anjs
08-10 09:56 PM
I am in for this.
anjs
anjs
wallpaper never-ending family tree.
rbms
11-01 01:28 AM
Nrc2008063600
sprash
01-30 01:51 PM
Hi had an RFE when my dates were not current. Here is the scan of my RFE notice.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
Hope the scan helps you prepare in advance the necessary documentation.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEMine.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b337/sprash/RFEWife.jpg
I had discussed this in the following thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=296497#post296497
My *guess* is that the revoking of previous H1b has triggered this RFE --- When my wife's previous employer canceled her H1b it took a few months before her already approved h1b petition was reopened (as per USCIS online).
The suspense must be terrible!
Good luck.
2011 plot from Kareena Kapoor#39;s
vamsi_poondla
09-26 10:55 PM
I don't know who senthil1 is, nor do i care. If you nothing to reply please don't waste white space. My comments are not to stir up arguments but an observation.
IV is sticking to employment based green card reforms. Green Card == Immigrant Visa. So, it would be silly not to use 'immigrant' in this context.
IV is not for just those currently in the 485/140 stage. It will be for future green card applicants as well and that includes H1Bs and F1 holders.
IV is sticking to employment based green card reforms. Green Card == Immigrant Visa. So, it would be silly not to use 'immigrant' in this context.
IV is not for just those currently in the 485/140 stage. It will be for future green card applicants as well and that includes H1Bs and F1 holders.
more...
nitlsu
11-20 05:37 PM
Here's the correct link,
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/afm_ch22_091206R.pdf
ps57002
09-19 03:44 PM
For next rally...slogan
Legal vs Illegal Immigration
Do YOU know the difference?
or
Legal vs. Illegal Immigration
Know the difference...
This is to prompt people's curiosity that there is a difference in the two and to have them educate themselves. Otherwise as said, all "immigration" to most people means "illegal immigration".
Legal vs Illegal Immigration
Do YOU know the difference?
or
Legal vs. Illegal Immigration
Know the difference...
This is to prompt people's curiosity that there is a difference in the two and to have them educate themselves. Otherwise as said, all "immigration" to most people means "illegal immigration".
more...
nixstor
07-05 12:20 PM
Who was the Einstein who came up with this suggestion...
No Desi brethren will connect if you make it paid. Just tell me how many would use google if google charged you 1c for a search.
Each one of you guys, instead send emails to big media outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBS and FOX. In the email, send I-485 story and the following link that states Rep Lofgren's statement.
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1808
Rax
No one needs to be Einsten to come up with this.
IV is not desi. IV = folks affected by retrogression and othe immigration issues
Comparing Google and IV is like comparing apples and oranges. Still to answer your Q, Google has other ways to make money. IV has none.
I have sent Rep Lofgren's link to a lot of reporters.
No Desi brethren will connect if you make it paid. Just tell me how many would use google if google charged you 1c for a search.
Each one of you guys, instead send emails to big media outlets such as CNN, ABC, CBS and FOX. In the email, send I-485 story and the following link that states Rep Lofgren's statement.
http://lofgren.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1808
Rax
No one needs to be Einsten to come up with this.
IV is not desi. IV = folks affected by retrogression and othe immigration issues
Comparing Google and IV is like comparing apples and oranges. Still to answer your Q, Google has other ways to make money. IV has none.
I have sent Rep Lofgren's link to a lot of reporters.
2010 Any family tree is incomplete
goosetavo
06-30 09:20 PM
My company has just told all employees that became current and were planning on filing in July that the historical revision is VERY likely to happen on Monday or Tuesday. If you have the I-485 documents in your hand SEND THEM NOW!
If not (my case, my lawyer is still getting them ready), hold tight and see what happens. I swear that if USCIS screws me (and thousands more) next week I will join a class-action lawsuit against USCIS. This is outrageous, I couldn't believe the news when I heard it. I just hope it's wrong but even Murphy's site says it's 95-98% likely.
Our stress, frustration, wasted time and money will cost them dearly if they attempt this travesty.
