jackrock79
01-13 03:56 PM
Yes. This is an old case.
Isn't assigning a later PD to a earlier PD substitute labor a mistake made by the USCIS? If I put in a request to USCIS to correct this error, will it help?
Thanks!!
Isn't assigning a later PD to a earlier PD substitute labor a mistake made by the USCIS? If I put in a request to USCIS to correct this error, will it help?
Thanks!!
logiclife
01-05 12:01 PM
We are now at 8000 members exactly, as of 1:00 EST January 5th.
usr2004
07-26 01:03 PM
There are factors to be considered for alreday approved I-140 processing.
1) Tax id of the comany
2) comany name and address
3) Employee position...
1) Tax id of the comany
2) comany name and address
3) Employee position...
indian
11-17 12:51 PM
of the passage of the US-India civil nuke deal for us here is that with this piece of legislation out of the way, IV should find it easier to draw upon the resources of the USINPAC and India caucus.
Before this bill's passage, I doubt anyone from Indian caucus/influencial Indians with serious connections in congress would have bothered to listen to or do anything for IV.
Now that its done, we should find it easier to draw upon the strength of India caucus.
IV is not india-specific. But fact remains that Indians are among the worst affected w.r.t. current skilled immigration policies. If we can use that as our strength and draw upon the resources of India caucus/indian-american community, everyone here benefits.
Before this bill's passage, I doubt anyone from Indian caucus/influencial Indians with serious connections in congress would have bothered to listen to or do anything for IV.
Now that its done, we should find it easier to draw upon the strength of India caucus.
IV is not india-specific. But fact remains that Indians are among the worst affected w.r.t. current skilled immigration policies. If we can use that as our strength and draw upon the resources of India caucus/indian-american community, everyone here benefits.
more...
RollingStone12
04-25 02:43 PM
1 felony on record;
no FELONIES...
and remember this DUFUS it was US from England that discovered YOUR country...not AMERICANS
So stuff that where it needs to be stuffed
Dont worry its just a matter of time...already your son would have started the itching for second Felony...yes its getting stuffed in the right place. I mean the ICE.
no FELONIES...
and remember this DUFUS it was US from England that discovered YOUR country...not AMERICANS
So stuff that where it needs to be stuffed
Dont worry its just a matter of time...already your son would have started the itching for second Felony...yes its getting stuffed in the right place. I mean the ICE.
patiently_waiting
09-16 10:40 AM
This may be older, but it is useful in filing online.
Filing Advance Parole online - 101 (http://nixstor.blogspot.com/2008/09/filing-advance-parole-online-101.html)
Filing EAD online 101 (http://nixstor.blogspot.com/2008/05/filing-ead-online-101.html)
Filing Advance Parole online - 101 (http://nixstor.blogspot.com/2008/09/filing-advance-parole-online-101.html)
Filing EAD online 101 (http://nixstor.blogspot.com/2008/05/filing-ead-online-101.html)
more...
pamith
10-09 12:43 AM
I remember the anticipation among IV members before the monthly bulletin came out. As many EB2 folks have got GC looks like the craze has died down. Very few replies to the visa bulletin thread.
I wish everyone gets their GC's sooner than later.
Not really, it was well known that there is no movement expected in OCT, NOV and DEC bulletin, July, Aug and Sept are action months.
I wish everyone gets their GC's sooner than later.
Not really, it was well known that there is no movement expected in OCT, NOV and DEC bulletin, July, Aug and Sept are action months.
gc28262
07-16 07:30 AM
Murthy Bulletin
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
VOL. XVI, no. 29; Jul 2010, week 3
Posted : 16.Jul.2010
MurthyDotCom : MurthyBulletin (http://murthy.com/bulletin.html)
Many MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers have inquired about whatever happened to those H1B workers who encountered problems at the Newark, New Jersey port of entry (POE) in January 2010. The incidents in Newark struck fear in the hearts of many H1B foreign nationals who needed or wanted to travel abroad or return to the United States from abroad. This is the success story of one such traveler, who was denied entry at the Newark POE, and was banned at the POE from returning to the United States for five years under an order of expedited removal. He came to the Murthy Law Firm for help after he had returned to his home country under the order of expedited removal. This client of our firm has generously allowed us to share his success story with MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers. Information about a client or a case is never reported to our readers without consent of the client.
