priti8888
07-25 02:30 PM
We applied in Nebraska in August 2003, Cleared in State on August 29th 2003, Transferred to Chicago DOL on Sept 1st 2003..Got Certfied on Oct 16th 2003...So yes..in some states Labor was VERY Quick.
I agree. Ours was transfered to Denver DOL and got certified in 5 months
I agree. Ours was transfered to Denver DOL and got certified in 5 months
Green.Tech
06-21 11:07 AM
...to lobby for these bills.
Please revive the funding drive by your valuable contribution.
Please revive the funding drive by your valuable contribution.
yabadaba
08-10 12:40 PM
no receipts for me too :( r Williams 7:55am 07/02
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
i m going go drinking to drown my sorrows soon.
jungalee43
03-05 10:05 PM
My application was cleared before the BEC were started.
My PD is March-2003 and I didn't get the labor cleared till Late 2006
I just can't help wondering how did you get your labor in 2004 with the PD of May-2003? How come snake of BEC didn't bite you? :)
My PD is March-2003 and I didn't get the labor cleared till Late 2006
I just can't help wondering how did you get your labor in 2004 with the PD of May-2003? How come snake of BEC didn't bite you? :)
more...
sracharla
09-04 10:59 AM
Hi,
I live in colorado...my H1B is going to expire Oct 27...I have not applied for H1B Extn. yet...But i have EAD...According to colorado DMV i should be able to use EAD for driving license extn...but does using EAD invalidates my H1B??...i am planning to apply for my H1B extn this week...but i won't be able to get approval in 3 weeks (assuming i do premium processing)...Please help me.
I live in colorado...my H1B is going to expire Oct 27...I have not applied for H1B Extn. yet...But i have EAD...According to colorado DMV i should be able to use EAD for driving license extn...but does using EAD invalidates my H1B??...i am planning to apply for my H1B extn this week...but i won't be able to get approval in 3 weeks (assuming i do premium processing)...Please help me.
belmontboy
05-13 11:05 PM
� I-140 filed 05/04/2007
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
� I-140 approved 09/04/2007.� I-485 filed on 07/02/2007.
� Changed jobs on 07/14//2008 (after 1 year of pending I-485)
� Soft LUD on I-140 02/03/2009 (possible revocation of I-140 from my previous employer)
� got I-485 denial notice on 02/18/2009
� filed MTR on 02/27/2009
� MTR dismissed on 03/26/2009 (on the grounds that I-140 was denied on 09/04/2009)
� filed second MTR on 04/23/2009
� soft LUDs on the second MTR on 04/27/2009 and 04/28/2009
was ur first MTR denied in error?
as per you, your I-140 was never denied.
more...
nlssubbu
10-01 12:25 PM
Macaca, thanks for the analysis.
My question is, is IV paying enough attention to this?
What I have seen is that IV is spending 80% of its energy to change the current immigration law (increase the EB visa numbers in some fashion etc.). As far as I can see, this is not going any where due to a variety of reasons.
Is it time to rethink our priorities? If we put more of our collective energy to force USCIS to do a better job, will we get better results? Sure, the immigration law needs fixing. But our predicament is not due to immigration law. Our predicament is that the USCIS is not doing a good job. They are only working 4 hours a day. (I saw a post from a person who went and looked around the USCIS parking lot on a Friday :D. He/She says the parking lot was empty in the afternoon.).
I suggest that the IV core spend 80% of energy in fixing the USCIS bottleneck. We should have another rally infront of the USCIS doorsteps (or a flower campaign or a card campaign or a degree copy sending campaign). 20% of the energy can still be spent on fixing immigration law.
I do not think that USCIS bottleneck alone could cause such a huge retrogression. I do agree that USCIS should increase their efficiency and should not waste visa every year. Though it is definite that using all the visas allocated efficiently will help, this alone do not reduce retrogression to a greater extent.
IV is looking in the right direction in the long term. I am of the opinion that, we as affected by the USCIS, can take it up to make them accountable for the loss.
Thanks
My question is, is IV paying enough attention to this?
What I have seen is that IV is spending 80% of its energy to change the current immigration law (increase the EB visa numbers in some fashion etc.). As far as I can see, this is not going any where due to a variety of reasons.
Is it time to rethink our priorities? If we put more of our collective energy to force USCIS to do a better job, will we get better results? Sure, the immigration law needs fixing. But our predicament is not due to immigration law. Our predicament is that the USCIS is not doing a good job. They are only working 4 hours a day. (I saw a post from a person who went and looked around the USCIS parking lot on a Friday :D. He/She says the parking lot was empty in the afternoon.).
I suggest that the IV core spend 80% of energy in fixing the USCIS bottleneck. We should have another rally infront of the USCIS doorsteps (or a flower campaign or a card campaign or a degree copy sending campaign). 20% of the energy can still be spent on fixing immigration law.
I do not think that USCIS bottleneck alone could cause such a huge retrogression. I do agree that USCIS should increase their efficiency and should not waste visa every year. Though it is definite that using all the visas allocated efficiently will help, this alone do not reduce retrogression to a greater extent.
IV is looking in the right direction in the long term. I am of the opinion that, we as affected by the USCIS, can take it up to make them accountable for the loss.
Thanks
offohh
08-02 05:27 PM
Paisa read the Jan 2007 VB archive. hopefully you will understand what i am talking about.
more...
Abhi_OneDay
08-24 03:20 PM
My I-140 was filed in EB2 on the 18th of August and I was heart broken this morning when I came across this memo on IV this morning....I do not have a US Masters and was banking on my Bachelors + 5 years to qualify....My attorney sent me the following reply
"This memo deals with the EB-1 category and the memo does not talk about the EB-2 category. Your I-140 was filed for an EB-2 position and you should not worry about this memo."
Not sure about her comments, what do u guys think?
I was also doing some research online and found that EB-2 "Exceptional Ability" is different from EB-2 with "Advanced Degree Professionals" on . Looks like the 10+ years has always been the criteria for "exceptional ability" and most of us who are looking to substitute our work experience for Advanced degree do not fall into this category.
Please let me know what you guys think?
"This memo deals with the EB-1 category and the memo does not talk about the EB-2 category. Your I-140 was filed for an EB-2 position and you should not worry about this memo."
Not sure about her comments, what do u guys think?
I was also doing some research online and found that EB-2 "Exceptional Ability" is different from EB-2 with "Advanced Degree Professionals" on . Looks like the 10+ years has always been the criteria for "exceptional ability" and most of us who are looking to substitute our work experience for Advanced degree do not fall into this category.
Please let me know what you guys think?
diptam
07-06 01:07 PM
Badluck,
Expensive or cheap - Please name him and the contact details.
May be we want to set up a small appointment with him - who knows, Thousands of possibilities.
Why aren't you giving the name & contact details ????
Thanks dude
Thats what he is saying.. he is an expensive lawyer...
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
Expensive or cheap - Please name him and the contact details.
May be we want to set up a small appointment with him - who knows, Thousands of possibilities.
Why aren't you giving the name & contact details ????
Thanks dude
Thats what he is saying.. he is an expensive lawyer...
and about crap---who the hell are you to decide... if you dont like then just ignore the post...
more...
jonty_11
07-06 01:18 PM
Forgot in a hurry, it is updated now
no problem buddy, I just dont want u getting caught plagializing....just kidding!
Hope for thebest..I am hoping rumors abt accepting all July applications turn out true
no problem buddy, I just dont want u getting caught plagializing....just kidding!
Hope for thebest..I am hoping rumors abt accepting all July applications turn out true
9years
11-16 08:10 AM
Update. My attorney has sent a letter (interfiling process) to USCIS mentioning that my case is current now. One of my friends got 485 approved within 2 weeks after initiating interfiling process. I hope it would be the same case with me.
Thank you for sharing VayuMahesh. I hope I have to do the same. Can you please share, is there any form he has to fill while doing this or he has to write a letter.
Thank you for sharing VayuMahesh. I hope I have to do the same. Can you please share, is there any form he has to fill while doing this or he has to write a letter.
more...
CADude
07-06 01:42 PM
I am 100% agree!! Two Govt Dept has their own ego and problems. They didn't work in tandem. Now they have to face the music of AILF. :D
For sure DoS knew that something is wrong at USCIS end. Looks like they dint get along well on this one. So instead of saying that all the visa numbers has been used up, they said " all the entire 2007 numbers has been made available". Which means they know very well USCIS are still processing the cases, even after July 2nd.
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
For sure DoS knew that something is wrong at USCIS end. Looks like they dint get along well on this one. So instead of saying that all the visa numbers has been used up, they said " all the entire 2007 numbers has been made available". Which means they know very well USCIS are still processing the cases, even after July 2nd.
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
bskrishna
07-11 12:14 PM
Yes there will be dates in Oct. but will that be 2006 Jan.? That is what karanp25 means.
And answer is it probably will not be. We can look back the bulletin on May and June 2007. Are they match Oct. 2007 bulletin ?
07 case is different. we can't infer much from that. I hope DOS has some insight into the no of pending cases when the move dates like this. I am sure there will be language in the actual bulletin that saves them from flak when the move dates back. The primary aim is to utilize the visa nos. But with all the information available to them the movement should be proportional to the nos available from spillover and etc.,
And answer is it probably will not be. We can look back the bulletin on May and June 2007. Are they match Oct. 2007 bulletin ?
07 case is different. we can't infer much from that. I hope DOS has some insight into the no of pending cases when the move dates like this. I am sure there will be language in the actual bulletin that saves them from flak when the move dates back. The primary aim is to utilize the visa nos. But with all the information available to them the movement should be proportional to the nos available from spillover and etc.,
more...
amsgc
04-02 08:57 PM
Dude, I asked where do you go and rate the post. No wonder ssnd calls you dumb.
On the top right corner of this post, there is a "scale". Click on it! :)
On the top right corner of this post, there is a "scale". Click on it! :)
matreen
10-17 01:58 AM
Guys,
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
desi485
11-19 03:29 PM
desi, thank you for sharing above. Can some one clarify what RG means by "beyond his control exception"???
is this a standard CIS term? Have anyone heard this term before? If it is a common term used while appeals or MTRs, I would say, RG is correct. However I haven't come across this before.
AFAIK, it is a legal term.
is this a standard CIS term? Have anyone heard this term before? If it is a common term used while appeals or MTRs, I would say, RG is correct. However I haven't come across this before.
AFAIK, it is a legal term.
nk2006
07-06 01:10 PM
He is trying to spin a news and get a answer of his comfort. Guyz never stop :)
The way DOS/USCIS behaved last couple weeks anything is possilbe - now its very easy to spin news. If someone comes here and says USCIS will not accept any applications for next two years - many of us might think "logically" and suspect the news - but last week proved that logic and USCIS/DOS dont go together.
Anything is possible with is freaking idiotic dumbass orgnanization. Now I can feel a bit better - at least for next 30 mts. :)
The way DOS/USCIS behaved last couple weeks anything is possilbe - now its very easy to spin news. If someone comes here and says USCIS will not accept any applications for next two years - many of us might think "logically" and suspect the news - but last week proved that logic and USCIS/DOS dont go together.
Anything is possible with is freaking idiotic dumbass orgnanization. Now I can feel a bit better - at least for next 30 mts. :)
chintu25
07-15 05:06 PM
Contributed 10
Transaction Number 4190845
Transaction Number 4190845
reddy77
08-18 08:07 AM
Lacris, I went to SSA office to get SSN rejection letter for my wife as she is on h4 (DMV needs rejection letter to renew the license) and SSA Agent checked the passport of my wife for the expiry date, May be they are checking the expiry date now a days, I think you need to renew the passport and go to SSA office for SSN, But I may be wrong
Hi, ,
Did anyone get a SSN with their passport expired?
My passport expired in April and the Romanian embassy doesn't renew passports for people who are not US permanent residents or citizens. What I could do was to make a letter of representation for someone in my country, get it certified at one of the Romanian consulates and send all the ORIGINAL documents thru mail in Romania. Since I'm a full time graduate student, even finding time to go to the nearest consulate was almost impossible. I was also worried that we might be asked to show up for an interview and would not have documents like passport or marriage certificate in hand. I talked to the lawyer and she said that if I don't plan to travel abroad, not having a valid passport is ok.
Yesterday I got the plastic card and today I went to apply for a SSN. The lady I talked to refused to take my application, saying that my Romanian passport is considered an "immigration document" and until I have an unexpired one, I should not try to get a SSN. Call me crazy, but since I am a permanent resident doesn't it mean I don't have to leave USA unless I want to???? And even more, how can a document issued by a foreign country be an immigration document, since I'm not applying for SSN based on a visa stamped in that passport.
If anyone went thru the same situation or has some advice for me, please answer.
Thank you
Hi, ,
Did anyone get a SSN with their passport expired?
My passport expired in April and the Romanian embassy doesn't renew passports for people who are not US permanent residents or citizens. What I could do was to make a letter of representation for someone in my country, get it certified at one of the Romanian consulates and send all the ORIGINAL documents thru mail in Romania. Since I'm a full time graduate student, even finding time to go to the nearest consulate was almost impossible. I was also worried that we might be asked to show up for an interview and would not have documents like passport or marriage certificate in hand. I talked to the lawyer and she said that if I don't plan to travel abroad, not having a valid passport is ok.
Yesterday I got the plastic card and today I went to apply for a SSN. The lady I talked to refused to take my application, saying that my Romanian passport is considered an "immigration document" and until I have an unexpired one, I should not try to get a SSN. Call me crazy, but since I am a permanent resident doesn't it mean I don't have to leave USA unless I want to???? And even more, how can a document issued by a foreign country be an immigration document, since I'm not applying for SSN based on a visa stamped in that passport.
If anyone went thru the same situation or has some advice for me, please answer.
Thank you
rkotamurthy
12-28 06:21 PM
I just registered on this website today. I like the professionalism and commitment of the members on this forum. I would like to contribute to the efforts in promoting the cause. Please let me know any activities/campaings planned by So Cal members.
No comments:
Post a Comment