ashkam
11-16 02:08 PM
As has been discussed and responded to a million times on this forum, the answer to this question is, when you enter on an AP, your immigrant status changes to parolee, but your H1B continues to be valid as a work authorization document and you can still use it to work for the same employer.
wallpaper justin bieber fake face. fake
Dhundhun
11-21 04:12 PM
#1. Usually duration, designation and salary to be provided by company.
#2. The role or work related description can be provided by co-worker.
If RFE is related to #1, and company is closed, then lawyer (or yourself) has to present your case with whatever evidences are there (e.g. company is closed, follow up with ex-management to get certificates, etc).
#2. The role or work related description can be provided by co-worker.
If RFE is related to #1, and company is closed, then lawyer (or yourself) has to present your case with whatever evidences are there (e.g. company is closed, follow up with ex-management to get certificates, etc).
ashwinicool67
04-28 02:55 PM
Anyone??
2011 tattoo justin bieber cut out
Homemaker
08-11 06:42 PM
I assume that this new immigration will definitely work if all the members vote for it and am sure it will surely have impact on our lives once it passes.Hope for the best always.
more...
fromnaija
12-09 04:09 PM
According to my attorney, you can re-apply for AP from outside of the U.S. and have it delivered to a local consulate.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
I will not argue with what your lawyer tells you.
However, because Form I-131 is used for multiple purposes, some of the instructions are applicable to one condition and not to the other. So read the instruction again and you will see that some of the references to sending the document to overseas consulate refers to when it's used as a Reentry Permit, Refuge Travel Document, or as Advanced Parole for humanitarian reasons. For someone who applied for AOS, sorry no such luck.
digitalrain
06-26 06:53 PM
Thank you for the advice.
more...
amsgc
03-31 02:53 PM
I have a somewat similar situation, here goes:
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
Myself: "Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
My wife: Before we got married last year, she was on J1 (> 6 months)
Therefore, that time does not count towards calculating presence in the US for tax purposes. This implies she is a "Non Resident Alien for Tax purposes" for 2007.
The 1040 instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf) state that you cannot file as "Married filing Jointly" if either spouse is a "Non Resident Alien" for tax purposes, UNLESS the other spouse is a citizen or a permanent resident. (Page 13).
My thought is that I will have to go with "Married, filing separately". Since my wife did not have any income, I may be able to take a deduction for my spouse(Page 14), if she doesn't file her taxes.
You are correct that if you file jointly, the difference is quite a bit - but I am not sure what else one can do.
If others have dealt with a similar situation, please advise.
Thanks.
Ams
Can we file taxes seperately on married status?
I mean, my CPA did estimates seperately and we found substantial difference...
Is there any problem in we filing seperately as we r into 485 peding stuff?...
From an Immigration perspective, what are the ramifications when 'Married and filing Jointly' versus 'Married and filing seperately'.
First of all, are they related?
2010 justin bieber fake face.
leonqiu
03-14 12:06 PM
Charles Oppenheim, Chief of Immigrant Visa Control and Reporting Division at the U.S. Department of State (DOS) was a guest speaker at a February 28, 2007 Washington D.C. Chapter meeting of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Mr. Oppenheim was kind enough to share his office�s visa number / Visa Bulletin expectations for 2007.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RETROGRESSION
Mr. Oppenheim discussed the historical background that has led to the current retrogression situation. Retrogression is not something new or unfamiliar in immigration law, as long-time MurthyDotCom and MurthyBulletin readers may recall. For many, however, who may have become involved in the green card process since 2001, it is new and, of course, highly problematic. Employment-based (or EB) numbers were current from 2001 through 2005 due to a legislative "fix." This legislation authorized prior, unused immigrant visa numbers from several earlier years to be recaptured and put back into the immigration system. That quota of recaptured numbers was exhausted during Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. As a result, in FYs 2005, 2006 and 2007 we have witnessed severe backlogs in the EB3 categories for all countries and, starting in FY2006, in the EB2 categories for China and India.