Background of Denial of Entry to the U.S. in January 2010
The problems of this individual were similar to those described in our January 14, 2010 NewsFlash entitled, Note to H1Bs Traveling to the U.S. and Working for Consulting Companies. The airport at issue was Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The traveler was returning to the U.S. and, rather than the routine verification of documents and basic information, he was questioned in detail about his employment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him regarding the validity of his H1B employment, the identity of his employer's customers, and whether or not his employer had sufficient work for him. As explained below, the CBP was not satisfied with the information it gathered and, ultimately, exercised its authority to issue an expedited removal order against the foreign national, who became a client of the Murthy Law Firm after he was sent back to India.
Travel Outside of the United States
The foreign national had traveled outside of the United States and returned to his home country to get married. He carried with him a letter from his H1B employer, verifying that he would resume his H1B employment upon his return to the U.S. After his wedding celebration, his wife applied for an H-4 dependent visa through a U.S. consulate in the couple's home country. They presented the employer's letter to the consular office in support of the H-4 visa application. The consulate was satisfied with the evidence presented, and issued the H-4 visa. The gentleman who later became our client then attempted to return to the United States alone, with plans for his wife to follow soon after.
CBP Checks on Returning H1B Workers
When the individual attempted to reenter the United States, his experience at the POE was far from ordinary. The CBP officers placed him into what is known as secondary inspection. This is the procedure for foreign nationals who cannot be quickly and routinely processed through the standard primary inspection. The traveler was questioned about his employer, his work, and the end-client where he was performing his work. He was asked whether or not his employer had enough work to keep him employed throughout the duration of his H1B petition. One CBP officer contacted his employer, using the contact information on the employer's letter. The H1B employer was surprised by the call from CBP and did not firmly state that he had sufficient work to keep this particular H1B worker fully employed for the rest of the duration of the H1B petition.
The CBP officer took this information and determined that the foreign national was not returning to resume valid nonimmigrant work on his H1B visa. The officer instead considered the foreign national to be an intending immigrant seeking admission to the United States without a proper immigrant visa. This is one of the grounds under the law that permits an expedited removal. The officer cancelled the individual's H1B visa stamp in his passport and entered an expedited removal order against him, which carries the penalty of a five-year bar to reentering the U.S. The gentleman was then ordered to depart the U.S. on the next flight back to his home country.
Removed H1B Worker Contacts Murthy to Take Action
The foreign national contacted Murthy Law Firm after this unfortunate incident, and requested our assistance. The case was assigned to our Special Projects department, and we quickly made contact with the CBP officers at the port of entry involved. Our attorneys analyzed the case and found several legal mistakes that were made in the process of cancelling the H1B visa as well as in issuing the expedited removal order. A detailed legal argument was drafted and sent to the lead CBP official for the POE.
New H1B Petition Approval
While the Murthy Law Firm team was working on this case, our client obtained a new job offer from his H1B employer's end-client. The job involved duties identical to his previous position, but as a direct employee of the prior end-client company. The new employer obtained an approval of its H1B petition for consular processing. The only thing standing between our client and a great job was the five-year ban on his return to the United States that was created by the expedited removal order. The attorney assigned to this case contacted a U.S. senator representing the state where the new employer is located and began a series of actions that led to a review of the expedited removal.
Murthy Takes Action to Reverse Earlier CBP Decision
The review and reconsideration of expedited removal orders is not explicitly provided for in the regulations that control the day-to-day operations of the CBP. The Murthy Law Firm team succeeded in showing that the events that transpired for our client were extremely unusual and required review by leaders at CBP. Due to the new employer's need for this individual's skills, the attorney contacted several officers at CBP, filed a second official request with CBP, and worked with the U.S. senator's office to show that there was a serious and urgent need for a decision.
