reason to reject again. Now, we decide to re-enter US again to get a fresh I-94.
Her school officials say that they are going to query USCIS database once my wife gets a new I94 stamp. It is something called G-845 form.
Just curious, did you school query USCIS database on your case? Or your school just think yo are qualified?
I think the "parolee" category is really ambiguous, since it requires student to enter US with parole for at least one year. On the other hand, it wants I-94 unexpired. AP can hardly fit into this category, as if we entered US, the valid length is usually less than 1 year, unless we re-enter US on the exact same date when the AP was issued.
Please, if anybody successfully convinced school on FAFSA, please share your experience here!
My FAO communicated with their International Students office who handles immigration issues to confirm this and I got my Loan approved.
Good Luck
Hi desimass77. How do you convince the school that you are qualified?
My wife has a similar situation. We tried to convince school that we are qualified under "parolee" category. However, my wife's I-94 expires (she entered US using AP last June). Her school uses this reason to reject again. Now, we decide to re-enter US again to get a fresh I-94.
Her school officials say that they are going to query USCIS database once my wife gets a new I94 stamp. It is something called G-845 form.
Just curious, did you school query USCIS database on your case? Or your school just think yo are qualified?
I think the "parolee" category is really ambiguous, since it requires student to enter US with parole for at least one year. On the other hand, it wants I-94 unexpired. AP can hardly fit into this category, as if we entered US, the valid length is usually less than 1 year, unless we re-enter US on the exact same date when the AP was issued.
Please, if anybody successfully convinced school on FAFSA, please share your experience here!
gc_kaavaali
06-03 03:21 PM
I did change of address online...I also provided receipt numbers of 485 and EAD (renewal)...I think i don't have to do for approved cases like (I-140, I-131 and previous I-765 )...Am i right? I also did for my wife..
more...
la_guy
07-28 05:01 PM
i too got LUD on the AP on 7/27. should be system upgrade. hope this helps.
ttdam
11-05 09:58 PM
Congrats! Thanks for the feedback. From which center (TSC or VSC) your FP received.
I got my FP from TSC
My I-485 got transferred to TSC from VSC.
Got soft LUD on approved I-140 on 11/04
I got my FP from TSC
My I-485 got transferred to TSC from VSC.
Got soft LUD on approved I-140 on 11/04
more...
kk_kk
07-30 10:33 AM
do you have someone to receive your mails at address 'X' ? post office does not forward letters from USCIS. they will be sent back for corrections .
gc28262
07-16 07:30 AM
Murthy Bulletin
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
more...
new2gc
02-16 01:56 PM
These time- pass threads are better than EB2 Vs EB3 threads.
If you are passing time on IV website...sorry.. either you may be a dumb .... who doesn't know what mess you are in (per your id EB3-Nov5) or an even more dumb anti guy...it is as simple as that... Since you are ignorant..I don't want to argue any further with you...
If you are passing time on IV website...sorry.. either you may be a dumb .... who doesn't know what mess you are in (per your id EB3-Nov5) or an even more dumb anti guy...it is as simple as that... Since you are ignorant..I don't want to argue any further with you...
seebi
03-14 09:01 AM
Thanks gc_check for posting the links.
more...
l8A
10-05 10:09 AM
Need some advice from you all. I concurrently filed for me and my wife's I-485 along with EAD, AP and I-140 for each on Jan, 2007. At the time, I was on my H-1B, however, my wife's H-4 was expired as of Dec. 6, 2006. The reason for this is because I had changed jobs earlier, and the lawyers never filed for her H4 transfer. Only my H1 was transferred to the new company, and she was still on her old H-4.
She received her EAD and AP approvals on April, 2007. I have got my I-140 approved as well. Is there going to be any problem with my wife's I-485?
So, here's the timeline:
June, 2004 - Me and wife on H1 and H4 resp., expiring on Dec., 2006
Jan, 2006 - I changed jobs, got my H1 transferred, which now expired on Oct., 2007. Wife never got her H4 transferred
Jan, 2007 - We filed concurrently for EAD, AP, 140 and 485 (Wife's H4 is already expired as of Dec. 6, 2006)
Apr, 2007 - Both me and my wife got our EAD and AP approved
July, 2007 - I got my 140 approved
Currently - waiting on our I-485
Question - Would their be a problem with my wife's 485 as she was out of status (but not illegal), when she filed for 485?
Thanks a lot.
She received her EAD and AP approvals on April, 2007. I have got my I-140 approved as well. Is there going to be any problem with my wife's I-485?
So, here's the timeline:
June, 2004 - Me and wife on H1 and H4 resp., expiring on Dec., 2006
Jan, 2006 - I changed jobs, got my H1 transferred, which now expired on Oct., 2007. Wife never got her H4 transferred
Jan, 2007 - We filed concurrently for EAD, AP, 140 and 485 (Wife's H4 is already expired as of Dec. 6, 2006)
Apr, 2007 - Both me and my wife got our EAD and AP approved
July, 2007 - I got my 140 approved
Currently - waiting on our I-485
Question - Would their be a problem with my wife's 485 as she was out of status (but not illegal), when she filed for 485?
Thanks a lot.
radhay
05-06 07:50 AM
Hi, Did they also request paystubs in the RFE ?
more...
jonty_11
11-02 10:54 AM
BTW - I140 has to be filed by a sponsor Company and as far as I485 is concerned, you can do it on ur own, but it has to be based off of LC and I140 approvals which are with your Company..so its very difficult to file 485 on ur own..
Sounds like somegchuh wants to know this to be ready with documentation when his Company is ready to file for 140/485 ( some day)
Sounds like somegchuh wants to know this to be ready with documentation when his Company is ready to file for 140/485 ( some day)
yabadaba
04-22 03:08 PM
What's the deal here? I think this info is posted a lot of times. Any reason to post it again? Just trying to find reason.
its good to see data like this after a while...if nothing else...it provides a snapshot of where we are.
its good to see data like this after a while...if nothing else...it provides a snapshot of where we are.
more...
pmpforgc
09-28 10:52 AM
Dear Members
I seek your expert advise on following situation as my lawayer is not much clear on the topic.
I am from India and filed through university my I-140 and I-485 Concurrently on August-22,2006 in EB-2 SCHEDULE A ( Categorey II) EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY which is still current for all countries including India.. I had not seen any activity on My I-140 yet and Now for EB-2 Premiumprocessing is available now.More over Schedule A is likely to retrogess some time in November,2006
In this regards I need your guidance on following points.
(1) Does the possible retrogession in November means they will retrogess from November-2006 onwards? or they may retrogess even before say March-2006 or any previous date.
(2) If they retrogess from say Nov-15 than does it means that since I applied on August-23, My I-485s ( me and my family) will continue to be processed?
(3) In the view of possible retrogession of Schedule A, do you think I should go for Premium processing or not? Does it will help in any way to avoid retrogession of I-485s
(4)Based on past experiences, Does the application for premium processing hurt in any way in terms of final decision ( not the speed but out come approval or denial)?
Your input will greatly help me in deciding about premium processing.
Thanks
I seek your expert advise on following situation as my lawayer is not much clear on the topic.
I am from India and filed through university my I-140 and I-485 Concurrently on August-22,2006 in EB-2 SCHEDULE A ( Categorey II) EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY which is still current for all countries including India.. I had not seen any activity on My I-140 yet and Now for EB-2 Premiumprocessing is available now.More over Schedule A is likely to retrogess some time in November,2006
In this regards I need your guidance on following points.
(1) Does the possible retrogession in November means they will retrogess from November-2006 onwards? or they may retrogess even before say March-2006 or any previous date.
(2) If they retrogess from say Nov-15 than does it means that since I applied on August-23, My I-485s ( me and my family) will continue to be processed?
(3) In the view of possible retrogession of Schedule A, do you think I should go for Premium processing or not? Does it will help in any way to avoid retrogession of I-485s
(4)Based on past experiences, Does the application for premium processing hurt in any way in terms of final decision ( not the speed but out come approval or denial)?
Your input will greatly help me in deciding about premium processing.
Thanks
ArkBird
07-12 01:21 PM
Its NATIVE INDIAN AMERICANS not 'RED INDIANS'. The term you used is considered derogatory by many.
Nope. That will be us... "Native Indian" Americans. They are "Native Americans"
Oh.. Damn Parenthesis ....! :)
Nope. That will be us... "Native Indian" Americans. They are "Native Americans"
Oh.. Damn Parenthesis ....! :)
indianindian2006
07-26 11:54 AM
My company attorneys are in the process of filing my AOS application per the July bulletin. I have an approved labor certification and an approved I-140. Turns out due to internal restructuring a new legal vehicle was created under the existing company and groups re-aligned. Job function and location haven't changed.
The attorneys are syaing that since the I-140 was approved prior to the restructuring, they will be filing a new successor-in-interest I-140 with my AOS application.
My question is since I had an approved I-140 is this considered an amendment to the previous i-140 and processed at I-485 adjudication stage or is it considered a brand new filing aubject to the i-140 backlog in processing.
I would appreciate a response from Logiclife (since he had posted a similar scenario) or sopmeone else in similar situations or with knowledge of the above.
What is the total number of employes your company.
The attorneys are syaing that since the I-140 was approved prior to the restructuring, they will be filing a new successor-in-interest I-140 with my AOS application.
My question is since I had an approved I-140 is this considered an amendment to the previous i-140 and processed at I-485 adjudication stage or is it considered a brand new filing aubject to the i-140 backlog in processing.
I would appreciate a response from Logiclife (since he had posted a similar scenario) or sopmeone else in similar situations or with knowledge of the above.
What is the total number of employes your company.
priya9178
01-10 11:04 AM
Thanks Y'all for the inputs !
Iam going to Houston tomorow for getting my fresh passport, hope I get it in couple of hours so that I can go to French embassy and get my transit visa too. :(
Iam going to Houston tomorow for getting my fresh passport, hope I get it in couple of hours so that I can go to French embassy and get my transit visa too. :(
fightforit
01-26 12:08 PM
Very true ! I am not sure what the moderators of Murhty forum are up to but yes the forum has been hijacked by a few very rude members. BTW, one of their very famous members have been banned from another very popular Attorney forum for rude (and illogical) posts and now happily continues name calling and rude language in Murthy forum.
Good, so I'm not the only one who feels that Murthy is dominated by uncivilized conversations. IV came as such a breath of fresh air because everyone here is polite and agree to disagree in a civil manner.
BTW is that famous member "J***f"....lol. He's been getting bashed at Murthy a bit too lately. He's like a schoolyard bully who just enjoys pouncing on people and giving unnecessary gyan.
Good, so I'm not the only one who feels that Murthy is dominated by uncivilized conversations. IV came as such a breath of fresh air because everyone here is polite and agree to disagree in a civil manner.
BTW is that famous member "J***f"....lol. He's been getting bashed at Murthy a bit too lately. He's like a schoolyard bully who just enjoys pouncing on people and giving unnecessary gyan.
0 comments:
Post a Comment