PREDICTIONS FOR EB IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS
Employment-Based First Preference / EB1
Mr. Oppenheim stated that the employment-based first preference (EB1) category is expected to remain current for all countries of chargeability, including India and China. This is likely throughout the remainder of FY2007 (ending September 30, 2007).
Mr. Oppenheim explained what he referred to as the �trickling effect� of unused visa numbers between EB categories. This trickling effect has resulted in the EB1 category's having remained current. The numbers in the employment-based fourth preference (EB4) and employment-based fifth preference (EB5) categories that are unused are transferred up to the EB1 category. Without this trickling affect, the EB1 category would not remain current for India and China.
This also has an impact on EB2, as unused EB1 numbers trickle down to EB2. There are not enough numbers for India and China, however, to allow the EB2 for these two countries to become current. But it has helped to move EB2 forward for these two countries, to some extent.
Employment-Based Second Preference / EB2
The employment-based second preference (EB2) category is expected to remain at its current cutoff dates for nationals of India and China. These dates have been stagnant at April 22, 2005 for China and January 8, 2003 for India for a few months.
Employment-Based Third Preference / EB3
No forward movement is expected for the employment-based third preference (EB3) category. In fact, as predicted in the March Visa Bulletin and confirmed by Mr. Oppenheim, there is a strong possibility that the EB3 numbers that are not in the "worldwide" chargeability will further retrogress, or move backward. This is expected to occur in the summer of 2007. This backward movement is based upon excessive demand for the limited supply of visa numbers. This will adversely affect nationals of India and China.
Double Dipping
Another problem important to note is one of �doubling dipping� for visa numbers by some individuals. As explained by Mr. Oppenheim, if an employment-based beneficiary filed for adjustment of status in the U.S. and for consular processing overseas, that individual could acquire two visa numbers if both cases are approved. This would result in a wasted immigrant visa number. As a result of this scenario, the DOS and the USCIS are planning a system that would coordinate their visa number allocation, so that each will be aware if the other has already issued a visa number for a particular individual, to prevent waste of this kind.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate Mr. Oppenheim's continued willingness to address matters related to visa numbers and the Visa Bulletin. The lack of employment-based visa numbers is a source of great frustration for many and Mr. Oppenheim's predictions do not assuage that feeling. It is better to have an understanding of the reality of the situation, however, than to operate in ignorance or with unrealistic expectations. The shortage of visa numbers, once again, underscores the need for legislation in this area, to increase the numbers, change the counting of the numbers (from one per person to one per family), or to revamp the system entirely.
more...
pointlesswait
03-28 11:51 AM
how on earth do u expect ppl to knwo how USCIS functions..:eek:
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
wait and watch!
hey! why it is like that?? last month, feb 15 08, the processing date was July 31, 2007 and how come now updated mar. 15 and the processing date became june 08, 2007??? WHY?? my friend got her gc already, hers date was july 19...she got her gc!!so wats up with that!!Do you think they will send mine (july 22)?im so upset!pls reply soon!
pd's
January 15, 2008: from April 07.. it became July 19
February 15, 2008: from July 19... it became July 30
March 15, 2008: from July 30... it became JUNE 08, 2007???????????
Do you think it was just a typographical error that it must be August 08, 2007 instead of June???
this is the link to nebraska service center
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/jsps/Processtimes.jsp?SeviceCenter=NSC
I NEED YOUR COMMENT REPLIES.
hair justin bieber fake pics. justin bieber fake face. be
jkmc
02-16 11:02 AM
not really, but close.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Hi Surge
You should then consult a lawyer.
i-94 expire 10/01/2007. married 09/12/2007. i-485 received by uscis on 11/26/2007.
Hi Surge
You should then consult a lawyer.
more...
kzinjuwadia
05-25 01:22 PM
After receiving GC do we have to report to SSN to change the SSN card but with same number. Existing card says work paper required.
Any anyone knows action item required after receiving GC then please post here?
Ppl do that; but I don't think it's a compulsory thing. Maybe it's good to remove one of the last traces of being non-immigrant in US ;)
Any anyone knows action item required after receiving GC then please post here?
