spulapa
08-10 01:53 PM
lets do something about it....!!
We need a lot of support from different members irrespective what category they are from.
We need a lot of support from different members irrespective what category they are from.
wallpaper Desktop Wallpaper Layout
zuhail
03-10 01:09 PM
Hello,
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
I strongly suggest that we focus our time and efforts on a single and achievable target in this calendar year 2009.
Recapturing unused visa numbers from the last two decades would help us eliminate the retrogression issue. Other changes like Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Eliminating per country limits etc would require a leap of faith in the political process and it is unlikely to be achieved in this calendar year. The economy, unemployment rates, health care etc are bound to dominate the legislative agenda this year.
I suggest writing a petition or letter to the White House and the administrative offices strongly urging them to recapture the unused visa numbers.
I think we should follow the KISS ("Keep it Simple, Stupid") Principle to achieve this target.
If we add any other immigration provisions, it would increase the complexity of the legislation and it is bound to fail.
Could the administrators of this forum please consider my suggestion of focusing on recapturing the visa numbers and assign this task the highest priority.
By re-capturing the visa numbers, we are not asking for any change in the immigration laws. We are simply asking to use the visa numbers that had been lost due to inefficient processing by the USCIS.
Let us start preparing a petition and create a dedicated fund to achieve this goal of visa number recapturing.
Thank you.
spicy_guy
08-11 11:44 AM
I may be wrong on my thinking, but I do hope you take a suggestion - when reading the INS law, understand it independently first. Then go back to see, if it can be applied on your interpretation. Do not start out with it, everything looks red when wearing red tinted glasses.......
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
You put it out well from your side.
BTW, are you really 2007 EB3 I? Do you have a guesstimate on when you would get GC?:rolleyes:
After the advocacy days in DC, I am sold on what IV is offering and its commitment to the EB community. I am EB3 too and I am pretty much in the same boat as many of you here.
You put it out well from your side.
BTW, are you really 2007 EB3 I? Do you have a guesstimate on when you would get GC?:rolleyes:
2011 hip hop wallpapers
neoneo
09-26 08:40 PM
Here's a classic example ..
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
If you look at the other threads on this forum you have people against the Durban bill coz it affects F-1 students . There is another section which is against Grassley coz it'll affect Consultants trying to get H1-B. I do understand Grassley's bill can have many implications and need to be opposed, but the focus still has to be towards alleviating the Employment based GC issues.
I don't think CNN is to be faulted that much coz IV itself has lost its focus towards Employment Based Green Cards. period. thats what is started out to be and needs to come back on that track instead of trying to act as a platform for all Legal Immigration issues.
Simply put IV is " EB-1/2/3- related org" ok..ok.. add in those millionaires who put in a million dollars for GC too.
more...
srkamath
07-12 10:31 PM
Use of "01" instead of "10" has been common mistake by USCIS. I came across couple of such cases. This is typo error and they will fix it.
i guess i read too much into it........
i guess i read too much into it........
SunnySurya
07-28 12:21 PM
No, you won't be banned from IV. You just will be banned from this country.
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
And by the way, the thing you were trying to do is not protected by "the first amendment"
So I cannot even speak on IV and even little I defended my religion, I will be banned from IV? Freedom Of Speech
more...
abhijitp
03-17 12:28 PM
Folks from North California... please volunteer to attend the Advocacy Days (all 4 days). Others in North California may be able to help you with airfare, etc. (Check the yahoogroup for more details)
2010 wallpaper hip hop
Windy
09-19 11:41 AM
I was there in the rally with few other friends. Some friends have already got their greencards. Still, they were there to support the good cause.
Whenever I meet people in this area (especially Indians), they complain of not being able to switch jobs and the delay in green card and so on. There are thousands of greencards seekers in VA and MD area. I didn't see any of these folks who complained. They probably thought that someone else is anyway going to fight it out and they can sit back and enjoy the results without making any effort. It was a shameful thing that they did. Had these folks from VA and MD joined, there would have been over 10,000 participants.
Still, the rally was a huge success and wants to thank IV for making this happen.
Whenever I meet people in this area (especially Indians), they complain of not being able to switch jobs and the delay in green card and so on. There are thousands of greencards seekers in VA and MD area. I didn't see any of these folks who complained. They probably thought that someone else is anyway going to fight it out and they can sit back and enjoy the results without making any effort. It was a shameful thing that they did. Had these folks from VA and MD joined, there would have been over 10,000 participants.