Determined Follow-up Leads to Relief
The persistence of our excellent legal team paid off. After almost ten weeks of communications with the CBP and other government offices, the CBP issued a letter stating that, while there is no appeal of expedited removal orders under the law, CBP was exercising its discretion and overturning its prior expedited removal order. The letter was quickly forwarded to our client, who scheduled his H1B visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate in India. He was issued his H1B visa at the conclusion of his consular interview and he then made the arrangements necessary for his wife and himself to return to the United States so that he could commence his new H1B employment.
Conclusion
We at the Murthy Law Firm are proud to share another of our many successful stories with our readers. We would like to extend our deep appreciation for the hard work and cooperation of the CBP officers in reconsidering their prior decision and taking the bold step, even though there was no law or regulation for an appeal or reconsideration of an earlier CBP decision. We also send our thanks the U.S. senator's staff, who worked to resolve the incorrect expedited removal order, which would have resulted in the five-year bar to our client's ability to return to the United States. Finally, our gratitude is offered once again to our client for his permission, allowing us to share his story, thereby providing hope to others.
more...
JazzByTheBay
08-21 01:24 PM
This is great - thank you!
I'll be traveling to/from SFO. Have the new AP Receipt Notice.
jazz
hi jazzbythebay,
i was in pretty much in the same state like you a couple of months ago. i quit the original employer who sponsored by gc, used AC21 and EAD to join a new employer, and then i had to travel to india within a week of joining the new company. I infact had quit the company since I had an offer with another big multinational and i went to india and came back using AP. no h1 stamping. in both the above situations, i have not informed uscis. so literally when i went out of US and came back, i was unemployed. luckily for me they did not ask me the question of "are you working for the same employer that sponsored ur gc"? this is in SFO airport. as long as u have a valid ap, you could get in, its just that you may get some questions. just be prepared for that. Just show them the documents only if they ask for it. but keep it in hand just for your satisfaction. To me, they dont know much abt ac21 etc (atleast not thoroughly), so we dont need to teach them anything. my only worry in your case is, that you have only 2 days before your expiry of AP. So, make sure you take the ap renewal receipt with you, that alone could just prove them that your renewal is in process. hope this helps..bon voyage...
I'll be traveling to/from SFO. Have the new AP Receipt Notice.
jazz
hi jazzbythebay,
i was in pretty much in the same state like you a couple of months ago. i quit the original employer who sponsored by gc, used AC21 and EAD to join a new employer, and then i had to travel to india within a week of joining the new company. I infact had quit the company since I had an offer with another big multinational and i went to india and came back using AP. no h1 stamping. in both the above situations, i have not informed uscis. so literally when i went out of US and came back, i was unemployed. luckily for me they did not ask me the question of "are you working for the same employer that sponsored ur gc"? this is in SFO airport. as long as u have a valid ap, you could get in, its just that you may get some questions. just be prepared for that. Just show them the documents only if they ask for it. but keep it in hand just for your satisfaction. To me, they dont know much abt ac21 etc (atleast not thoroughly), so we dont need to teach them anything. my only worry in your case is, that you have only 2 days before your expiry of AP. So, make sure you take the ap renewal receipt with you, that alone could just prove them that your renewal is in process. hope this helps..bon voyage...
H1B2GC
10-02 06:24 PM
USCIS addresses RFE's to attorney who represents you, you will not get the RFE. Even if you call USCIS, they will not provide you with clear details.
Try calling them to know about your RFE; you might get lucky!
Try calling them to know about your RFE; you might get lucky!
more...
rockstart
01-28 09:08 AM
Sorry to break the bad news but technically the grounds for H1 extensions are no longer valid. Your only chance is if your appeal is in process because that keeps your application alive. Also recommended is to file a fresh PERM asap.
binadh
07-05 11:13 AM
This means that this time it has become unavailable because total number of visas have been used. However, when it resets on OCT 1st, it SHOULD be available. This is what I am hoping for...... We'll see. Any other thoughts?
EB2 ROW has never retrogressed.
It can become unavailable when 140k visas are used for the year
EB2 ROW has never retrogressed.
It can become unavailable when 140k visas are used for the year
more...
learning01
02-23 03:06 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202446_pf.html
Scientist's Visa Denial Sparks Outrage in India
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01
A decision two weeks ago by a U.S. consulate in India to refuse a visa to a prominent Indian scientist has triggered heated protests in that country and set off a major diplomatic flap on the eve of President Bush's first visit to India.
The incident has also caused embarrassment at the highest reaches of the American scientific establishment, which has worked to get the State Department to issue a visa to Goverdhan Mehta, who said the U.S. consulate in the south Indian city of Chennai told him that his expertise in chemistry was deemed a threat.
In the face of outrage in India, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi issued a highly unusual statement of regret, and yesterday the State Department said officials are reaching out to the scientist to resolve his case.
"It is very strange logic," said Mehta, reached at his home in Bangalore early this morning India time. "Someone is insulted and hurt and you ask him to come back a second round."
The consulate told Mehta "you have been denied a visa" and invited him to submit additional information, according to an official at the National Academy of Sciences who saw a copy of the document. Mehta said in a written account obtained by The Washington Post that he was humiliated, accused of "hiding things" and being dishonest, and told that his work is dangerous because of its potential applications in chemical warfare.
Mehta denied that his work has anything to do with weapons. He said that he would provide his passport if a visa were issued, but that he would do nothing further to obtain the document: "If they don't want to give me a visa, so be it."
The scientist told Indian newspapers that his dealing with the U.S. consulate was "the most degrading experience of my life." Mehta is president of the International Council for Science, a Paris-based organization comprising the national scientific academies of a number of countries. The council advocates that scientists should have free access to one another.
Visa rejections or delays for foreign academics after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have led to widespread complaints by U.S universities and scientific organizations, but the new incident comes when things are improving, said Wendy White, director of the Board of International Scientific Organizations. The board was set up by the National Academy of Sciences and has helped about 3,000 scientists affected by the new policies.
"This leaves a terrible impression of the United States," said White, who has seen a copy of the consulate's form letter to Mehta. In an interview yesterday, she added that top scientists had worked with senior State Department officials to reverse the decision before Bush's visit next week. "We want people to know the U.S. is an open and welcoming country."
Mehta's case has especially angered Indians because he was a director of the Indian Institute of Science and is a science adviser to India's prime minister. He has visited the United States "dozens of times," he said, and the University of Florida in Gainesville had invited him to lecture at an international conference.
State Department spokesman Justin Higgins denied yesterday that the United States had rejected Mehta's visa and said the consulate had merely followed standard procedure in dealing with applicants with certain kinds of scientific expertise.
In his written account, the scientist said that after traveling 200 miles, waiting three hours with his wife for an interview and being accused of deception, he was outraged when his accounts of his research were questioned and he was told he needed to fill out a detailed questionnaire.
"I indicated that I have no desire to subject myself to any further humiliation and asked that our passports be returned forthwith," he wrote. The consular official, Mehta added, "stamped the passports to indicate visa refusal and returned them."
Higgins declined to address why the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi had taken the unusual step of saying it "regrets" that Mehta was "upset by the visa interview process."
In its statement, the embassy said: "At the United States mission in India, and to varying degrees at every U.S. mission worldwide, certain cases involving high technology issues are among those that require review before consular officers in the field are authorized to issue a visa."
White said that issuing a visa would solve the immediate problem, but that it would be more difficult to undo the damage caused by the dispute. Mehta is a high-profile example of the hurdles imposed by the new visa procedures. They require all applicants to appear in person for interviews that are done in only a few locations in large countries such as India, White said.