Ppl do that; but I don't think it's a compulsory thing. Maybe it's good to remove one of the last traces of being non-immigrant in US ;)
hot makeup images justin bieber
ram04
10-20 08:43 PM
If your new company is paying the fee use company attorney else stick with old attorney.
Make sure the new attorney is good and capble of handling your case.
I have followed first option in my case which is similar to yours and ofcourse my new corporate attorney is equally good.
Hope this helps to decide further.
Make sure the new attorney is good and capble of handling your case.
I have followed first option in my case which is similar to yours and ofcourse my new corporate attorney is equally good.
Hope this helps to decide further.
more...
house Mustache Man Justin Bieber:
BPforGC
05-11 01:51 PM
This guy has no clue on anything...
He says he gets back after talking to the 'subject experts'....
A senator clearly asked him what to do on backlogs. If he has an iota of knowledge and real interest in immigration, he should have told to increase visa numbers, eliminate country limit and recapture legislation. All he said was he will get back to them and this opportunity has gone into thin air....
So, this statement clearly epitomizes why USCIS is an inefficient and hopeless agency. They talk too much, think less and do nothing.
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Out of 10+ members of Judiciary committee, only two to three really care about an agency that is trying to work on legal immigration and present for this hearing. Talk about illegal immigration, every one will start running out of their beds with their pants down to get attention... this is really disconcerting.
The whole hearing is a time waste for everyone. It did not achieve anything except patting each others back. Disgusting...
He says he gets back after talking to the 'subject experts'....
A senator clearly asked him what to do on backlogs. If he has an iota of knowledge and real interest in immigration, he should have told to increase visa numbers, eliminate country limit and recapture legislation. All he said was he will get back to them and this opportunity has gone into thin air....
So, this statement clearly epitomizes why USCIS is an inefficient and hopeless agency. They talk too much, think less and do nothing.
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Out of 10+ members of Judiciary committee, only two to three really care about an agency that is trying to work on legal immigration and present for this hearing. Talk about illegal immigration, every one will start running out of their beds with their pants down to get attention... this is really disconcerting.
The whole hearing is a time waste for everyone. It did not achieve anything except patting each others back. Disgusting...
tattoo Justin Bieber is fake?
arc
04-14 09:50 AM
You know these reporting back, reistating the status, etc takes lots of effort, money and time. I hate this kind of things. Why the hell we should pay for somebody's mistake?
On a side note:
If someone returns this kind of mistake-GC, then what will happen to the visa number? Will it get reclaimed and reused or go wasted?
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
On a side note:
If someone returns this kind of mistake-GC, then what will happen to the visa number? Will it get reclaimed and reused or go wasted?
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
more...
pictures my fake moustache hehe in
snowcatcher
05-22 08:02 AM
I believe this is the transcript of the article that was referred above. It says March 2006 on it and it was done for House Subcommitee on immigration. Hope this link works.
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/articles/Testimony033006.pdf
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/articles/Testimony033006.pdf
dresses Justin Bieber truly is a
sanju_dba
03-21 07:59 AM
Dear OP,
Congratulations!
read here MurthyDotCom : Marriage and I-485 Issues (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDmar485.html)
It might help exploring your issue.
Congratulations!
read here MurthyDotCom : Marriage and I-485 Issues (http://www.murthy.com/news/UDmar485.html)
It might help exploring your issue.
more...
makeup justin bieber fake glasses.
sanojkumar
08-21 11:42 AM
Now I need one help. I have moved to Chicago area freom Michigan. We had filed from Michigan. So to change address to get FP notice in Chicago area what all I need to do? I had no Alien number on my I140. Please advice. I am looking at LIN number on the back of the checks. But for my wife she has different LIN number on three checks for I-765, I-485 & FP. Which one will be valid. Can I get any handle from these numbers to make a call to USCIS and request them to change my address online? What is the number for USCIS to call?
girlfriend Justin Bieber that loves to
rajivkane
05-21 09:52 AM
HI!
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
I have two I-140(both approved) & want to port earlier priority date of 10/21/2003(EB-3 Classification) to my other approved I-140(EB2 Class-priority date 11/14/2005). My EB-3 I-140 was not approved at the time of filling I-485 in July'2007. Both my lawyer & me have written couple of letters to USCIS to do this but still nothing is done. We received a reply to one of my letter asking us to file I-824 "requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date". Both I-140 are from the same employer & I am still with them. My questions are 1) do I need to file I-824 or this will be eventually done by USCIS by reminder letters? (2) Will filling I-824 will harm my case in anyway? (3) What "reason for request" to choose on I-824 when filling- as none of the existing ones fit my case( can I say "see attached" & mention ""requesting an amended approval notice with retention of earlier priority date" on anither sheet of paper? (if any one has this experience please guide me) (4) how long does it take to get this done whether we file I-824 or otherwise?(5)Any good lawyer for this?
Some more :
Murhy.com has following:
"However, we at the Murthy Law Firm see cases in which either the I-140 petition with the earlier priority date was not approved until after the I-485 filing or the option was overlooked. In those situations, NSC suggests that the Application for Action on Approved Petition (Form I-824) can be used in order to obtain proof of the change of the priority date. Form I-824 is not required in order to make the request for retention or change of priority date, but it gives a mechanism to obtain a decision and proof that the request was granted"
Some of the questions based on above:
(1) Do I require to file I-824 based on this since my EB-3 I-140 was approveD after I filed my I-485 based on EB-2.
(2) If yes, can I file I-842 or my employer need to file since this is "application for action" on I-140 petititon?
(3)Why only NSC requires this? Is this law or someone's whim?
(4) I am already waiting for nearly six month's now- based on porting I am current past six months & we already have sent two letters from my lawyer & two from my side for this.
Please guide.
Regards,
Raj
hairstyles Justin Bieber truly is a
michael_trs
05-14 04:48 PM
Ok. I understand that if I state Master's + 3 or 5 years experience for Software Engineer position I need to answer NO to H14 "requirements normal for the occupation?" because it exceeds SVP. Agree?
Now the question is does it automatically lead to audit?
Now the question is does it automatically lead to audit?
needhelp!
03-09 01:50 PM
IV needs to compile all your replies. Please send them ASAP.
tnite
03-17 01:05 PM
Hi Friends,
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
When you filed I485 , you have to send a copy of the I140. If you had sent in the one with the old PD then thats what USCIS will go by.
Call USCIS custonmer service and see what they tell you.
I have a confusing situation here. Hope someone can help me with this. This is a bit complicated so please bear with me.
I fall under ROW. My first LC was filed in Feb 2005 under RIR and it was in BEC for a long time. So my company filed another LC under PERM in March 2007 which was approved very quickly and I-140 was filed for that.
Then in April 2007 the first LC (PD Feb 2005) was approved and we filed an I-140 for that as well. This was converted to PP and was approved very quickly.
Then in June 07 when my Feb 2005 PD became current we filed for 485 based on that older LC. However in the receipt notice the Priority Date box was blank which I did not notice till yesterday.
My other I-140 with PD March 2007 was pending till Jan 2008 and was approved in mid January. On the same day it was approved I noticed a soft LUD on my pending I-485 which has nothing to do with that I-140.
Now my question is, is it possible that USCIS mistakenly linked my recently approved I-140 (PD Mar 2007) to the pending I-1485? Is that possible? The reason for this worry is the soft LUD that saw on my 485 as mentioned above and the fact that my 485 receipt notice does not have a PD printed on it.
Is there anyway that I can verify which PD is linked to my 485 by contacting USCIS? I have heard of INFOPASS, would that help? If so how can I get an appointment? If as I suspect , the 485 is now linked to the wrong PD, is it difficult to have it corrected? Please let me know.
Also is it common to have the PD box blank in the 485 receipt notice?
Thanks in Advance!!!!!
When you filed I485 , you have to send a copy of the I140. If you had sent in the one with the old PD then thats what USCIS will go by.
Call USCIS custonmer service and see what they tell you.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий