RNGC
02-05 04:41 PM
My H1 extension expires on March 08, Have EAD, Work for the same employer who sponsered my GC.
Does my employer has to apply for my H1 extension ? Should I use EAD to work with my same employer (what paper work I have to do ?).
Hypothical question, If I use EAD to work, lets say there is a delay in getting my EAD renewed even though I apply 120 days in advance, should I stop working and start working only after I get my new EAD ??
Some may find these as irrelvant thoughts/questions, but we are in this limbo state and it is better to know.
Thanks.
Does my employer has to apply for my H1 extension ? Should I use EAD to work with my same employer (what paper work I have to do ?).
Hypothical question, If I use EAD to work, lets say there is a delay in getting my EAD renewed even though I apply 120 days in advance, should I stop working and start working only after I get my new EAD ??
Some may find these as irrelvant thoughts/questions, but we are in this limbo state and it is better to know.
Thanks.
omved
05-05 02:25 AM
Gurus / Attorney,
Please suggest..
I got RFE for my employment verification and bona fide marital status..I have following questions..
I am still working on current position but my salary is more now compared to two years ago when I submitted my I485. Both past and current salary is more than Labor requirement. In my employment verification RFE letter, should I mention my current salary OR would it be a problem for I485 petition.
I am submitting joint tax return as a proof of bona fide marital status. My annual modified gross income is more than my current salary as a result of yearend bonus. Once again, I hope it won't create a problem for I485 application.
I would highly appreciate your any advice in this regard.
Thanks,
EB2 - India / PD 04/06, I485 receipt date 09/07
Please suggest..
I got RFE for my employment verification and bona fide marital status..I have following questions..
I am still working on current position but my salary is more now compared to two years ago when I submitted my I485. Both past and current salary is more than Labor requirement. In my employment verification RFE letter, should I mention my current salary OR would it be a problem for I485 petition.
I am submitting joint tax return as a proof of bona fide marital status. My annual modified gross income is more than my current salary as a result of yearend bonus. Once again, I hope it won't create a problem for I485 application.
I would highly appreciate your any advice in this regard.
Thanks,
EB2 - India / PD 04/06, I485 receipt date 09/07
willigetgc?
01-03 11:53 AM
There have been new enforcement policies at the federal and state level, mostly targeted at known criminals who are also in violation of immigration laws, but while the huffing and puffing over immigration in Congress and on Beacon Hill has been fierce, no legislation has resulted.
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
pappu
02-02 02:54 PM
House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Naturalization
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
On January 17, the House Immigration Subcommittee held its first oversight hearing of the year, and the subject was the naturalization processing backlogs. Due to a confluence of factors, including a very significant fee increase that went into effect on July 30, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received approximately double the number of naturalization applications in its Fiscal Year 2007 than it had during the previous year. USCIS is saying that, as of now, anyone who applied for naturalization after June 1, 2007, can expect to wait 16 to 18 months to have their application processed.
Remarks by Subcommittee Members
In her opening comment, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chair of the Subcommittee, noted that one year ago, the Subcommittee had a hearing on the proposed fee increase, and was told by USCIS that it need the fee increase to increase efficiency. At the time, the processing time for citizenship applications was six months.
Representative Steve King (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee, played the role of immigration historian. In his opening statement (and in his questioning), he focused almost exclusively on the INS� Citizenship USA program of ten years ago�back in the day before computers were standard issue in the immigration agency. In that effort to deal with a naturalization backlog, some applicants were granted citizenship before criminal background checks were completed, and some who received citizenship were found later not to be eligible. (Since then, however, much more stringent processes have been put in place to screen applications for naturalization. And the agency now does have computers.)
USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez
Emilio Gonzalez, Director of USCIS, gave some background on the development of the backlog and summarized what USCIS was doing about it. During June, July, and August of last year, USCIS received three million immigration benefit applications of all kinds. Their first priority was issuing receipts for those applications. Next, they processed and sent work authorizations, which they are required to do within 90 days.
In the meantime, a large number of naturalization applications piled up. To deal with the extra workload, USCIS is hiring 1,500 new employees (in addition to the extra staff they planned to hire after the new fees went into effect). The agency is also re-hiring former (retired) employees. While waiting for the additional staff to be trained and deployed, the agency will be asking current staff to work overtime, using budgeted overtime early in the Fiscal Year.
Other steps are also being taken. Still, Mr. Gonzalez noted (in his written testimony) that it will take until the third quarter of Fiscal Year 2010 before the agency is back to a six-month processing time.
During the question and answer session, there was a fair amount of discussion about a portion of the backlog that preceded the surge in applications and was caused by a delay in the background checks conducted by the FBI. Some individuals have been in limbo for well over a year waiting for clearance from the FBI, and Mr. Gonzalez noted that last year more than 5,000 lawsuits were filed against the agency�80% on the FBI name check delays. The FBI, he said, has a paper-based system that is only beginning to be addressed. For now, it takes people to handle the files. The FBI has brought on some additional contract personnel and full-time employees to work on this problem.
Rep. Lofgren said that she would ask the FBI to come before the Subcommittee to explain its perspective on the name check delays. [Subsequently, we were told that the full Judiciary Committee will have a hearing with the FBI on a range of issues, including the name check issue.]
Non-Government Witnesses
Also testifying at the hearing were Arturo Vargas, Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and Fred Tsao, Policy Director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Mr. Vargas said that his organization kept USCIS apprised of its efforts to get immigrants to become citizens and the agency should have taken that information, plus experience with past fee increases, into account to take steps to be better prepared for the surge in applications. NALEO is recommending that the agency focus sufficiently on reducing the backlog so that all immigrants who applied for naturalization in Fiscal Year 2007 (which ended September 30, 2007) are sworn in as citizens by July 4, 2008. Otherwise, many immigrants who applied for citizenship last summer will not be able to vote in the elections this November.
Mr. Tsao echoed the point about USCIS having ample information that a surge in applications was coming. He recommended that USCIS (and the FBI) report regularly to the Subcommittee regarding progress being made on reducing the backlog.
In concluding the hearing, Rep. Lofgren suggested that she might also conduct a hearing on the agency�s information technology.
Additional Information
In a subsequent meeting with community-based organizations, Michael Aytes, Associate Director for Domestic Operations of USCIS, gave some additional specifics on the status of the naturalization backlogs. He noted that the total number of new employees being hired will be approximately 3,000�between the additional staff they are hiring to deal with the backlog and the extra staff being paid for by the fee increases. Regarding the FBI name check issue, he noted that, during the House hearing, every member of the Subcommittee�Republican and Democrat�inquired about the name check issue, and that this issue is now being dealt with at high levels both in the Justice Department (in which the FBI is located) and in DHS. He indicated that decisions have been made on the hiring of many of the new adjudicators that are being brought on board, but training and placement are still weeks away, at least.
He also said that the agency is starting Saturday and evening interviews, and applicants should be encouraged to make every effort to show up for their interviews.
more...
nav_kri
03-20 09:54 PM
"USCIS said EAWA applies to any Labour Condition Application (LCA) and/or H-1B petition filed on or after February 17, involving any employment by a new employer, including concurrent employment and regardless of whether the beneficiary is already in H-1B status."
Is "employment by a new employer" H1B transfer? What does "concurrent employment" mean?
Is "employment by a new employer" H1B transfer? What does "concurrent employment" mean?
GCOP
03-30 02:36 PM
Sorry to learn your situation and wish you good Luck to pass the exam, next time when you will the chance of re-entry. Hopefully you will get that chance very soon. Also thanks for sharing your story. Once again, Good Luck to you.
more...
amalshe
08-24 03:23 PM
Hi guys,
I know J Barrett has been a star of this forum for a while.
I just wanted to check if anyone in a similar situation as mine as received any update on their 485.
140 approved from TSC in May 2006; LUD on 7/28
485 received at NSC on July 2, 2007
485 received and Signed for by J Barrett at 10:25 AM
Thanks.
I know J Barrett has been a star of this forum for a while.
I just wanted to check if anyone in a similar situation as mine as received any update on their 485.
140 approved from TSC in May 2006; LUD on 7/28
485 received at NSC on July 2, 2007
485 received and Signed for by J Barrett at 10:25 AM
Thanks.
thesparky007
04-25 07:25 PM
thanks
slowroasted
slowroasted
more...
roseball
04-04 02:21 PM
Hello Everyone, I have one specific issue.
My Priority date is May 2007, and i am under 3rd category h1b 3-years extension at the moment in the USA. I140 has been approved and i am waiting for priority date to be current so i can apply for i485. but its taking too long because of the backlog. What are my overseas travelling options during this LOOONG waiting period.
Can me and my wife (holding h4) travel overseas while waiting for the priority date to be current? like i said we have an approved i140 and h1b 3-years approval notice, but have not yet applied for i485 as we are waiting for priority date to be current. please help? anyone is the same situation?
Just use your valid H1/H4 visa for travel. If you had applied for I-485, then you would have had an extra option to apply and use AP for travel. Since you haven't filed I-485 yet, you can continue to use H1/H4 visa for travel while you wait to file I-485. Btw, if you are already over your 6 year H1 visa limit, then having an approved I-140 entitles you to get 3 yr H1 extensions whenever you are due for H1 renewal.
My Priority date is May 2007, and i am under 3rd category h1b 3-years extension at the moment in the USA. I140 has been approved and i am waiting for priority date to be current so i can apply for i485. but its taking too long because of the backlog. What are my overseas travelling options during this LOOONG waiting period.
Can me and my wife (holding h4) travel overseas while waiting for the priority date to be current? like i said we have an approved i140 and h1b 3-years approval notice, but have not yet applied for i485 as we are waiting for priority date to be current. please help? anyone is the same situation?
Just use your valid H1/H4 visa for travel. If you had applied for I-485, then you would have had an extra option to apply and use AP for travel. Since you haven't filed I-485 yet, you can continue to use H1/H4 visa for travel while you wait to file I-485. Btw, if you are already over your 6 year H1 visa limit, then having an approved I-140 entitles you to get 3 yr H1 extensions whenever you are due for H1 renewal.
MightyIndian
11-05 06:11 PM
Is VFS the only site to book appointments (for HYD) as well ? I hear the news that HYD is operational but I don't see it in on VFS website to take an appointment - I need one for 1st week of Dec
I beleive the Hyderabad Consulate will be fully functional only by the end of 2008. So we can assume that it starts offering visa services in early 2009. Until then the web site suggests to go to Chennai Consulate.
http://hyderabad.usconsulate.gov/visa_services.html
I beleive the Hyderabad Consulate will be fully functional only by the end of 2008. So we can assume that it starts offering visa services in early 2009. Until then the web site suggests to go to Chennai Consulate.
http://hyderabad.usconsulate.gov/visa_services.html
more...
kaisersose
07-26 11:14 AM
I havenot received the I-485 receipt yet , is it mandatory?
I would think so. Better to wait for a couple of weeks and apply for your EAD along with the 485 receipt.
I would think so. Better to wait for a couple of weeks and apply for your EAD along with the 485 receipt.
fcres
08-08 10:11 AM
What i have heard is that the RFE for I140 are mostly for ability to pay and for educational qualifications.
more...
ss1026
11-05 09:39 AM
Can CBN get us green cards too? :D
He is the ex-chief minister of Andhra pradesh, a state in India of which Hyderabad is the Capital. As for CBN's agenda, he is too concerned about his chances of getting re-elected to worry about other things. My take.
He is the ex-chief minister of Andhra pradesh, a state in India of which Hyderabad is the Capital. As for CBN's agenda, he is too concerned about his chances of getting re-elected to worry about other things. My take.
belmontboy
07-14 09:33 PM
When my AP came up for renewal my attorney asked to get new set of photos.
In addition my cousin's EAD application got RFE'ed to get new set of photos even though the photos were recent. The reason given was that they had used same photos to renew their visa few months back (less than 6 months).
Is USCIS coming up some new rule about photos being 'unused' ?? The guidelines say that photos should be recent (taken in last 6 months). However nowhere I do I see that the photos should be 'unused' previously ?
Anyone else had same experience ?
hmm... and here i am wondering for last 10 years "why cannot i reuse stamps "
In addition my cousin's EAD application got RFE'ed to get new set of photos even though the photos were recent. The reason given was that they had used same photos to renew their visa few months back (less than 6 months).
Is USCIS coming up some new rule about photos being 'unused' ?? The guidelines say that photos should be recent (taken in last 6 months). However nowhere I do I see that the photos should be 'unused' previously ?
Anyone else had same experience ?
hmm... and here i am wondering for last 10 years "why cannot i reuse stamps "
more...
desixp
03-22 12:24 AM
Tragic accident in MO. My heartfelt sympathies to the families.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_us/mo_officer_fatal_accident
DesiXP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_us/mo_officer_fatal_accident
DesiXP
fromnaija
11-02 04:51 PM
First, cross chargeability is available ONLY if you have a spouse whose country of birth is different than yours. So get married first and then come back and ask the remainder of your questions.
more...
nixstor
10-24 03:33 PM
In my opinion its just one of the marketing gimmicks of Y! See how it works
http://news.yahoo.com/s/judy_woodruff/20060823/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff10015
Similar lines ask the white house program. many people in the forum sent Q's to USCIS director and he didnt chose even one Q about retrogression or labor situation etc..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/judy_woodruff/20060823/judy_woodruff/j_woodruff10015
Similar lines ask the white house program. many people in the forum sent Q's to USCIS director and he didnt chose even one Q about retrogression or labor situation etc..
Ann Ruben
01-29 11:23 PM
Thomson,
I think you should probably consult a good local immigration attorney who should have some access to the IO or his supervisor so that the AOS is not improperly denied. I don't know how useful an infopass appointment would be. That can vary greatly from office to office.
If the AOS is denied, you can refile or you can file a motion to reconsider. There are significant filing fees for both, as well as delay.
I think you should probably consult a good local immigration attorney who should have some access to the IO or his supervisor so that the AOS is not improperly denied. I don't know how useful an infopass appointment would be. That can vary greatly from office to office.
If the AOS is denied, you can refile or you can file a motion to reconsider. There are significant filing fees for both, as well as delay.
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.
Googler
02-20 09:58 PM
Thanks for the correction Googler. I transposed the % into a K value! My bad. However my larger point remains.
Yes, and that issue has been acknowledged by every version of the CIR bill -- EB-1's annual limit was reduced, and EB-3's was increased. Never mind that they also sometimes reduced EB-2's annual limit when STEM exemptions were included in the bill.
Yes, and that issue has been acknowledged by every version of the CIR bill -- EB-1's annual limit was reduced, and EB-3's was increased. Never mind that they also sometimes reduced EB-2's annual limit when STEM exemptions were included in the bill.
god_bless_you
07-18 09:17 PM
You can apply from your Wife's company for that You will be dependent and her's will be primary.
When submitting you need to enter Alien numbers obtained from the first filing.
The critical part of applying like this is both the I 485 receipts SHOULD get same A# associated.
Once one 485 is approved USCIS will cancel the other or you can write th service center where pending I 485 is to cancel with all related details.,
HAVING MORE OPTIONS IS ALWAYS BETTER!!
When submitting you need to enter Alien numbers obtained from the first filing.
The critical part of applying like this is both the I 485 receipts SHOULD get same A# associated.
Once one 485 is approved USCIS will cancel the other or you can write th service center where pending I 485 is to cancel with all related details.,
HAVING MORE OPTIONS IS ALWAYS BETTER!!
0 comments:
Post a Comment