vimalm
08-22 10:40 AM
She will be a new candidate. Her 6 year clock for H status has already started, though. I.e., she only has 4.5 years left.
Don't agree with this. According to a revision some time ago, time in H4 status is no longer counted against H1-B 6 yr limit.
Don't agree with this. According to a revision some time ago, time in H4 status is no longer counted against H1-B 6 yr limit.
wallpaper knightley sweet wallpapers
diptam
08-06 12:13 PM
Premium on 140 has nothing to do with expedition of 485. Later depends on Priority Dates , Visa Numbers , Name check results etc ... etc... If you get 140 approved on Premium then the only advantange is that you can Trigger AC21 to change your Job after 180 days of 485 filing WITH A PEACE OF MIND.
Otherwise if your 140 is hanging and you invoke AC21 and by chance that 140 gets a rough RFE or gets denied for some reason your 485 will be denied immediatly and you are in deep waters.
Has USCIS started premium processing of I-140 again ? Can you please send me the link ?
What happens if one has filed I-140 concurrently with 485 ? Does 485 gets expedited too ?
let me know quick please..
Otherwise if your 140 is hanging and you invoke AC21 and by chance that 140 gets a rough RFE or gets denied for some reason your 485 will be denied immediatly and you are in deep waters.
Has USCIS started premium processing of I-140 again ? Can you please send me the link ?
What happens if one has filed I-140 concurrently with 485 ? Does 485 gets expedited too ?
let me know quick please..
ak_manu
09-17 01:37 PM
Also make sure you DO NOT FLY British Airways as you would need Transit visa with expired H1 stamping. Suggest to renew EAD. Consult your lawyer.
2011 Joanna Krupa 012 1024x768
pappu
01-20 10:33 PM
IV is not giving any updates on the public forums at this time and risk our ongoing efforts. Do not quote some annonymous members on other forums or this forum to elicit a response from IV. Do not continue to start new threads asking for updates and asking core members for answers. You, an IV member is our answer and you yourself can also provide answer to all of us by helping us. It is our combined effort that will lead to a solution for all of us. IV core is working hard to make something happen but you all are our legs and support us. We would like to encourage members to actively participate in state chapters, and they can get to know our action plans by participating in them. We also want members to actively participate in funding drive and we will be communicating with such contributing members. This would encourage members to help IV to help everyone and themselves with their efforts. Till now merely 154 members have commited funds in the past 1 week. We can get thousands of opinions on forums on a given subject, but it is really hard to have a meagre $20 contribution from members. Without contributions we will be limited in our efforts. It is very critical for our success and to achive our common goal. IV will not survive without being able to fund our efforts and members can continue to debate on various provisons on forums without much hope for any relief. Hope you will appreciate this POV, understand the gravity of this issue and help all of us in the IV community wth the ongoing monthly contributions drive.
Thanks
Thanks
more...
Sakthisagar
11-16 01:05 PM
Rajeev was mentioning Sen Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), name for S.1085 bill. I called his office two times, I will make it a point I am calling him every week. Rajeev Please let us all know if you have any update that Sen.Menendez have plans for S.1085 along with Dream Act??
Macaca
04-22 09:07 AM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) -- Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation?, by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
more...
djmaddy
01-30 04:11 PM
Perlin Circles-awesome, i was gonna submit my perlin but didn't get to finish it
2010 Joanna Krupa 061 1920x1200
x1050us
06-25 09:50 PM
you dont require to file I 539 since she is out of the country ,so currently she has no status .
I understand that. But does it have any negative impact ?
I understand that. But does it have any negative impact ?
more...
antony
03-25 10:18 AM
I was offered a job by a top TARP funded bank and got my offer also around Jan end. Then they found out that TARP funded company cannot hire H1's. They kept me as a contractor for 3 months so that they could try for a work around. In the mean time they interviewed almost 80 people ( out of numerous applications ) and still couldn't find a better person. Now they are trying to keep as a contractor for indefinite period, but they cant do that as well ( top management not supporting ). I just went and talked to my director. She said " It seems that I have to settle for a less qualified person ".
They have been trying to get me on board for past 6 months. I came as a contractor...they wanted me full time ... didnt have funds...they fought with top management and got the funds....then the H1 ban came...and they fought against it too.
Really sad that I cant join their team.
I am ready to talk to the reporter. But, I would prefer not to use my real name and all those things...I dont want my current employer to know that I was trying for another job.Is there a way that I can help ?
They have been trying to get me on board for past 6 months. I came as a contractor...they wanted me full time ... didnt have funds...they fought with top management and got the funds....then the H1 ban came...and they fought against it too.
Really sad that I cant join their team.
I am ready to talk to the reporter. But, I would prefer not to use my real name and all those things...I dont want my current employer to know that I was trying for another job.Is there a way that I can help ?
hair Joanna Krupa
Phat7
10-08 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Coppertop
Thanks! *insert extra large grin here*
can a mod please edit the poll as asked by Phat7
[Deniro voice] youuuuu, you... [/Deniro voice]:beam:
Thanks! *insert extra large grin here*
can a mod please edit the poll as asked by Phat7
[Deniro voice] youuuuu, you... [/Deniro voice]:beam:
more...
Ann Ruben
03-19 04:06 PM
Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid the DOL online PWD system for PERM---it is mandatory.
hot Joanna Krupa
divakarr
09-05 10:49 AM
She checked my file over 20 minutes and also talked to her supervisor. they thought USCIS maybe lost my application somewhere. right now, I am waiting response from NSC for my application. I really do not know what need to do.
wish I am the only bad luck one here and good luck to everyone.
wish I am the only bad luck one here and good luck to everyone.
more...
house Joanna Krupa (an)
LONGGCQUE
05-12 04:22 PM
correct
tattoo Joanna Krupa. Wallpapers
pd_recapturing
10-14 07:27 PM
My DL is going to be expired in Nov and I have H1 stamped till Jan 08. I received EAD till Sep 08. I am planning to go to DMV to renew the DL. I will be carrying EAD and Passport (with H1b stamp). Please note that I have not applied H1B extn so far. I have following questions:
1) Will I get my DL extended till Jan 08 (based on H1b) or Sep 08 (based on EAD)?
2) If they extend DL based on EAD, will I loose H1 status as I used EAD?
3) I live in VA, can someone pls share his/her experience in this regard ?
Thanks
1) Will I get my DL extended till Jan 08 (based on H1b) or Sep 08 (based on EAD)?
2) If they extend DL based on EAD, will I loose H1 status as I used EAD?
3) I live in VA, can someone pls share his/her experience in this regard ?
Thanks
more...
pictures Joanna Krupa iPhone Wallpaper
senthil1
02-19 12:27 PM
In the case of retrogession it is always better to apply EB2 if job description requires Master degree and if the candidate has approved master degree. Past history shows EB2 is atleast 2 years ahead of EB3 for India even if it is moving slower. But if you think any problem in eligiblity then it is better to apply EB3.
One question for I-140 for EB-2 versus EB-3.
If one applies for EB-2 at I-140 stage under premium processing and they turn it down. Does the application automatically go into EB-3, or do they ask you to re-apply for EB-3 at I-140? In that case, I am guessing that the premium processing fees that one has paid for EB-2 goes down the drian, right?
Please confirm your views, as I have heard different versions.
Thanks!
One question for I-140 for EB-2 versus EB-3.
If one applies for EB-2 at I-140 stage under premium processing and they turn it down. Does the application automatically go into EB-3, or do they ask you to re-apply for EB-3 at I-140? In that case, I am guessing that the premium processing fees that one has paid for EB-2 goes down the drian, right?
Please confirm your views, as I have heard different versions.
Thanks!
dresses Joanna Krupa. Wallpapers
fromnaija
03-18 04:53 PM
This is the wrong forum for you to ask this question. However, I know that (c)(9) is not correct on line 16 for your wife's case. (c)(9) is only for Employment Based GC applicants.
That is not true! (c)(9) is the right code for all pending adjustment of status applicants. See the instruction to Form I-765 here:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
That is not true! (c)(9) is the right code for all pending adjustment of status applicants. See the instruction to Form I-765 here:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
more...
makeup Title: Gray Joanna Krupa
ashneels2001
10-16 08:18 PM
Rajiv,
Did you LC mention the requirements for your job. Unless it emphasized that a Masters was needed for your job profile on an LC, I140 will be denied. File an MTR right away along with a new I140 uner EB3. Beleive in god and ur priority dates will remain the same as they were. Make sure that the new I140 under EB3 matches your LC.
Good Luck
Ashish!
Did you LC mention the requirements for your job. Unless it emphasized that a Masters was needed for your job profile on an LC, I140 will be denied. File an MTR right away along with a new I140 uner EB3. Beleive in god and ur priority dates will remain the same as they were. Make sure that the new I140 under EB3 matches your LC.
Good Luck
Ashish!
girlfriend Joanna Krupa iPhone Wallpapers
boston_gc
05-30 10:04 PM
Thank you everyone.
I did my share and sent the webfax.
