Bpositive
12-08 10:19 PM
by the way, I forgot to mention that I was in India when my GC was adjudicated on Oct 22.
At the immigration POE, I told the officer that my GC was granted while I was away. They took me to a room, I waited for 10 minutes, they checked on their system and later told me that I'm good to enter on GC. I looked at my passport where they had canceled my H1 visa and stamped LPR on the immigration stamp which stands for Legal Permanent Resident.
So, no probs returning to the U.S. I even took the liberty to stand in the GC/ citizen Q at the airport :D
That's very useful feedback....appreciate it.
At the immigration POE, I told the officer that my GC was granted while I was away. They took me to a room, I waited for 10 minutes, they checked on their system and later told me that I'm good to enter on GC. I looked at my passport where they had canceled my H1 visa and stamped LPR on the immigration stamp which stands for Legal Permanent Resident.
So, no probs returning to the U.S. I even took the liberty to stand in the GC/ citizen Q at the airport :D
That's very useful feedback....appreciate it.
wallpaper Nicki Minaj will Cover
WeShallOvercome
07-23 04:11 PM
No responses :(
Can someone tell exactly how an FP notice looks?
Can someone tell exactly how an FP notice looks?
Bpositive
02-22 05:17 PM
Talk to a good lawyer...you should be able to sort it out..Congrats on getting into the Phd program at MIT. No mean task...
2011 nicki minaj dad and mom. nicki
naveenarjun
06-04 10:39 AM
If this is old then why did i see it on THOMAS as
=====================================
S.1348
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 5/9/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
======================================
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
======================================
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
The one you are seeing is being replaced one section at a time..So I assume its incomplete.
=====================================
S.1348
Title: A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 5/9/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 5/25/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Considered by Senate.
======================================
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
======================================
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01348:
The one you are seeing is being replaced one section at a time..So I assume its incomplete.
more...
Prashanthi
08-21 01:31 PM
I filed for I-485 under EB3 category in July 2007 and have a priority date of March 2003. Since EB3 is not moving at all. I applied in EB2 category and got I-140 approved based on my old Priority date(March 2003).
My attorney sent a letter to USCIS and requesting them to approve my case based on my approved I-140 (EB2) in July 2009. Since then we haven't received any communication from them.
My case is current as of Aug 1st 2009 but no LUD's on my case.
How would I know that USCIS have changed my case from EB3 to EB2.
I apperciate your response in this regard.
If your new I-140 has the 2003 priority date on it and you have confirmed with the USCIS that your I-485 is now based on the EB-2 filing, i would wait for a couple of months, you have a good chance of approval of your I-485 if the visa number remains current for the next few months.
If you don't hear from them or if you are not sure that your new I-140 has been successfully interfiled with your pending I-485, then you could also apply for a new i-485 based on the EB-2 I-140. The USCIS might ask you which I-485 you want to keep as you are not allowed to file 2 adjustment cases. For cases that are current, i have recently noticed that they are approving I-485's in 2-3 months.
My attorney sent a letter to USCIS and requesting them to approve my case based on my approved I-140 (EB2) in July 2009. Since then we haven't received any communication from them.
My case is current as of Aug 1st 2009 but no LUD's on my case.
How would I know that USCIS have changed my case from EB3 to EB2.
I apperciate your response in this regard.
If your new I-140 has the 2003 priority date on it and you have confirmed with the USCIS that your I-485 is now based on the EB-2 filing, i would wait for a couple of months, you have a good chance of approval of your I-485 if the visa number remains current for the next few months.
If you don't hear from them or if you are not sure that your new I-140 has been successfully interfiled with your pending I-485, then you could also apply for a new i-485 based on the EB-2 I-140. The USCIS might ask you which I-485 you want to keep as you are not allowed to file 2 adjustment cases. For cases that are current, i have recently noticed that they are approving I-485's in 2-3 months.
akred
02-23 10:51 AM
Here is e.g. for 2002 again this excludes schedule A here is the breakdown for india
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
One other factor is in play:
100,000 visas were recaptured in 2000 under the AC21 act and made available to oversubscribed countries over the years until they ran out in 2005.