Still, the rally was a huge success and wants to thank IV for making this happen.
more...
mhathi
03-17 11:42 AM
There are several of us who have been left with no choice but to file under EB3 by our employers, despite qualifying for EB2 at least.
Maybe the lawmakers should understand this plight...
I am forced into EB3 despite having a US Masters due to the same situation, but I wonder what lawmakers can do about this. The best way will be for us to lobby for relief in all EB immigration categories; not just EB1 or EB2.
Which is what is IVs stated goal anyways.
Maybe the lawmakers should understand this plight...
I am forced into EB3 despite having a US Masters due to the same situation, but I wonder what lawmakers can do about this. The best way will be for us to lobby for relief in all EB immigration categories; not just EB1 or EB2.
Which is what is IVs stated goal anyways.
hair stix--hiphop-wallpaper
alterego
03-16 12:44 AM
A few things.
Ignoring folks who are full of themselves is the best way to make them go away.
There are many reasons why people with priority dates before 2004 are stuck in queue. Some I can think of are:
1) Backlog labors that were completed as recently as late last year.
2) Background check stuck applications.
3) Labor Subs which were allowed as recently as last summer.
4) EB3-EB2 cases, where PDs are transferred.
5) Other applications that cannot be approved due to time specific requirements such as physician NIW cases.
6) Some cases that just slipped through the cracks of USCIS inefficiency.
Many of the above causes are being/have been addressed, however their impact will be with us for some time yet, unless there is a visa recapture legislation to make up for the unused visas.
Ignoring folks who are full of themselves is the best way to make them go away.
There are many reasons why people with priority dates before 2004 are stuck in queue. Some I can think of are:
1) Backlog labors that were completed as recently as late last year.
2) Background check stuck applications.
3) Labor Subs which were allowed as recently as last summer.
4) EB3-EB2 cases, where PDs are transferred.
5) Other applications that cannot be approved due to time specific requirements such as physician NIW cases.
6) Some cases that just slipped through the cracks of USCIS inefficiency.
Many of the above causes are being/have been addressed, however their impact will be with us for some time yet, unless there is a visa recapture legislation to make up for the unused visas.
more...
gauravsh
03-09 06:45 PM
Quick question guys :- My PD is feb 2008 and I140 was approved in july 08.
I also want to call my congessman, can you please tell what are the things you talk to them?
A brief guidance will help many others like me to make a call.
~
I also want to call my congessman, can you please tell what are the things you talk to them?
A brief guidance will help many others like me to make a call.
~
hot Hip-hop Street Dancing Dude
Jai_MD
06-10 06:23 PM
done and request fellow members who are on the sidelines to do the same!
more...
house Hip hop screensaver wallpaper
DSLStart
01-09 09:54 AM
VEry well said.
We can go all day, moving blame from Fresh students to desi consulting companies to US immigration policies. I feel that part of the problem lies on the hiring company/client as well. These days, they want to spend 40 dollars per hour for a person with 10 years of exp in Java + dot net + ETL + BO + Mainframe. Client wants that person to work like a superman during the normal business hour (8 AM to 5 PM) and they want the same person to work like a Batman (from 7 PM to 1 AM) with off shore. On weekends he also becomes Spiderman and flies to all corners of the US to support different clients/projects. Now....imagine a combination of Superman+Batman+Spiderman in 40 dollars per hours?? They get a 23 years old guy having 10 years of experience on his resume....through a desi consulting company. Who is at fault? The person who faked the resume? The person who tried to sell his resume? Or the entity who wants a combination of Superman, Batman and Spiderman in 40 dollars per hour? I am yet to find an answer!
We can go all day, moving blame from Fresh students to desi consulting companies to US immigration policies. I feel that part of the problem lies on the hiring company/client as well. These days, they want to spend 40 dollars per hour for a person with 10 years of exp in Java + dot net + ETL + BO + Mainframe. Client wants that person to work like a superman during the normal business hour (8 AM to 5 PM) and they want the same person to work like a Batman (from 7 PM to 1 AM) with off shore. On weekends he also becomes Spiderman and flies to all corners of the US to support different clients/projects. Now....imagine a combination of Superman+Batman+Spiderman in 40 dollars per hours?? They get a 23 years old guy having 10 years of experience on his resume....through a desi consulting company. Who is at fault? The person who faked the resume? The person who tried to sell his resume? Or the entity who wants a combination of Superman, Batman and Spiderman in 40 dollars per hour? I am yet to find an answer!
tattoo hip hop graffiti wallpaper.
akred
02-21 10:58 AM
How does one "change" to EB2?. I have a PD of Oct 2003 EB3. Should i submit a new labor and if it is approved my category will be EB2 PD Oct 2003?. Should i also file another I-140?.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
1. If you want to use experience gained on the job at the same employer, then have your employer file a new labor for a different job followed by an I140.
2. If you were EB2 qualified but your employer chose to file in EB3, then have the same employer file a new EB2 labor+I140.
3. Or if employer A originally filed an EB3 labor for you, and you are now qualified for EB2, change employers and have employer B file an EB2 labor+I140.
Not that i want to. just out of curiosity. thanks
1. If you want to use experience gained on the job at the same employer, then have your employer file a new labor for a different job followed by an I140.
2. If you were EB2 qualified but your employer chose to file in EB3, then have the same employer file a new EB2 labor+I140.
3. Or if employer A originally filed an EB3 labor for you, and you are now qualified for EB2, change employers and have employer B file an EB2 labor+I140.
more...
pictures Hip hop Wallpaper by
alterego
09-17 10:59 PM
It is not end of the world. But end of the economy as we know it. People smarter than me and you have said this is turning into an armageddon.
Armageddon or not, smart or fool, time will tell. My view is recession yes, outside chance of a depression. Armageddon...........not really.
Interesting thing is Berkshire stock is up while all this is going on. Gives you an idea how much high regard people have for its balance sheet, Buffet and Co. stock picking prowess and his 30 plus billion cash war chest at this time.
Armageddon or not, smart or fool, time will tell. My view is recession yes, outside chance of a depression. Armageddon...........not really.
Interesting thing is Berkshire stock is up while all this is going on. Gives you an idea how much high regard people have for its balance sheet, Buffet and Co. stock picking prowess and his 30 plus billion cash war chest at this time.
dresses Hip-Hop and Bashment Party
sodh
07-25 02:51 PM
http://www.google.com/answers/threadview?id=559556
If an applicant for adjustment wishes to take a new job in the same
or similar occupational classification at the job that was the basis
of his or her employment-based I-140 AND the I-485 has been pending
180 days or more, the new employer may be substituted into the
existing I-485 application without disrupting the application at all.
This is accomplished very easily - NO new petition and no new fees.
Step 1: The applicant notifies INS of the change in intent by letter.
Step 2: The Service should then make a request for a letter of
employment from the new employer.
Voila! Done deal."
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2001,0705-Latour.shtm
This is not new but only Lawyers and the employers who filed your GC knows what position and job duties on which they applied your GC.
If an applicant for adjustment wishes to take a new job in the same
or similar occupational classification at the job that was the basis
of his or her employment-based I-140 AND the I-485 has been pending
180 days or more, the new employer may be substituted into the
existing I-485 application without disrupting the application at all.
This is accomplished very easily - NO new petition and no new fees.
Step 1: The applicant notifies INS of the change in intent by letter.
Step 2: The Service should then make a request for a letter of
employment from the new employer.
Voila! Done deal."
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2001,0705-Latour.shtm
This is not new but only Lawyers and the employers who filed your GC knows what position and job duties on which they applied your GC.
more...
makeup hip hop wallpaper
speddi
07-13 09:25 AM
I applied for I-140 in July 2007 using a substitute labor EB2 (from a different company) with a priority date of Nov 2005 and it got approved in May 2008.
During the same July fiasco, my employer at that time applied for I-485 with a priority date of August 2006.
I didn't apply for priority date porting after the substitute labor I-140 got approved because I didn't have the approval notice.
I read somewhere that even though I didn't apply for porting of the date, USCIS will consider the earlier date. How far is this true? How can I find out my correct priority date?
Thank you
During the same July fiasco, my employer at that time applied for I-485 with a priority date of August 2006.
I didn't apply for priority date porting after the substitute labor I-140 got approved because I didn't have the approval notice.
I read somewhere that even though I didn't apply for porting of the date, USCIS will consider the earlier date. How far is this true? How can I find out my correct priority date?
