surabhi
09-16 10:21 PM
surabhi,
At the Port of Entry, were you asked if you are still working for the GC sponsoring employer? Did you have to show any documentation from new employer?
I am planning to travel to India in December on AP. I recently changed jobs.
Thanks in advance.
THe IO asked who filed my green card. He didnt followup to ask if I am still working with the original employer or not.
At the Port of Entry, were you asked if you are still working for the GC sponsoring employer? Did you have to show any documentation from new employer?
I am planning to travel to India in December on AP. I recently changed jobs.
Thanks in advance.
THe IO asked who filed my green card. He didnt followup to ask if I am still working with the original employer or not.
wallpaper art prints - quot;Me Love You
kumarc123
01-23 06:48 PM
Hi
Can someone please tell me how to post a new thread, lately I saw a post reflecting on us citizenship for international students who will serve in army intelligence, if someone could please post that thread here, I tried looking for it.
Please help me out here,
Thank you
Can someone please tell me how to post a new thread, lately I saw a post reflecting on us citizenship for international students who will serve in army intelligence, if someone could please post that thread here, I tried looking for it.
Please help me out here,
Thank you
snelakan
07-04 09:32 PM
My state in four lines
1) Came to US on F-1 Visa, never completed my masters
2) Shifted to H-1B and i have been with the same client and havent been to India for four years.
3) Now i am doing part time MBA from a top Ivy league school and i have $40,000 in loans from my MBA. i have not finished it as yet.
4) Applied for labor and priority date is Jan 2007 and i wanted to apply for 1-485 and AP and Skip H-1B stamping
But because of the july 2nd i cant do that anymore and i will have to go to H-1B stamping. I wonder what will happen if my stamping gets rejected. If dont attend classes for 4 months. My student loan will start asking for monthly payments. I am in a quagmire.
But still i have decided that i will go to India in any case and if payments become overdue for more months. I dont know what to do.
I had so many hoped on the current numbers . Any idea guys what can i do?
If your H1's job requirement is a bachelors degree, then they cannot reject your H1 stamping.
1) Came to US on F-1 Visa, never completed my masters
2) Shifted to H-1B and i have been with the same client and havent been to India for four years.
3) Now i am doing part time MBA from a top Ivy league school and i have $40,000 in loans from my MBA. i have not finished it as yet.
4) Applied for labor and priority date is Jan 2007 and i wanted to apply for 1-485 and AP and Skip H-1B stamping
But because of the july 2nd i cant do that anymore and i will have to go to H-1B stamping. I wonder what will happen if my stamping gets rejected. If dont attend classes for 4 months. My student loan will start asking for monthly payments. I am in a quagmire.
But still i have decided that i will go to India in any case and if payments become overdue for more months. I dont know what to do.
I had so many hoped on the current numbers . Any idea guys what can i do?
If your H1's job requirement is a bachelors degree, then they cannot reject your H1 stamping.
2011 Mati I love you.
Prashanthi
09-08 03:36 PM
My company lawyers have been preparing for the last 5 months to file for my PERM application. After completing the recruitment stage and getting ready to file, they for some reason have come to the conclusion that the high number of resumes received could land the company in trouble for this case plus future applications.
Has anybody seen this before. Is there any precedence that a company that receives large number of resumes for the position might cause issues? Even if they have done the due diligence to review all resumes and interview candidates that they deemed fit? Still not finding anybody worthwhile?
Any comments/ assistance would be most appreciated.
Thanks
I would still file, as long as everything has been done properly, so that in case of an audit a proper response can be given. IT jobs usually have special requirements for the job, they require a combination of hardware and software skills for the job. The employer might receive several resumes, the question is if any of them qualify for the job. If you recieve qualified resumes you obviously cannot proceed. I have noticed even in this market that it is still difficult to find candidates who have a certain combination of skill sets, especially if several years of experience is required in the use of these skills. If this is a non-IT job then obviously the job has to be evaluated and the resumes have to be evaluated to see if their are any special requirements and if the applicants qualify.
Has anybody seen this before. Is there any precedence that a company that receives large number of resumes for the position might cause issues? Even if they have done the due diligence to review all resumes and interview candidates that they deemed fit? Still not finding anybody worthwhile?
Any comments/ assistance would be most appreciated.