I did my share and sent the webfax.
hairstyles HIER IST JOANNA KRUPA
GCA
04-07 08:30 PM
This is outrageaous. Three postings above, i had suggested the same idea. How come you are not even acknowledging my posting when you (essentially)reword the content? It does appear from your mail that you had been following up the postings in the thread.
Thats why plain messages are better on public forums. Probably the other person didn't mean to plagiarize. I went from top to bottom and probably read your post before other persons, but never got that point in your message until I went back after reading the above. With tens of messages to catchup if not tons, we surf thru' quickly and not everyone catches the point from such writings. Nevertheless that was cool idea.
Anyways, great minds thinks alike. Great though both of you.
Thats why plain messages are better on public forums. Probably the other person didn't mean to plagiarize. I went from top to bottom and probably read your post before other persons, but never got that point in your message until I went back after reading the above. With tens of messages to catchup if not tons, we surf thru' quickly and not everyone catches the point from such writings. Nevertheless that was cool idea.
Anyways, great minds thinks alike. Great though both of you.
cygent
06-02 06:14 PM
pbojja, you have contradicted yourself. In 1) you say "No need to File for 140";
Then in 3) you say "They approve Faster in a month" - Which does not make sense if you don't file right?
Could you enlighten us? Also, what do you mean by Happy & Unhappy scenario, only one of them as to be the legit way, no?
Happy Scenario
1) Once my EB2 labor gets approved, Do they have to file new I 140 again (OR) can they use the approved I 140 (EB3) to port my PD to EB2 application - No need to File for 140
3) If they have to file I 140 again for EB2...is this I 140 goes through the regular time frames (12months) (OR) since my EB3 140 is already approved my EB2 140 gets approved faster. -- They approve Faster in a month
Then in 3) you say "They approve Faster in a month" - Which does not make sense if you don't file right?
Could you enlighten us? Also, what do you mean by Happy & Unhappy scenario, only one of them as to be the legit way, no?
Happy Scenario
1) Once my EB2 labor gets approved, Do they have to file new I 140 again (OR) can they use the approved I 140 (EB3) to port my PD to EB2 application - No need to File for 140
3) If they have to file I 140 again for EB2...is this I 140 goes through the regular time frames (12months) (OR) since my EB3 140 is already approved my EB2 140 gets approved faster. -- They approve Faster in a month
cdeneo
01-11 04:39 AM
Thanks so much for your feedback on this query - this is really helpful.
I am a resident of Washington state and would really appreciate any additional information you can share with me regarding eligibility and application for UC benefits here (documentation required (A# required?), other application requirements to be aware of, etc). My I-140 is approved and I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days and I am currently working on my EAD.
Thanks again for your help with this query, I look forward to hearing from you.
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
I am a resident of Washington state and would really appreciate any additional information you can share with me regarding eligibility and application for UC benefits here (documentation required (A# required?), other application requirements to be aware of, etc). My I-140 is approved and I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days and I am currently working on my EAD.
Thanks again for your help with this query, I look forward to hearing from you.
There are really two questions here. First, are you eligible for unemployment compensation? And second, will applying for unemployment compensation adversely impact your application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident?
The answer to the first question is controlled by the law of the particular state in which you worked and/or reside. In theory, to be eligible one must have worked long enough that an adequate amount of UC insurance was paid into the UC system, AND one must be willing and ABLE to accept new employment. The law varies from state to state with respect to whether someone in your situation qualifies as "ABLE" to accept new employment. If you let me know where you reside and work, I can try to provide further guidance as to eligibility for UC benefits.
As to the second question, (assuming your I-140 has been approved and your I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) under the INA, when your PD is reached and your I-485 is adjudicated, you are required to have the intention to take up an offer of permanent full time employment in the same or similar occupation for which your LC was granted. This is a prospective requirement, and your employment status prior to the actual grant of AOS is relevant only to the extent that it supports or undercuts your ability to prove that you have an appropriate offer of full time employment which you intend to take up. There is no requirement that you be employed while you are waiting for your priority date to become current and your I-485 to be adjudicated. However, being unemployed or employed in an entirely unrelated occupation could trigger USCIS to perform a more searching inquiry into the bona fides of the prospective AC21 qualifying job offer and your intention to accept it.
To the best of my knowledge, USCIS is not notified when an AOS applicant applies for UC. Similarly, I am not aware of any cases where an UC claim triggered an RFE. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to act on the assumption that USCIS is aware of UC claims and be well prepared to prove one's intention to take up a bona fide offer of AC 21 qualifying employment once your PD is reached.
No comments:
Post a Comment