"If you tell an American, 'If you want a visa to go to India, you have to go to Dallas, Chicago, L.A. or New York, and while you are there, you are going to be fingerprinted, photographed and asked about everything you have done in your research for the last 40 years,' we would find this procedure untenable as Americans," she said.
Mehta said in his written account that he had been invited by the University of Florida, where he has previously been a distinguished visiting professor. White said she expected the International Council for Science, also known as the ICSU, to issue a statement today about the case involving its president.
White and William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, acknowledged that young American consular officers in foreign countries have been under tremendous pressure since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Making the wrong decision would be career-ending, so they play it safe, not really understanding the macroscopic implications of their decision," Wulf said. "Denying a visa to the president of ICSU is probably as dumb as you can get. This is not the way we can make friends."
�*2006*The Washington Post Company
Scientist's Visa Denial Sparks Outrage in India
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A01
A decision two weeks ago by a U.S. consulate in India to refuse a visa to a prominent Indian scientist has triggered heated protests in that country and set off a major diplomatic flap on the eve of President Bush's first visit to India.
The incident has also caused embarrassment at the highest reaches of the American scientific establishment, which has worked to get the State Department to issue a visa to Goverdhan Mehta, who said the U.S. consulate in the south Indian city of Chennai told him that his expertise in chemistry was deemed a threat.
In the face of outrage in India, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi issued a highly unusual statement of regret, and yesterday the State Department said officials are reaching out to the scientist to resolve his case.
"It is very strange logic," said Mehta, reached at his home in Bangalore early this morning India time. "Someone is insulted and hurt and you ask him to come back a second round."
The consulate told Mehta "you have been denied a visa" and invited him to submit additional information, according to an official at the National Academy of Sciences who saw a copy of the document. Mehta said in a written account obtained by The Washington Post that he was humiliated, accused of "hiding things" and being dishonest, and told that his work is dangerous because of its potential applications in chemical warfare.
Mehta denied that his work has anything to do with weapons. He said that he would provide his passport if a visa were issued, but that he would do nothing further to obtain the document: "If they don't want to give me a visa, so be it."
The scientist told Indian newspapers that his dealing with the U.S. consulate was "the most degrading experience of my life." Mehta is president of the International Council for Science, a Paris-based organization comprising the national scientific academies of a number of countries. The council advocates that scientists should have free access to one another.
Visa rejections or delays for foreign academics after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have led to widespread complaints by U.S universities and scientific organizations, but the new incident comes when things are improving, said Wendy White, director of the Board of International Scientific Organizations. The board was set up by the National Academy of Sciences and has helped about 3,000 scientists affected by the new policies.
"This leaves a terrible impression of the United States," said White, who has seen a copy of the consulate's form letter to Mehta. In an interview yesterday, she added that top scientists had worked with senior State Department officials to reverse the decision before Bush's visit next week. "We want people to know the U.S. is an open and welcoming country."
Mehta's case has especially angered Indians because he was a director of the Indian Institute of Science and is a science adviser to India's prime minister. He has visited the United States "dozens of times," he said, and the University of Florida in Gainesville had invited him to lecture at an international conference.
State Department spokesman Justin Higgins denied yesterday that the United States had rejected Mehta's visa and said the consulate had merely followed standard procedure in dealing with applicants with certain kinds of scientific expertise.
In his written account, the scientist said that after traveling 200 miles, waiting three hours with his wife for an interview and being accused of deception, he was outraged when his accounts of his research were questioned and he was told he needed to fill out a detailed questionnaire.
"I indicated that I have no desire to subject myself to any further humiliation and asked that our passports be returned forthwith," he wrote. The consular official, Mehta added, "stamped the passports to indicate visa refusal and returned them."
Higgins declined to address why the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi had taken the unusual step of saying it "regrets" that Mehta was "upset by the visa interview process."
In its statement, the embassy said: "At the United States mission in India, and to varying degrees at every U.S. mission worldwide, certain cases involving high technology issues are among those that require review before consular officers in the field are authorized to issue a visa."
White said that issuing a visa would solve the immediate problem, but that it would be more difficult to undo the damage caused by the dispute. Mehta is a high-profile example of the hurdles imposed by the new visa procedures. They require all applicants to appear in person for interviews that are done in only a few locations in large countries such as India, White said.
"If you tell an American, 'If you want a visa to go to India, you have to go to Dallas, Chicago, L.A. or New York, and while you are there, you are going to be fingerprinted, photographed and asked about everything you have done in your research for the last 40 years,' we would find this procedure untenable as Americans," she said.
Mehta said in his written account that he had been invited by the University of Florida, where he has previously been a distinguished visiting professor. White said she expected the International Council for Science, also known as the ICSU, to issue a statement today about the case involving its president.
White and William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, acknowledged that young American consular officers in foreign countries have been under tremendous pressure since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Making the wrong decision would be career-ending, so they play it safe, not really understanding the macroscopic implications of their decision," Wulf said. "Denying a visa to the president of ICSU is probably as dumb as you can get. This is not the way we can make friends."
�*2006*The Washington Post Company
Ram_C
11-21 12:06 PM
Happy Thanksgiving to IV Family.
-Ram
-Ram
more...
nirupama.reddy90
01-21 05:11 PM
Your post is confusing. If you got laid off, how come you are on job as yet?
Have you found a new job? Are you working on new H1 or EAD?
Please clarify before I can answer wisely.
Hi All, Thanks for comments and suggestions.
I am sorry while i was writing my initial post i missed adding NOT,
"As I am NOT on job at present, I can not produce any client letter at consulate in case if they ask. "
Let me add more on my scenario, I don't know how correct to use the word "laid off", my contract was ended in DEC-08 with client, but still my H1B holding company is paying me and said that they will support sending me all needed documents for H1B extension Stamping, asked me to take a vacation for a month or so (as any way i am going back to India for extension).
As "LostInGCProcess" said as long as my company is paying me, Will i have chances to get my extension stamping? or Shall I have to be on the job with Client and have to carry a letter of proof showing which client i work for?
Sorry for getting u all confused with my first post.
Thank you
Niru
Have you found a new job? Are you working on new H1 or EAD?
Please clarify before I can answer wisely.
Hi All, Thanks for comments and suggestions.
I am sorry while i was writing my initial post i missed adding NOT,
"As I am NOT on job at present, I can not produce any client letter at consulate in case if they ask. "
Let me add more on my scenario, I don't know how correct to use the word "laid off", my contract was ended in DEC-08 with client, but still my H1B holding company is paying me and said that they will support sending me all needed documents for H1B extension Stamping, asked me to take a vacation for a month or so (as any way i am going back to India for extension).
As "LostInGCProcess" said as long as my company is paying me, Will i have chances to get my extension stamping? or Shall I have to be on the job with Client and have to carry a letter of proof showing which client i work for?
Sorry for getting u all confused with my first post.
Thank you
Niru
pcs
01-22 06:36 PM
Go on guys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
On every crossroad on the road to success , you get many to hold you BUT..... very few will tell you to move forward
On every crossroad on the road to success , you get many to hold you BUT..... very few will tell you to move forward
more...
morchu
05-04 04:25 PM
akelkar,
Your highlighted sentence is again for "grant the extension".
We are talking about "invalidation" of a granted extension.
Those are two different things.
And NO. the memo doesnt talk about that.
There is no specific law or interpretation available till today for "invalidation of an already granted extention" based on approved I140, even if the I140 itself gets revoked in future.
Hi Guys
Please read before giving your opinions: as per memo not my words:
USCIS is required to grant the extension of stay pursuant to �106(a) of AC21, in one-year increments, until such time as a final decision has been made to:
A. Deny the application for labor certification, or, if the labor certification is approved, to deny the EB immigrant petition that was filed pursuant to the approved labor certification;
B. Deny the EB immigrant petition, or
C. Grant or deny the alien�s application for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status.
The operative words here being "UNTIL SUCH TIME" - which if I am not wrong means when the decision is reached.....so you DO NOT HAVE A VALID H1B IF 485 IS DENIED.
See links below for more data
http://ac21portability.com/modules/wflinks/
Your highlighted sentence is again for "grant the extension".
We are talking about "invalidation" of a granted extension.
Those are two different things.
And NO. the memo doesnt talk about that.
There is no specific law or interpretation available till today for "invalidation of an already granted extention" based on approved I140, even if the I140 itself gets revoked in future.
Hi Guys
Please read before giving your opinions: as per memo not my words:
USCIS is required to grant the extension of stay pursuant to �106(a) of AC21, in one-year increments, until such time as a final decision has been made to:
A. Deny the application for labor certification, or, if the labor certification is approved, to deny the EB immigrant petition that was filed pursuant to the approved labor certification;
B. Deny the EB immigrant petition, or
C. Grant or deny the alien�s application for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status.
The operative words here being "UNTIL SUCH TIME" - which if I am not wrong means when the decision is reached.....so you DO NOT HAVE A VALID H1B IF 485 IS DENIED.
See links below for more data
http://ac21portability.com/modules/wflinks/
go_guy123
01-11 05:19 AM
It would be hard to find a similar paying job in canada. Is there some kind of legal issue I would be in if I dont migrate to canada? Will I be barred from ever entering that country again?
Canada PR rules have been tightened in Feb 2008. Once you lose it , next time you may not get PR if you apply.
Canada PR rules have been tightened in Feb 2008. Once you lose it , next time you may not get PR if you apply.
chi_shark
05-07 11:14 PM
Hi Friends,
Recently, my brother's wife got GC-rejection. Though, my brother has already received his GC. The reason is : her status was invalid for a month in US. She got different I-94 expiration date than him during her first visit in 1999, though they landed here together. But, her I-94 expired earlier than my brother and he extended her Visa based on his I-94 expiration date. My brother did not realize it until now.
What are her option now? The attorney is applying for re-consideration based on husband & kids status (US born), but, they said chances of the acceptance are very slim. They are well settled here. Now, they need to go back to India just because of her GC-rejection. And of course she can not come back here again unless she applies for H1-B. This is very devastating for them after living here for more than 10 yrs.
Has anyone faced similar situation earlier. I guess it is a very common mistake and there must be some solution. Please share your thoughts/experience.
Thanks,
hi_mkg
what? no help from 245k? isnt that supposed to be your savior for out of status under 180 days?
Recently, my brother's wife got GC-rejection. Though, my brother has already received his GC. The reason is : her status was invalid for a month in US. She got different I-94 expiration date than him during her first visit in 1999, though they landed here together. But, her I-94 expired earlier than my brother and he extended her Visa based on his I-94 expiration date. My brother did not realize it until now.
What are her option now? The attorney is applying for re-consideration based on husband & kids status (US born), but, they said chances of the acceptance are very slim. They are well settled here. Now, they need to go back to India just because of her GC-rejection. And of course she can not come back here again unless she applies for H1-B. This is very devastating for them after living here for more than 10 yrs.
Has anyone faced similar situation earlier. I guess it is a very common mistake and there must be some solution. Please share your thoughts/experience.
Thanks,
hi_mkg
what? no help from 245k? isnt that supposed to be your savior for out of status under 180 days?
radhay
06-19 02:07 PM
Is there are rule governing how far in advance( before the current EAD expires) we can apply for EAD renewal? Is it ok to apply 7 months in advance?
gcseeker2002
04-07 06:16 PM
How about using AP to enter if you have AP ? Is that also a problem for employees of TARP companies ?
No comments:
Post a Comment