EB1 - 3K
EB2 - 21K
EB3 - 17.5K
EB4 - 0.3K
EB5 - 0
EB Total - 41K
Am I missing something?
One other factor is in play:
100,000 visas were recaptured in 2000 under the AC21 act and made available to oversubscribed countries over the years until they ran out in 2005.
more...
kevinkris
08-06 02:13 PM
8/06/2010: Senate Passed H-1B and L-1 Filing Fee Substantial Increase Yesterday as Part of $600 Million Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010
� The House passed the Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, which the Senate passed it yesterday with amendments. One of the amendments includes the following fee increase for H-1B and L-1. This amendment was sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. The amendment provides:
o L-1 Filing Fee and Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee Wiil be Increased by $2,250 for Petitioners Employing 50 or More Employees in the United States and More Than 50% of the employees are H-1B or L-1 Employees
o H-1B Filing Fee and Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee Will be Increased by $2,000 for Petitioners Employing 50 or More Employees in the United States and More Than 50% of the employees are H-1B or L-1 Employees.
o The total filing fees after this legislation will be much higher than these figures in that these employers will also have to pay $1,500 American Worker Training Fees for H-1B petition plus current fraud preventiuon fee of $500 and I-129 filing fee of $320.
o The Increased Fee will take effect on the date this bill is enacted into a law by the President's signature and remain in effect until September 30, 2014.
� The bill needs Senate-House Conference and unless the House and Senate leader agree to return to the session during the summer break which ends on 09/14/2010, this bill is not likely enacted into law untill after the Congress returns to the session after the summer break. The amendment will be found in Title IV, Section 402 (a) and (b) of H.R. 5875, as amended by S. 3721.
� Understandably, this bill will hit hard Indian giant consulting businesses since the employers that will be subject to the increased fees fit primarily Indian businesses such as Wipro, Infosys, Tata, etc. Report indicates that these firms started and will continue to lobby the Congress against this bill from here on.
� The fact that this amendment was introduced by the Chairman of Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judidiary Committee indicates that probably he intends to smooth out hardline opponents of CIR by showing strong support for border protection and protection of U.S. hi-tech labor markets in the environment of nation's struggling economy and unemployment rate. Please stay tuned.
� The House passed the Emergency Border Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, which the Senate passed it yesterday with amendments. One of the amendments includes the following fee increase for H-1B and L-1. This amendment was sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. The amendment provides:
o L-1 Filing Fee and Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee Wiil be Increased by $2,250 for Petitioners Employing 50 or More Employees in the United States and More Than 50% of the employees are H-1B or L-1 Employees
o H-1B Filing Fee and Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee Will be Increased by $2,000 for Petitioners Employing 50 or More Employees in the United States and More Than 50% of the employees are H-1B or L-1 Employees.
o The total filing fees after this legislation will be much higher than these figures in that these employers will also have to pay $1,500 American Worker Training Fees for H-1B petition plus current fraud preventiuon fee of $500 and I-129 filing fee of $320.
o The Increased Fee will take effect on the date this bill is enacted into a law by the President's signature and remain in effect until September 30, 2014.
� The bill needs Senate-House Conference and unless the House and Senate leader agree to return to the session during the summer break which ends on 09/14/2010, this bill is not likely enacted into law untill after the Congress returns to the session after the summer break. The amendment will be found in Title IV, Section 402 (a) and (b) of H.R. 5875, as amended by S. 3721.
� Understandably, this bill will hit hard Indian giant consulting businesses since the employers that will be subject to the increased fees fit primarily Indian businesses such as Wipro, Infosys, Tata, etc. Report indicates that these firms started and will continue to lobby the Congress against this bill from here on.
� The fact that this amendment was introduced by the Chairman of Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judidiary Committee indicates that probably he intends to smooth out hardline opponents of CIR by showing strong support for border protection and protection of U.S. hi-tech labor markets in the environment of nation's struggling economy and unemployment rate. Please stay tuned.
2010 Nicki Minaj wore this yellow
lostinbeta
10-14 02:17 AM
You mean a paw print?
more...
MARY_GC
08-24 02:14 PM
One a 485 is applied and is pending, it is possible to replace the underlying 140, even if it is from a different employer.
Reasons why one would do this -
1. Moved away from sponsored employer within 180 days and a job offer from this employer is no longer available
2. Job Role changed significantly enough to warrant a new Labor.
3. AN old Labor with an earlier PD suddenly got approved. Get a 140 approved for this Labor and replace the earlier 140 with this one.
4. Upgrade from eb3 to eb2.
My case is like this:I have applied for eb3 with priority date feb2004.But my attorney is telling why dont we go forward with eb2 perm & I-140 and once it is done send a letter to the uscis asking interfiling with the alreadyfiled eb3 so if everything turnsout well it will be eb2 with eb3's priority date.Whether is it a good option?any advices friends..i'm fearing whether uscis gets confused & close the eb3 case then my priority would become eb2 2007 :(.can anybody throw some light on this
Reasons why one would do this -
1. Moved away from sponsored employer within 180 days and a job offer from this employer is no longer available
2. Job Role changed significantly enough to warrant a new Labor.
3. AN old Labor with an earlier PD suddenly got approved. Get a 140 approved for this Labor and replace the earlier 140 with this one.
4. Upgrade from eb3 to eb2.
My case is like this:I have applied for eb3 with priority date feb2004.But my attorney is telling why dont we go forward with eb2 perm & I-140 and once it is done send a letter to the uscis asking interfiling with the alreadyfiled eb3 so if everything turnsout well it will be eb2 with eb3's priority date.Whether is it a good option?any advices friends..i'm fearing whether uscis gets confused & close the eb3 case then my priority would become eb2 2007 :(.can anybody throw some light on this
hair Nicki Minaj Hairstyles May
va_il
05-16 07:25 PM
Thanks PCS. I am not sure congressman office staff will be familiar with USCIS, 485 and such things. That is why i am wonder whats the best way to approach or phrase my question so that they wont be confused but can get their attention.
I plan to book an appointment and drive there ... i guess i can do that right.
I plan to book an appointment and drive there ... i guess i can do that right.
more...
krishna_brc
05-05 08:54 AM
Yes, we don't need original I-485 receipt notice to travel.
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
I traveled without original I-485.
see below for USCIS note on this
----
[Federal Register: November 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61791-61793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no07-1]
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
__________________________________________________ ____________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 245
[CIS No. 2420-07; Docket No. USCIS-2007-0047]
RIN 1615-AB62
Removal of Receipt Requirement for Certain H and L Adjustment
Applicants Returning From a Trip Outside the United States
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule removes the requirement that certain H and L
nonimmigrants returning to the United States following a trip abroad
must present a receipt notice for their adjustment of status
applications to avoid having such applications deemed abandoned. The
purpose of this narrow change is to remove an unnecessary documentation
requirement from the regulations that the Department of Homeland
Security has determined causes an undue burden on H and L
nonimmigrants.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Vernon, Regulations and Product
Management Division, Domestic Operations, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts
Avenue, Room 2034, Washington, DC 20529, telephone (202) 272-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Travel outside the United States for an alien who has filed Form I-
485, ``Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,''
to obtain lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1255, may adversely
affect that application unless the alien takes certain steps before the
trip. Most applicants must obtain permission from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to travel prior to the trip, a process
referred to as ``advance parole.'' See 8 CFR 212.5 (c) and (f). For
these applicants, departing the United States without advance parole
while their adjustment of status applications are pending results in
automatic abandonment of the applications and constitutes grounds for
denial. 8 CFR 245.2(a)(4)(ii)(A) & (B).
III. Rulemaking Requirements
DHS finds that this rule relates to internal agency management,
procedure, and practice and therefore is exempt from the public comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(A). This rule does not alter substantive criteria by which USCIS
will approve or deny applications or determine eligibility for any
immigration benefit. Instead, this rule relieves a document
presentation requirement for certain applicants for immigration
benefits. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement that H-1/H-4
and L-1/L-2 nonimmigrants present a Form I-797 receipt notice for their
adjustment of status applications upon readmission to the United States
after a trip abroad in order to avoid having their applications
abandoned. This document presentation requirement is unnecessary since
it concerns information that is already available to DHS. This final
rule merely eliminates an unnecessary burden on these arriving aliens
and streamlines agency management of its processes. As a result, DHS is
not required to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
comments on the subject matter of this rule.
Moreover, DHS finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)
to make the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register
without prior notice and public comment on the grounds that delaying
implementation of this rule to allow for public comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As a result of
USCIS's July 17, 2007, announcement that it would accept employment-
based Forms I-485 filed by aliens whose priority dates are current
under Department of State Visa Bulletin No. 107, USCIS received an
unprecedented volume of employment-based applications for adjustment of
status, including those filed by H and L nonimmigrants. Because of the
recent surge in such filings, it will take several weeks for USCIS to
enter the necessary data and issue Form I-797 receipt notices for
employment-based adjustment of status applications. Therefore, it is
important for this rule to take effect as soon as possible to avoid
undue hardship on applicants who may need travel outside the United
States prior to receiving the receipt notice.
In addition, no substantive rights or obligations of the affected
public are changed by this rule. DHS believes the public will welcome
this change. The public needs no time to conform its conduct so as to
avoid violation of these regulations because the rule relieves a
requirement of the existing regulations. Further, this rule will have
no adverse impact on DHS' adjudicatory responsibilities or ability to
track the foreign travel of affected persons since DHS already records
the admission of all nonimigrants. For these reasons, this rule is
effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).
This rule relates to internal agency management, and, therefore, is
exempt from the provisions of Executive Order Nos. 12630, 12988, 13045,
13132, 13175, 13211, and 13272. This rule is not considered by DHS to
be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Therefore, it has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, this
action is not a proposed rule requiring an initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. In addition, this rule is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. Ch. 17A, 25,
or the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3501, note.
Finally, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements
inherent in a rule. This rule does not affect any information
collections, reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 245 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
1. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; sec. 202, Pub. L.
105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 245.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 245.2 Application.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The travel outside of the United States by an applicant for
adjustment of status who is not under exclusion, deportation, or
removal proceeding and who is in lawful H-1 or L-1 status shall not be
deemed an abandonment of the application if, upon returning to this
country, the alien remains eligible for H or L status, is coming to
resume employment with the same employer for whom he or she had
previously been authorized to work as an H-1 or L-1 nonimmigrant, and,
is in possession of a valid H or L visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful H-4 or L-2 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if the spouse or parent of such alien through whom the
H-4 or L-2 status was obtained is maintaining H-1 or L-1 status and the
alien remains otherwise eligible for H-4 or L-2 status, and, the alien
is in possession of a valid H-4 or L-2 visa (if required). The travel
outside of the United States by an applicant for adjustment of status,
who is not under exclusion, deportation, or removal proceeding and who
is in lawful K-3 or K-4 status shall not be deemed an abandonment of
the application if, upon returning to this country, the alien is in
possession of a valid K-3 or K-4 visa and remains eligible for K-3 or
K-4 status.
Dated: October 15, 2007.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21506 Filed 10-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-P
hot nicki-minaj-blonde hair ends
gccube
04-08 12:01 PM
and they gave a consistent reply all the three times that my NC is cleared. But I agree that there are no guarantees.
As per them the NC was initiated on Aug1st 2007. So probably the 180 day rule should cover me.
As per them the NC was initiated on Aug1st 2007. So probably the 180 day rule should cover me.
more...
house house Nicki Minaj Hairstyles
casinoroyale
08-20 10:28 PM
Friends, anyone going to Canada in September?
tattoo Nicki Minaj Hairstyles
webm
06-09 02:50 PM
"Processing Date current with respect to Receipt Date" in May VB,even then IO not picked in my case atleast...so its all matter of luck!! back to U-turn..
more...
pictures NEW 2010 LIL WAYNE NICKI MINAJ
bijualex29
06-08 03:50 PM
Man I tell you, In India people openly takes bribes and they call it as bribes. He we makes it as an official word called Primium processing, I call it as Sofisicated word for bribe only.
dresses pictures Nicki Minaj at her
chanduv23
12-16 10:59 AM
A freind of mine had two years EAD and don't have H1 anymore. His drivers License was denied as EAD is not considered a valid document for drivers License extention.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
We must get this addressed. Write to the DMV to sort this out. Pending 485 is a valid status and that needs to be sorted out.
Lets make a list of DMVs not accepting pending 485 as valid form.
This happened in Wayne , NJ.
I too will be going for the renewal soon. Did anyone else faced similar situtation. If yes, how did they resolve?
We must get this addressed. Write to the DMV to sort this out. Pending 485 is a valid status and that needs to be sorted out.
Lets make a list of DMVs not accepting pending 485 as valid form.
more...
makeup 2010 nicki minaj super bass
malibuguy007
10-02 05:51 PM
Just joined SC chapter on Yahoo Groups
girlfriend hairstyles 2010 Nicki Minaj
pmb76
05-08 03:22 PM
Ofcourse they deserve an H1-B visa. That what makes this country a great place to live ! Diversity of people and the freedom to choose what you do best in your career. That's why we are all here.
Software is easy. By the way I write device driver kernel code and I still think it is much easier compared to fashion modeling. Your kernel crashes - you look at the stack trace and create a patch - simple. As a fashion model you mess up on the ramp - you mess up millions of $s in advertisements and your entire career.
Most Engineers have this way of self-glorifying themselves which I kind of find rather lame. Your job is the easiest and you are overpaid. Wake up and smell the coffee ... or er Chai :)
Software is easy. By the way I write device driver kernel code and I still think it is much easier compared to fashion modeling. Your kernel crashes - you look at the stack trace and create a patch - simple. As a fashion model you mess up on the ramp - you mess up millions of $s in advertisements and your entire career.
Most Engineers have this way of self-glorifying themselves which I kind of find rather lame. Your job is the easiest and you are overpaid. Wake up and smell the coffee ... or er Chai :)
hairstyles Nicki Minaj Haute Hairdos (17
pa_arora
07-10 04:34 PM
Wow, surprisingly the Eb-2 dates have moved ahead by 2 yrs!! I have a feeling they will go back to 2000 next month :p
dude its around 4 yrs.. ;-)
dude its around 4 yrs.. ;-)
anilsal
03-21 12:37 AM
Additionally, can your attorneys makes copies of RFE response sent and attach it to the MTR maybe? I do not if that is possible or allowed or will make any difference.
I just learned that from you that there is a 33 day deadline on answering RFEs. What if the mail got lost in transit? How will the applicant/attorneys really know (unless of course you have done the online case status registration).
I just learned that from you that there is a 33 day deadline on answering RFEs. What if the mail got lost in transit? How will the applicant/attorneys really know (unless of course you have done the online case status registration).
cheg
08-30 02:41 AM
I was thinking that 'Parolee' seems to be the logical choice but I also think that one has to re-enter using advance parole to be called a 'Parolee' exactly what shreekhand said. I would say you're an 'Adjustee' but it's not in the choices so I suggest doing the paper-based application. Good luck!
In legal parlance it is referred to as "period of stay as authorized by the Attorney General".
Parolee sounds to fit somewhere right there from among the options, though in my opinion a person has to re-enter the US as a parolee.
In legal parlance it is referred to as "period of stay as authorized by the Attorney General".
Parolee sounds to fit somewhere right there from among the options, though in my opinion a person has to re-enter the US as a parolee.