Thanks
I would still file, as long as everything has been done properly, so that in case of an audit a proper response can be given. IT jobs usually have special requirements for the job, they require a combination of hardware and software skills for the job. The employer might receive several resumes, the question is if any of them qualify for the job. If you recieve qualified resumes you obviously cannot proceed. I have noticed even in this market that it is still difficult to find candidates who have a certain combination of skill sets, especially if several years of experience is required in the use of these skills. If this is a non-IT job then obviously the job has to be evaluated and the resumes have to be evaluated to see if their are any special requirements and if the applicants qualify.
more...
indyanguy
01-13 09:40 AM
We received the RFE letter on my pending I-140.
I am not sure what they are looking for. We had submitted letters of experience prior to Dec 2004 that added up to 1 year. Basically, I worked with 2 companies during that time.
Initially I had sent:
a. 1 letter from Company A
States my title, skills dates
b. 2 letters from Company B.
1 generic letter from HR stating dates, no skills
1 letter from colleague stating title, skills, dates
Here's the RFE details. The lawyer is not sure what to do. He says we will simply resend the letters. I don't know if that's a good idea. Can anyone please help?
=====
Submit evidence the beneficiary obtained the required one year experience in the job offerred, or in software consulting, software development, or a closely related field before December 25, 2004. Evidence of experience must be in the form of letters from current or former employers giving the name, address and the title of the employer and a description of the experience of the beneficiary including specific dates of employment or duties.
Please note that the petitioners statement of the beneficiarys prior employment is insufficient evidence. A letter of reference must be written by the employer from whom the beneficiary was employed and obtained experience in the job offered prior to December 25, 2004. Such references must be submitted to cover twelve months.
====
I am not sure what they are looking for. We had submitted letters of experience prior to Dec 2004 that added up to 1 year. Basically, I worked with 2 companies during that time.
Initially I had sent:
a. 1 letter from Company A
States my title, skills dates
b. 2 letters from Company B.
1 generic letter from HR stating dates, no skills
1 letter from colleague stating title, skills, dates
Here's the RFE details. The lawyer is not sure what to do. He says we will simply resend the letters. I don't know if that's a good idea. Can anyone please help?
=====
Submit evidence the beneficiary obtained the required one year experience in the job offerred, or in software consulting, software development, or a closely related field before December 25, 2004. Evidence of experience must be in the form of letters from current or former employers giving the name, address and the title of the employer and a description of the experience of the beneficiary including specific dates of employment or duties.
Please note that the petitioners statement of the beneficiarys prior employment is insufficient evidence. A letter of reference must be written by the employer from whom the beneficiary was employed and obtained experience in the job offered prior to December 25, 2004. Such references must be submitted to cover twelve months.
====
misha
07-12 01:13 PM
Question for July I-485 filers.
Did anybody receive I-485 July Rejection Notice by mail?
Did anybody receive I-485 July Rejection Notice by mail?
more...
dealsnet
08-05 11:17 AM
I did spend EAD renewal for me and wife. Within 1 week our GC is approved. I think because of this application, they took my file out and approved. So I didn't regret the amount spend for this. I have received EAD denial letter after 3 weeks. So this is our last amount for USCIS. Many people with older priority date still in their shelf. Think about it and be happy.
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
I've applied for EAD/AP renewal for both myself and my wife. I spent $1,290 for this.
Say I got my GC approved and then I call USCIS and withdraw my pending EAD/AP application. Will I get a refund for pending EAD/AP application, if I get my GC approved before EAD/AP approval?
Thanks,
India EB2; PD - Nov 05
I-140 - Filed Mar '06; Approved Jun '06
I-485 - Reached NSC July 26'07;
2010 i love you graffiti art.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
acecupid
08-21 03:17 PM
I am almost there and expecting green card approval anytime. But now I am having second thoughts now. The desi consulting company I work for had eight people a year ago and two of them now going back (and one more is negotiating) at salaries 20-35 lacs. Has anyone explored Indian job market, if yes then what is hot?
Does 25-30 lacs sound like a good deal to you ?
Does 25-30 lacs sound like a good deal to you ?
hair Graffiti Art pictures
lostinbeta
10-20 10:09 PM
That is very nice, but as mdipi said, that center text is way out of place.
It is just.... there.... the font, size and everything just doesn't fit.
If you make that text grungier and change the font it should look better.
It is just.... there.... the font, size and everything just doesn't fit.
If you make that text grungier and change the font it should look better.
more...
nixstor
06-30 06:35 PM
Any thing related to EB immigration, whether it be H1B cap/VB/Retrogression, it has been spreading like wild fire and traveling faster than the speed of wire. On one occasion, I felt that we and lawyers are probably giving more input to the USCIS. Some rumor/educated guess kicks off some where and it ends up in the lap of USCIS. Like H1B cap. People predicted and predicted non stop for 2 months that it will be over on day one. Its not a prediction. It was a forced situation to some extent. This whole VB revision is similar, if it happens
hot How cute is the I love you
Lollerskater
04-23 11:46 AM
I have a filing date of July 2nd 2007. My RD? A fantastic Oct 21 2007. That's 3 and a half months, more than a quarter year away.
I filed at NSC, my case ended up in TSC.
Nothing much makes sense, nowadays. :confused:
I filed at NSC, my case ended up in TSC.
Nothing much makes sense, nowadays. :confused:
more...
house the i-love-you graf photos
raysaikat
05-30 10:40 PM
Thanks a lot for the information.
I am just concerned about the fact that I do not have a job and have been unemployed for more than the 90 day OPT period. I'm not sure what my status is,given such a scenario.
Thanks!
You are allowed a maximum of 90 days of unemployment during the 12 month OPT period. After that, you are accumulating out of status days. I do not know what is the penalty for out of status days --- typically more than 180 days of out of status days are bad.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-7427.htm
2. Periods of Unemployment During OPT
DHS regulations currently define the period of an F-1 student's
status as the time the student is pursuing a full course of study at an
SEVP-certified school or engaging in authorized post-completion OPT. 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5). They do not specify how much time the student may be
unemployed, making it difficult to determine when an unemployed student
on post-completion OPT violates the requirements for remaining in F-1
status. As status during OPT is based on the premise that the F-1
student is working, there must be a limit on unemployment, just as the
F-1 student's period in school is based on the premise that he is
actually pursuing a full-time course of study, and there are limits on
how often the student can reduce his course load. An F-1 student who
drops out of school or does not pursue a full-time course of study
loses status; an F-1 student with OPT who is unemployed for a
significant period should similarly put his status in jeopardy.
Therefore, this rule specifies an aggregate maximum allowed period of
unemployment of 90 days for students on 12-month OPT. This maximum
period increases by 30 days for F-1 students who have an approved 17-
month OPT period. In addition to clarifying the student's status, this
measure allows time for job searches or a break when switching
employers.
http://www.ice.gov/sevis/updates_postcompletion_opt.htm#_Toc174419546
4.9. Unemployment time
The time spent without a qualifying job during post-completion OPT. Except as noted in the section on what counts as time unemployed, each day that the student is not employed in a qualifying job, is counted toward the limit on unemployment time. The limit is 90 days for students on post-completion OPT including those with a cap gap extension, except that students with a STEM OPT extension are given an additional 30 days of unemployment time for a maximum of 120 days.
I am just concerned about the fact that I do not have a job and have been unemployed for more than the 90 day OPT period. I'm not sure what my status is,given such a scenario.
Thanks!
You are allowed a maximum of 90 days of unemployment during the 12 month OPT period. After that, you are accumulating out of status days. I do not know what is the penalty for out of status days --- typically more than 180 days of out of status days are bad.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-7427.htm
2. Periods of Unemployment During OPT
DHS regulations currently define the period of an F-1 student's
status as the time the student is pursuing a full course of study at an
SEVP-certified school or engaging in authorized post-completion OPT. 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5). They do not specify how much time the student may be
unemployed, making it difficult to determine when an unemployed student
on post-completion OPT violates the requirements for remaining in F-1
status. As status during OPT is based on the premise that the F-1
student is working, there must be a limit on unemployment, just as the
F-1 student's period in school is based on the premise that he is
actually pursuing a full-time course of study, and there are limits on
how often the student can reduce his course load. An F-1 student who
drops out of school or does not pursue a full-time course of study
loses status; an F-1 student with OPT who is unemployed for a
significant period should similarly put his status in jeopardy.
Therefore, this rule specifies an aggregate maximum allowed period of
unemployment of 90 days for students on 12-month OPT. This maximum
period increases by 30 days for F-1 students who have an approved 17-
month OPT period. In addition to clarifying the student's status, this
measure allows time for job searches or a break when switching
employers.
http://www.ice.gov/sevis/updates_postcompletion_opt.htm#_Toc174419546
4.9. Unemployment time
The time spent without a qualifying job during post-completion OPT. Except as noted in the section on what counts as time unemployed, each day that the student is not employed in a qualifying job, is counted toward the limit on unemployment time. The limit is 90 days for students on post-completion OPT including those with a cap gap extension, except that students with a STEM OPT extension are given an additional 30 days of unemployment time for a maximum of 120 days.
tattoo i love you graffiti art. Graffiti I LOVE YOU; Graffiti I LOVE YOU. Peterkro
looivy
03-23 02:39 AM
Can a legal expert provide advice as to whether I can use EAD/AP to get in?
Bump again
Bump again
more...
pictures i love you graffiti art.
santb1975
12-08 11:15 PM
and the easiest Action Item to work on. Rallying fellow IV'ans to contribute and be part of this effort is not easy as clicking on contribute now.
dresses I Love Graffiti has posted an
for_gc
05-01 10:25 AM
I very much like this idea. I can help you on this if you want. I may not be able to spend much time on it during the work hours but may try to squeeze out something in the evenings, weekends.
I was very curious when CIS/DOS made a comment yesterday that FIFO is very complex to follow. I understand that it has to be complex but on the other hand if we can help them in any ways that will be great.
Also, it will help if we can make this as a IV org level campaign and see if we can get some transparency out of USCIS/DOS as to how they are arriving at the cut off dates.
I was very curious when CIS/DOS made a comment yesterday that FIFO is very complex to follow. I understand that it has to be complex but on the other hand if we can help them in any ways that will be great.
Also, it will help if we can make this as a IV org level campaign and see if we can get some transparency out of USCIS/DOS as to how they are arriving at the cut off dates.
more...
makeup A Love Letter For You is a
tikka
06-25 12:49 PM
IV members have saved all of us a lot of money on attorney phone calls, getting answers to medical test questions and other general questions. Please contribute to IV so that we can keep this effort going. While everybody is busy collecting documents and paperwork for 485, core IV again is doing their personal paperwork and + lobbying.
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
Thank you
Please contribute, especially if you are new and never contributed. Please do not be a freeloader and get your questions answered and run away.
Thank you
girlfriend i love you graffiti art.
sunny1000
01-14 04:14 PM
I posted this on another thread:
American Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org)
www.salvationarmyusa.org
You can choose "International response fund" for Red cross donations so that the money goes to Haiti relief effort or text "Haiti" to 90999 from your cell phone (the previous poster mentioned).
You can mention "Haiti Relief" in the "specific purpose" column for Salvation Army. You can use paypal also.
I donated to both. Please donate as soon as possible.
Thanks.
American Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org)
www.salvationarmyusa.org
You can choose "International response fund" for Red cross donations so that the money goes to Haiti relief effort or text "Haiti" to 90999 from your cell phone (the previous poster mentioned).
You can mention "Haiti Relief" in the "specific purpose" column for Salvation Army. You can use paypal also.
I donated to both. Please donate as soon as possible.
Thanks.
hairstyles Tags: Art, Graffiti, i love
TheCanadian
01-01 10:27 PM
What about AS1?
reddymjm
05-14 05:15 PM
2009------we can see something happening.
Until then Visa Bulleting is our best hope and source
Let us pray.
Election year nothing happens on these bills. History and trend says so. Lets see if we can change the History
Until then Visa Bulleting is our best hope and source
Let us pray.
Election year nothing happens on these bills. History and trend says so. Lets see if we can change the History
desi3933
02-22 01:36 PM
By filing an I-140 you have shown an intent to immigrate and hence you will not be able to file for an F-1 from outside the country (my personal opinion). However, since you probably do not need to re-enter the country on F-1, you do not have to prove to the official at the consulate that you will return to your home country. So my guess would be you can change to F-1 from within US. BUT, you can forego your H-1B, attain AOS pending status, and attend school.
I think you should consult an attorney.
Once I-485 is filed, one can file for change of status ONLY to H/L status.
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
I think you should consult an attorney.
Once I-485 is filed, one can file for change of status ONLY to H/L status.
______________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
No comments:
Post a Comment