If not (my case, my lawyer is still getting them ready), hold tight and see what happens. I swear that if USCIS screws me (and thousands more) next week I will join a class-action lawsuit against USCIS. This is outrageous, I couldn't believe the news when I heard it. I just hope it's wrong but even Murphy's site says it's 95-98% likely.
Our stress, frustration, wasted time and money will cost them dearly if they attempt this travesty.
more...
dummgelauft
05-29 10:25 AM
I Wish the border patrol was doing its job more efficiently and doing more searches not less. This way !@#$% illegals would be kicked out and our immigration process wouldnt be held hostage by them.
I live near the Mexican border. There are border check points everywhere when you leave the city. They will stop you, ask you your status. First time I didnt have my passport or anything. He checked my drivers license and politely reminded me about the requirement to carry immigration documents. Since then, I always carry a copy of passport and H1B and have never had any problems.
I hate it when people cry and feel like they are being persecuted when asked to follow the law.
Exactly my thoughts too. How difficult is it to have a copy of your visa, passport and I-94 in each of your vehicles..!!
If you are using EAD, even better, carry the darned EAD card in your pocket...
I agree, they need to step this effort up and get these bloody illegals out. For years now, they have held the entire immigration system in a limbo.
I am from a border state in India too. The entire border is fenced with 15 feet high razor wire fence and there are BSF personnel who watch it like a hawk. If anyone tries touching that fence, much less sneak in, they will shoot him between your eyes.
The Mexican border needs to be handed over to the US army or the National Guard.
I live near the Mexican border. There are border check points everywhere when you leave the city. They will stop you, ask you your status. First time I didnt have my passport or anything. He checked my drivers license and politely reminded me about the requirement to carry immigration documents. Since then, I always carry a copy of passport and H1B and have never had any problems.
I hate it when people cry and feel like they are being persecuted when asked to follow the law.
Exactly my thoughts too. How difficult is it to have a copy of your visa, passport and I-94 in each of your vehicles..!!
If you are using EAD, even better, carry the darned EAD card in your pocket...
I agree, they need to step this effort up and get these bloody illegals out. For years now, they have held the entire immigration system in a limbo.
I am from a border state in India too. The entire border is fenced with 15 feet high razor wire fence and there are BSF personnel who watch it like a hawk. If anyone tries touching that fence, much less sneak in, they will shoot him between your eyes.
The Mexican border needs to be handed over to the US army or the National Guard.
hair VIRANI#39;S FAMILY TREE
Caliber
03-12 08:56 AM
To understand what IV has done, all you have to do is, open your eyes
more...
drirshad
07-04 09:35 PM
immigration-law.com
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
07/04/2007: Status and Issues Involving July 2007 485 Fiasco
* The AILF work on the lawsuit appears to be in progress without any hurdles. It has reported that enough candidates have come forward to participate in the lawsuit as the plaintiffs and it does not need any more candidates to move forward for the lawsuit. Some of other people are likely to be covered as members of the class action regardless of their actual participation in the lawsuit. People should send "THANK YOU" to the AILF Legal Action Center leaders and the attorneys who are actually working on this case. Some contribution to the AILF may be more than appropriate. Please visit the AILF site to learn how they can send in contribution.
#
# We have been asked by the readers to report the alleged conspiracy theory. We declined to do it. However, people may want to know potential issues that should be answered and explored. We will discuss these issues on following hypotehtical premises:
* Presumption of Facts: (1) The I-485 applications have been experiencing a tremendous backlog lately. (2) The causes for the backlog have been known to be delays in the security checks. Some of these applicants have sought a relief in federal courts in the form of mandamus actions. (3) Allegedly, the USCIS pull together local and Service Center employees and pull out pending I-485 cases which were older than six months in backlog, working overtime and during the weekend right before July 1, 2007. This is an assumption at this point. (4) As evidenced by the revised Visa Bulletin, apparently these employees contacted "en mass" the DOS to request the visa numbers for these pending I-485 cases, which the DOS reported in the release of the revised VB turned out exceeding 60,000. (5) The rule requires that the USCIS approves I-485 cases "prior to" to contacting and requesting a visa number. (6) The current USCIS policy and procedure also require that I-485 applications be adjudicated and approved "only after" the completion of clearance of the security checks.
* Issue I: Hypothetically, what happens if the USCIS takes out the visa number before they obtain the security clearace?
o Answer I: Obviously it would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: It will constitue a serious security lapse, compromising the homeland security.
* Issue II: Hypothetically, what hppens if the USCIS requests and takes out the visa numbers prior to adjudication and approval of the pending I-485 applications?
o Answer I: It is evident that the USCIS would violate the rules and the laws.
o Answer II: There could be two probable consequences affecting the backlog I-485 applicants and the new July Visa Bulletin eligible I-485 applicants, shoud the hypothetical facts develop. (1) The backlog I-485 applicants who have been issued I-485 approval notices should not be affected by the fiasco, albeit the potential revocation of the I-485 approvals. In most cases, revocation of the approved I-485 requires the time-consuming immigration court proceedings, assuming that the USCIS has a sufficient cause of action which may be questionable in this case. (2) The backlog I-485 applicants who have yet to receive the approval notice and the USCIS has yet to adjudicate and approve the application might be vulnerable in that the USCIS might be required to return the visa numbers for these cases as there was an error. Hypothetically, these numbers could be returned to the State Department and based on these returned number, the State Department might be required to revise the July Visa Bulletin again.
hot The family of Anisah Mahmood
spicy_guy
07-27 05:45 PM
Everest Consulting Group Inc is really good. I know them personally for more than 10 years now & they do what they say and do NOT torture their employees like many other consulting firms. I just got my GC thru them :)
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
I just remember. It sounds like an radio ad by a talk radio host, Sean Hennity, Rush limbaugh, etc :D
"Axis Bank is great. They are the bay are experts. I know them personally. I worked with them for years, etc. etc..." :D :D
Just kidding...
I hope this helps somebody & please let me know if I can be any further help!
Thanks.
Ramesh.
I just remember. It sounds like an radio ad by a talk radio host, Sean Hennity, Rush limbaugh, etc :D
"Axis Bank is great. They are the bay are experts. I know them personally. I worked with them for years, etc. etc..." :D :D
Just kidding...
more...
house that our family recorded a
priti8888
02-16 02:57 PM
2006 census
Total population of India,china, mexico and Philipines = about 40 % of world population
India - 17% of world Population
China- 20% of world population
Mexico- 1.7
Phillipines-1.3 %
------------
Ttl 40 % of world population.
so theres a reason behind this quota. Its not divide and rule.
Excluding US (4.3) , ICMP Still comprise of 35.7 % of world total
Total population of India,china, mexico and Philipines = about 40 % of world population
India - 17% of world Population
China- 20% of world population
Mexico- 1.7
Phillipines-1.3 %
------------
Ttl 40 % of world population.
so theres a reason behind this quota. Its not divide and rule.
Excluding US (4.3) , ICMP Still comprise of 35.7 % of world total
tattoo actress Kareena Kapoor
Desertfox
12-10 07:01 PM
I am on L1 & my I-94 is expiring in a month from now on 11 Dec 2007 . I have applied for my L-Extenstion and is pending for approval.
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
My spouse got EAD from similar situation. Your wife should file I-765 for L-2 based EAD along with the receipt notice (I-797) of your I-129 (L-1 extension application). She should mail a I-765 hardcopy application to USCIS. USCIS will get back to you with RFE after 45-60 days for your I-129 approval notice (i.e. principal applicant's L-1 extension approval). BTW... hasn't she already filed for I-539 this way?
Given this case - can my wife apply for a EAD with the current L1 approved document (expiring on 11 Dec 2007( and add my L-Extension approval papers later on?
There seems to be a three month delay in getting the EAD - hence wanted to initiate the process earlier and not till my L-Extension papers come-in
Please help me ASAP.
Sriram
My spouse got EAD from similar situation. Your wife should file I-765 for L-2 based EAD along with the receipt notice (I-797) of your I-129 (L-1 extension application). She should mail a I-765 hardcopy application to USCIS. USCIS will get back to you with RFE after 45-60 days for your I-129 approval notice (i.e. principal applicant's L-1 extension approval). BTW... hasn't she already filed for I-539 this way?
more...
pictures Kareena Kapoor Biography
Administrator2
04-20 04:17 PM
I will get it posted on various internal mailing systems of sun. Will bring the banner www.immigrationvoice.org
Sanjeev
Thank you Sanjeev. That will be very helpful.
Sanjeev
Thank you Sanjeev. That will be very helpful.
dresses Christmas tree with gifts
gc_on_demand
03-10 04:46 PM
>> Once they (USCIS) reached last quarter then they(DOS) will make EB2-I/C current and distribute those spill-over visas across EB.
Thanks MDix.
You have no idea. Have a good day, sir!
______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
This is another anti immigrant. Please ignore him
Thanks MDix.
You have no idea. Have a good day, sir!
______________________
US citizen of Indian origin
This is another anti immigrant. Please ignore him
more...
makeup Kelly Kapoor lunching with
GC_ASP
03-18 05:28 PM
This is the post from Ron:
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
I have to confess error and make a correction. The AC21 legislation changed things far more that I suspected and changed the allocation process from what I had learned previously. In further corresondence with the Visa Office, I've learned that I was wrong about how numbers are moved from worldwide to single state allocations. The following is a direct quote:
Quote:
Employment First Preference example: Annual limit 40,000 - (expected) 25,000 ("rest of world") - 3,300 (China limit) - 3,300 (India limit) = 8,400 unused numbers. Those 8,400 numbers could be made available to China/India applicants without regard to their normal 3,300 per-country limit for that category. But those extra numbers would need to be made available to China/India applicants on an equal basis, and in doing so making sure that the additional number use would not result in the Worldwide annual limit being exceeded. Thus, the same cut-off date for each country since the extra numbers must be made available in priority date order without regard to country.
I apologize for the confusion generated by my earlier remarks
So whatever said in the visa bulletin makes sense.
girlfriend with family and friends.
gautamagg
04-23 03:47 PM
Read my message - I am *NOT* an IV member and nor did I represent myself as one - like many people I just subscribed to public portal - if you want to limit it to IV members, you must consider doing that .
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
As an IV member so you should have spoken out IV cause. If you had personal issues, you should seek personal appointment with the congressman and meet him. Do not use IV forum and IV political capital on furthering your own agenda.
If you want to go back to your country. Go back. If you want to do hunger strike do it. No body is stopping you. But do it on your own and not ruin our greencard chances. Greencard is not important to you, but it is important to us.
If you think Harvard and Stanfords are dying to have you as a student and totally back you in your mission, then you should use their forums and offiices to further your agenda and not IV's.
If you want to preach free speech, then please go and give this lecture to your Harvard and Stanford'd Deans and have them all listen to you.
As far as talking in the meeting was considered, it was not an IV meeting and open to the public and I have all the right to say what I want to - whether it is inline with what you want to hear or not is not my problem.
Tone yourself down before you point fingers elsewhere. GC is not your birth right.
As an IV member so you should have spoken out IV cause. If you had personal issues, you should seek personal appointment with the congressman and meet him. Do not use IV forum and IV political capital on furthering your own agenda.
If you want to go back to your country. Go back. If you want to do hunger strike do it. No body is stopping you. But do it on your own and not ruin our greencard chances. Greencard is not important to you, but it is important to us.
If you think Harvard and Stanfords are dying to have you as a student and totally back you in your mission, then you should use their forums and offiices to further your agenda and not IV's.
If you want to preach free speech, then please go and give this lecture to your Harvard and Stanford'd Deans and have them all listen to you.
hairstyles seen with Shahid Kapoor
varshadas
02-09 09:34 PM
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/profile_state.php3?District=NJ
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha
For other states, use
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/
Mike Ferguson whom we met today was pro legal immigration, If anyone is or knows someone in Morris County, please contact Garrett, Scott. I think first we should target the greens (lower immigration intent) and then target the others.
As you can see the Southern states like Lousiana, Texas have many greens.
Thanks,
Varsha
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!
varshadas
12-14 09:12 AM
Hello All,
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
This is a reminder to all to join the conference call tonight at 9.00 PM.
Thanks,
Varsha