Thank you
girlfriend Wallpapers - Hip Hop trend
24fps
02-19 07:42 AM
this bill will never pass at-least in the next 2 years! i can give you a guarantee on that!
these are just bills that the politicians introduce to showcase their views , there are already a few bills in the house that would eliminate extended family immigration etc, never gonna happen
no immigration bill is going to pass before 2010 ,and even after that it'll fall into election time
and become a political issue like in 2007
if there was no recession there would surely have been a serious immigration bill doing the rounds and would have pretty much cleared through ( after GOP figuring out that their screw up on CIR 2007 cost them the elections) but now with the F**K**D Recession everythings gone down the drain
Bad luck Bad timing
these are just bills that the politicians introduce to showcase their views , there are already a few bills in the house that would eliminate extended family immigration etc, never gonna happen
no immigration bill is going to pass before 2010 ,and even after that it'll fall into election time
and become a political issue like in 2007
if there was no recession there would surely have been a serious immigration bill doing the rounds and would have pretty much cleared through ( after GOP figuring out that their screw up on CIR 2007 cost them the elections) but now with the F**K**D Recession everythings gone down the drain
Bad luck Bad timing
hairstyles Its My World Desktop Wallpaper
ronhira
03-12 11:14 AM
I have contributed to IV in faxes, phone calls and sending numerous letters. You can always check my history before analyzing from a blind eye. I have been here for a while, I have even spoken to a few IV core members.
Need my trust and money, please earn it.
so u'r sachbole - employee of that tracker site..... wonder y u hate iv......
u did not contribute to iv by sending faxes & making those phone calls.... u did that for u'rself...... u'r not doing me or anyone else a favor by sending faxes or making phone calls.....
no one needs u'r trust becoz u'r a paid employee of a business that is against each one of us getting green card...... if everyone will get gc then who will track their application.... meaning no ad revenue for u..... isn't that right? sachbole?
Need my trust and money, please earn it.
so u'r sachbole - employee of that tracker site..... wonder y u hate iv......
u did not contribute to iv by sending faxes & making those phone calls.... u did that for u'rself...... u'r not doing me or anyone else a favor by sending faxes or making phone calls.....
no one needs u'r trust becoz u'r a paid employee of a business that is against each one of us getting green card...... if everyone will get gc then who will track their application.... meaning no ad revenue for u..... isn't that right? sachbole?
shreekhand
07-04 10:28 PM
A nicely presented opinion by Ramba, but there are obvious flaws in the anaylsis. Here are my observations
1.) The contention that they followed the recommendations of the Omb report and went back to pre-1982 method cannot be true. They cannot follow that without violating 8 USC Section 1255 (b) which clearly states that a visa number is reduced AFTER the approval of the I-485.
2.)There were 40K visas remaining at the time of the Jun 13 bulletin according to AILA. The 60K number as per DoS might have been from end of May. We most note the fact from the CIS I-485 Standard Operating Procedure that when a petition is "documentarily qualified and approvable" a request is made for a visa number, if such number is not available that petition is put into a approved pending availability of visa number list. This makes it amply clear that the CIS knew the exact number of approvable petitions.(might be ~40-60K) The DoS might also have known that.
3.) So what happened ? Looks like the DoS did not expect the CIS to get those petitions quickly from storage, assign a visa number, stamp and sign petitions with the speed that CIS did it with. As a matter of fact, we can clearly deduce from inquiries made my petitioners in the month of May that soon after the June bulletin was released in May, the petitioners were informed by IO's that their files are now been retrieved and have been assigned to officers for approval in June !
4.) This shows that the CIS swift approval (i.e retrieval, assigning visa #, stamp, signature) activity especially the retrieval part did not start on June 1, or June 13 but well before in mid May if not earlier.
5.) Now maybe they assigned the visa #'s to the approvable petitions (in line with the law) already but they are still going on with the stamp, signature part (as evidenced by people receiving approvals e-mails even on July 2nd and 3rd.. and other forums)
6.) Suspension of PPS at NSC and TSC -- Now why should that happen ?
If they have already used up the EB quota one would ask that much amount of man hours are now free isn't it !!?
But the above points might show us that they might need it to simply finish off the paperwork of the approvable petitions in the month of July. Remember signing off on 40K+ petitions is not a 1 month job, but just assigning visa numbers might be. It is very certain to me that we will see approvals well within July!
Loose ends:
1.) What baffles though is the allocation of all visa numbers before the last quarter of FY 07 ! Maybe there is loophole there that allowed them to do so.
2.) How did visa number for EB1 for a top scientist from say an undersubscribed country such as Ukraine also get used up ??!
1.) The contention that they followed the recommendations of the Omb report and went back to pre-1982 method cannot be true. They cannot follow that without violating 8 USC Section 1255 (b) which clearly states that a visa number is reduced AFTER the approval of the I-485.
2.)There were 40K visas remaining at the time of the Jun 13 bulletin according to AILA. The 60K number as per DoS might have been from end of May. We most note the fact from the CIS I-485 Standard Operating Procedure that when a petition is "documentarily qualified and approvable" a request is made for a visa number, if such number is not available that petition is put into a approved pending availability of visa number list. This makes it amply clear that the CIS knew the exact number of approvable petitions.(might be ~40-60K) The DoS might also have known that.
3.) So what happened ? Looks like the DoS did not expect the CIS to get those petitions quickly from storage, assign a visa number, stamp and sign petitions with the speed that CIS did it with. As a matter of fact, we can clearly deduce from inquiries made my petitioners in the month of May that soon after the June bulletin was released in May, the petitioners were informed by IO's that their files are now been retrieved and have been assigned to officers for approval in June !
4.) This shows that the CIS swift approval (i.e retrieval, assigning visa #, stamp, signature) activity especially the retrieval part did not start on June 1, or June 13 but well before in mid May if not earlier.
5.) Now maybe they assigned the visa #'s to the approvable petitions (in line with the law) already but they are still going on with the stamp, signature part (as evidenced by people receiving approvals e-mails even on July 2nd and 3rd.. and other forums)
6.) Suspension of PPS at NSC and TSC -- Now why should that happen ?
If they have already used up the EB quota one would ask that much amount of man hours are now free isn't it !!?
But the above points might show us that they might need it to simply finish off the paperwork of the approvable petitions in the month of July. Remember signing off on 40K+ petitions is not a 1 month job, but just assigning visa numbers might be. It is very certain to me that we will see approvals well within July!
Loose ends:
1.) What baffles though is the allocation of all visa numbers before the last quarter of FY 07 ! Maybe there is loophole there that allowed them to do so.
2.) How did visa number for EB1 for a top scientist from say an undersubscribed country such as Ukraine also get used up ??!
feedfront
09-21 12:23 PM
Hi Guys,
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
I am in tough spot. I was laid off from my GC sponsoring employer (A) in 2008 and joined another employer B . I did not do a AC21 notification. My dates are current and now I received an RFE to provide employment letter from current employer. The exact words of RFE are as follows:
"Submit a letter of employment attesting to applicant's current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead, citing the date the applicant began working, if a permanent full time position, the position offered, the position the applicant is currently working and the salary offered. Include corroborating evidence such as recent pay stubs, income tax returns, with all W2s or other evidence as appropriate. "
Now I am not working for original GC employer. I don't have a problem providing above from my current employer B. But whether the EVL should also mention that I am not working for GC sponsoring employer and that my current employers job profile is in same classification as previous based on AC21. Do I mention about the AC21 also in the letter? My current employer's attorneys are not that great but my current employer only wants me to use their own attorney.
Now here is the situation:
I have a job offer from another employer (Employer C) and they are in the middle of doing a H-1 transfer. In fact by tomorrow they will file the H1 paperwork. Now I don't know whether I should provide the letter from my potential new employer C . In that case, I won't be able to provide W2 or pay stubs until I join them. I have an opportunity to use my own attorney here (like murthy, Ron Gothcer..)
OR
should I provide a letter from my current employer using their attorneys and whether or not I should mention about AC21 in the employment letter.
Also they sent the RFE to my previous employer's attorney even though my current employer's attorney had sent the new G-28 forms. Can my current attorney respond to the RFE or will the response get rejected because USCIS still has old attorney on file.
Thanks.
Don't worry too much, just follow the instructions and respond. Well, I will suggest to use your current employer and their attorney as paperword will be smooth, efficient and fast.
You can hold your H1 transfer for a week or two till you don't respond.
I think your attorney (whoever you pick to work on RFE) will definitely mention AC-21 to keep it issueless.
I have also switched my employer and not filed AC-21. I've been sent RFE and that's what my attorney will do (I assume). I had asked him before (after switching job) if I needed to file AC21 letter. He said it's not mandatory and added that it can be handled if any RFEs are issued. Well, I did not send AC21 because he was asking for fee and I did not want to DIY project on such important. He's my previous employer's attorney.
I think for these RFEs you don't need great attorney as case is not complex. I think anything will work as long as you've not misused any GC's requirements.
Good Luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment