- vanessa hudgens 2011 leaked.
- new vanessa hudgens leaked
- Filed Under : Vanessa Hudgens
- dresses vanessa hudgens 2011
- vanessa hudgens leaked photos
- vanessa hudgens alexa nikolas
- Vanessa+hudgens+new+leaked
- vanessa hudgens leaked photos
- New Vanessa Hudgens Leaked
- VANESSA HUDGENS LEAKED 2011
- Vanessa+hudgens+leaked+
- vanessa hudgens leaked photo
- Vanessa Hudgens
- vanessa hudgens leaked photos
- Vanessa Hudgens covers Shape
- Vanessa Hudgens 2011
- VANESSA HUDGENS LEAKED 2011
- vanessa hudgens leaked photos
- hairstyles vanessa hudgens
images vanessa hudgens leaked photos 
wallpaper vanessa hudgens 2011 leaked.
2011 new vanessa hudgens leaked
more...
more...
2010 Filed Under : Vanessa Hudgens
more...
hair dresses vanessa hudgens 2011
more...
hot vanessa hudgens leaked photos
more...
house VANESSA HUDGENS LEAKED 2011
tattoo vanessa hudgens alexa nikolas
more...
pictures Vanessa+hudgens+new+leaked
dresses vanessa hudgens leaked photo
more...
makeup New Vanessa Hudgens Leaked
girlfriend vanessa hudgens leaked photos
hairstyles Vanessa+hudgens+leaked+
beautifulMind
06-09 12:05 AM
You can only get a US visa outside of USA and you only need a visa to enter US since you already in US then why do you need a visa? when you go back just apply for another B1 Visa
wallpaper vanessa hudgens 2011 leaked.
webm
03-06 02:39 PM
yes EB3 India. I think when I look back, its just a matter of luck. Once it was RFE, second time I got a second finger printing and third time they just did'nt pick it up. But USCIS has been very promptful in approving my EADs and AP. I could be very well one of the oldest processing case sitting in the TSC shelf.
(1700 days)
We wish you get your GC soon.!!:)
(1700 days)
We wish you get your GC soon.!!:)
indianabacklog
10-31 07:20 AM
My EAD is pending for more than 90 days now.My received date is 27th July and Notice date is 31st Aug. I called USCIS and told that my application is pending for more than 90 days. The Level 1 officer acknowledged the fact and escalated the call to Level 2. The level 2 IO was very rude and simply deny to accept the fact that 90 days are over. She simply said that the USCIS is counting 90 days from the notice date not the received date. I told her that It is mentioned on the USCIS website that 90 days are from the received date. The IO officer scolded at me and said if I don't believe her words, then do not call USCIS.:mad:
I guess there is no point calling USCIS and checking status on EAD. I am hoping that the situation will improve and i will soon get EAD card.
If you want to try to speed this up, go online, make an infopass appointment at your local office and have them send an email or fax on your behalf.
I am not excusing the IO's right now but can you imagine the amount of calls they have had to endure since the July fiasco and the mounds of applications that they are having to deal with through no fault of their own.
I guess there is no point calling USCIS and checking status on EAD. I am hoping that the situation will improve and i will soon get EAD card.
If you want to try to speed this up, go online, make an infopass appointment at your local office and have them send an email or fax on your behalf.
I am not excusing the IO's right now but can you imagine the amount of calls they have had to endure since the July fiasco and the mounds of applications that they are having to deal with through no fault of their own.
2011 new vanessa hudgens leaked
sanjay02
10-17 02:19 PM
I had a interview in Feb 2009 , keep all the documents ready. Your wife and youself can go at the same time.
1) Marriage certificate( If ur married :-))
2) All your transcripts for your schools
3) Passports
4) H1-B, EAD, AP copies, I-485 receipt # copies.
5) Any other communications you had with USCIS copies of it.
6) W-2 for last 3 yrs( if you have them), pay slips.
7) Employment letter from your employer
8) AC-21 etc.
9) Copies of your utilities bill, mortgage/lease papers.
10) Birth certificate of all applicants.
11) Family photos etc ( optional).
Interview will be in the 2nd floor not more than 20 or 25 mins. Take an lawyer/attorney with you if necessary.
Thnks
1) Marriage certificate( If ur married :-))
2) All your transcripts for your schools
3) Passports
4) H1-B, EAD, AP copies, I-485 receipt # copies.
5) Any other communications you had with USCIS copies of it.
6) W-2 for last 3 yrs( if you have them), pay slips.
7) Employment letter from your employer
8) AC-21 etc.
9) Copies of your utilities bill, mortgage/lease papers.
10) Birth certificate of all applicants.
11) Family photos etc ( optional).
Interview will be in the 2nd floor not more than 20 or 25 mins. Take an lawyer/attorney with you if necessary.
Thnks
more...
njboy
02-12 02:29 PM
first of all, your question is irrelevant..if you are going to canada, you are not required to submit your i-94. your new i-94 is the one attached to your h1b approval..so ..it doesnt matter how long they stamp your visa..you can stay in US till the date of the i-94 you got attached to your h1b approval notice
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
GreenCardLegion
03-01 05:47 PM
Hey Tiger,
Dont take my words or advise for granted if one year you had less than your prevailing wage on W2 it may be ok as you have 2 more years of W2 with equal or more than prevailing wage.
Honestly I cannot say for sure your extension will be denied. But it helps for you to pay a couple of hundred dollars and talk over the phone to experienced attorneys like Sheela Murthy and get advise on your situation and options and whether there are chances of denial. I would assume you are OK but again I am no LAWYER :) I really wish you luck in your extension
Dont take my words or advise for granted if one year you had less than your prevailing wage on W2 it may be ok as you have 2 more years of W2 with equal or more than prevailing wage.
Honestly I cannot say for sure your extension will be denied. But it helps for you to pay a couple of hundred dollars and talk over the phone to experienced attorneys like Sheela Murthy and get advise on your situation and options and whether there are chances of denial. I would assume you are OK but again I am no LAWYER :) I really wish you luck in your extension
2010 Filed Under : Vanessa Hudgens
speedo
08-14 03:25 PM
I-485 AD: Jul-02-2007
I-485 ND: Jul-31-2007
still waiting for fingerprint notice.
I-485 ND: Jul-31-2007
still waiting for fingerprint notice.
more...
mihird
10-26 02:17 PM
They took her original 797 approval notice away....it did confuse her and also me.
She just got her stamped passport back in courier yesterday, but there was no 797 with it.
Should we contact the consulate for it?
She just got her stamped passport back in courier yesterday, but there was no 797 with it.
Should we contact the consulate for it?
hair dresses vanessa hudgens 2011
raj2007
04-02 09:25 PM
My employer recd an RFE on Jan 8. The Requested Evidence is supposed to be provided in 12 weeks from the date of the RFE letter(Jan 8).
I am told that my attorny didn't respond to this RFE. Is it 84 days which means till April 2nd is the deadline when it is supposed to be answered. If that is the case I crossed the deadline by a day or two.
Can you experienced folks let me know if I crossed the deadline. Is there still a room to answer the ability to pay RFE?
my employer said he would answer RFE (ability to pay) if some financial adjustments are made. Is it ok and make this financial adjustment so that he can responde to the RFE inspite of the 12 week deadline just passed.
Will a delayed response for RFE for couple of days at USCIS does matter? Will they reject the evidence if they dont recieve in time?
Is it better to wait till the I140 is denied and then open an MTR? How easy and practical is it to open an MTR and successfully plead for the I140 approval?
Your early response helps me take a decision.
I have already filed 485 based on this RFE pending I140. that will go waste if I140 is denied.
Your attorney can tell if they accept late RFE reply. 12 week is enough time and I don't see anybody want to delay this.
MTR decision takes long time, around 1 year or more but you can't use 485 benefits till that is approved.
I am told that my attorny didn't respond to this RFE. Is it 84 days which means till April 2nd is the deadline when it is supposed to be answered. If that is the case I crossed the deadline by a day or two.
Can you experienced folks let me know if I crossed the deadline. Is there still a room to answer the ability to pay RFE?
my employer said he would answer RFE (ability to pay) if some financial adjustments are made. Is it ok and make this financial adjustment so that he can responde to the RFE inspite of the 12 week deadline just passed.
Will a delayed response for RFE for couple of days at USCIS does matter? Will they reject the evidence if they dont recieve in time?
Is it better to wait till the I140 is denied and then open an MTR? How easy and practical is it to open an MTR and successfully plead for the I140 approval?
Your early response helps me take a decision.
I have already filed 485 based on this RFE pending I140. that will go waste if I140 is denied.
Your attorney can tell if they accept late RFE reply. 12 week is enough time and I don't see anybody want to delay this.
MTR decision takes long time, around 1 year or more but you can't use 485 benefits till that is approved.
more...
sounakc
07-10 05:49 PM
thanks for your prompt reply...
cheers
You can not .. you will need to wait until EB-2 PD cut off is Jan 2004. family based is different kind of fruit (I don't want to call it animal) :-)
cheers
You can not .. you will need to wait until EB-2 PD cut off is Jan 2004. family based is different kind of fruit (I don't want to call it animal) :-)
hot vanessa hudgens leaked photos
buehler
07-10 04:22 PM
Here is the link - Visa Bulletin for August 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4539.html)
more...
house VANESSA HUDGENS LEAKED 2011
raysaikat
09-13 03:56 PM
Hello,
I have a question about obtaining and O-1 visa (or possibly EB-1 Green Card). I did hire an attorney , but would like another look at the situation.
I am a musician, about 2 months after the end of OPT, presently in USA, with a PhD and many awards so I should qualify for O-1.
Unless you have won a grammy or a similar award, you do not necessarily qualify. Here are the requirement from USCIS:
1. Nomination for and/or recipient of significant national or international awards or prizes in his/her field (e.g. Academy, Emmy, Grammy, or Director’s Guild Award)
OR
• At least three of the following apply to him/her:
o Performed a lead, starring or critical role for organizations and establishments of distinguished reputation.
o A record of major commercial or critically acclaimed success.
o Received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the alien’s field.
o Commands/ed high salary or other remuneration for services as compared to others in the alien’s field.
o Other comparable evidence
Aliens in the Motion Picture or TV Industry
The type of evidence that is required to establish “extraordinary achievement” in the motion picture or TV industry is in some ways similar to the type of evidence submitted to show “extraordinary ability” in the arts. The standard that must be met, however, is higher. To establish “extraordinary ability in the arts” it is enough to show a high level of achievement. For “extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or TV industry” a very high level of accomplishment is required.
When you file your petition, you must try to provide evidence of as many categories as possible. Usually the point is that what you have achieved is not *usual*. E.g., *winning* an assistantship in your graduate school does not count.
As advised, I needed an employer to sponsor the visa. My attorney suggested that Part-time is not recommendable at all. I researched and could not find if the position need to be necessarily Full-time? I have only a part time job currently and many freelancing opportunities.
Also, since the nature of my profession is freelancing (meaning I need to perform, teach...on many different places), can I be self-employed for O-1?
O-1 is the employer's petition, not yours. So you do need to have an employer. However, if you can prove that your field is traditionally self-employed, then you can have a US agent. I do not know what is a US agent; ask your lawyer.
We already filed the petition for O-1 (with the part-time employer as a sponsor) and the current status is: Additional Information/Proof Needed. We still don't have the letter stating what is needed, but I worry it's not a good sign. What do you think?
And lastly, IF it happens that O-1 is not approved, can I still apply for EB-1 Green Card?
Thank you for your answers!
EB-1 petition (assuming it is the EB-1A) standards are as follows. They are very similar to O-1 and stricter, however, legally EB1-A requirements are independent of O-1 requirement (i.e., you cannot argue that if your O-1 is approved, then EB1-A must also be approved with the same set of evidences):
Aliens with extraordinary ability are those with "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." You must be one of "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," to be granted this classification. For example, if you receive a major internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize, you will qualify for an EB-1 classification. Other awards may also qualify if you can document that the award is in the same class as a Nobel Prize. Since few workers receive this type of award, alternative evidence of EB-1 classification based on at least three of the types of evidence outlined below, is permitted. The worker may submit "other comparable evidence" if the following criteria do not apply:
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence;
Membership in associations in the field which demand outstanding achievement of their members; [It is not sufficient to be a member of an organization where you are member just by the virtue of your profession, or just because you cared to apply]
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel; [Grading your student's work does not count! If you are a judge in American Idol, Project Runway, etc., those would definitely count]
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field;
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien's work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases;
Performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations;
Evidence that the alien commands a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field;
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
I have a question about obtaining and O-1 visa (or possibly EB-1 Green Card). I did hire an attorney , but would like another look at the situation.
I am a musician, about 2 months after the end of OPT, presently in USA, with a PhD and many awards so I should qualify for O-1.
Unless you have won a grammy or a similar award, you do not necessarily qualify. Here are the requirement from USCIS:
1. Nomination for and/or recipient of significant national or international awards or prizes in his/her field (e.g. Academy, Emmy, Grammy, or Director’s Guild Award)
OR
• At least three of the following apply to him/her:
o Performed a lead, starring or critical role for organizations and establishments of distinguished reputation.
o A record of major commercial or critically acclaimed success.
o Received significant recognition for achievements from organizations, critics, government agencies, or other recognized experts in the alien’s field.
o Commands/ed high salary or other remuneration for services as compared to others in the alien’s field.
o Other comparable evidence
Aliens in the Motion Picture or TV Industry
The type of evidence that is required to establish “extraordinary achievement” in the motion picture or TV industry is in some ways similar to the type of evidence submitted to show “extraordinary ability” in the arts. The standard that must be met, however, is higher. To establish “extraordinary ability in the arts” it is enough to show a high level of achievement. For “extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or TV industry” a very high level of accomplishment is required.
When you file your petition, you must try to provide evidence of as many categories as possible. Usually the point is that what you have achieved is not *usual*. E.g., *winning* an assistantship in your graduate school does not count.
As advised, I needed an employer to sponsor the visa. My attorney suggested that Part-time is not recommendable at all. I researched and could not find if the position need to be necessarily Full-time? I have only a part time job currently and many freelancing opportunities.
Also, since the nature of my profession is freelancing (meaning I need to perform, teach...on many different places), can I be self-employed for O-1?
O-1 is the employer's petition, not yours. So you do need to have an employer. However, if you can prove that your field is traditionally self-employed, then you can have a US agent. I do not know what is a US agent; ask your lawyer.
We already filed the petition for O-1 (with the part-time employer as a sponsor) and the current status is: Additional Information/Proof Needed. We still don't have the letter stating what is needed, but I worry it's not a good sign. What do you think?
And lastly, IF it happens that O-1 is not approved, can I still apply for EB-1 Green Card?
Thank you for your answers!
EB-1 petition (assuming it is the EB-1A) standards are as follows. They are very similar to O-1 and stricter, however, legally EB1-A requirements are independent of O-1 requirement (i.e., you cannot argue that if your O-1 is approved, then EB1-A must also be approved with the same set of evidences):
Aliens with extraordinary ability are those with "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation." You must be one of "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," to be granted this classification. For example, if you receive a major internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize, you will qualify for an EB-1 classification. Other awards may also qualify if you can document that the award is in the same class as a Nobel Prize. Since few workers receive this type of award, alternative evidence of EB-1 classification based on at least three of the types of evidence outlined below, is permitted. The worker may submit "other comparable evidence" if the following criteria do not apply:
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence;
Membership in associations in the field which demand outstanding achievement of their members; [It is not sufficient to be a member of an organization where you are member just by the virtue of your profession, or just because you cared to apply]
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien has judged the work of others, either individually or on a panel; [Grading your student's work does not count! If you are a judge in American Idol, Project Runway, etc., those would definitely count]
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field;
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media;
Evidence that the alien's work has been displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases;
Performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations;
Evidence that the alien commands a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field;
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts.
tattoo vanessa hudgens alexa nikolas
a1b2c3
07-10 07:26 PM
a1b2c3....hang in there.....Sept might bring more good news.......
Based on the bulletin, I see the bulletin is based on report from July 9......so it is likely there is more spillover and might move another 3 years...Just being hopeful.....:-)
I'm pretty sure it will. Hope you get your card soon. I got already my card but I still get tensed up when the visa bulletin is out :D. And I still haven't stopped visiting IV. I still get the retrogression night mares :-)
The writing is on the wall, as far as I see it.
When you put in sufficient years of work ex on EB3-I, change your job to the one requiring EB2 qualifications (if you have US masters it makes it even easier to justify EB2 ) and your PD will get carried forward, unchanged, to EB2 without issues.
Most EB3-I seniors (PD upto 03) would have already gotten to senior positions with the same employer, so the original job app for the EB3 labor would have been null and void in any case ;)
Going by the past trend, EB2-I PD will continue its onward march next fiscal year.
Based on the bulletin, I see the bulletin is based on report from July 9......so it is likely there is more spillover and might move another 3 years...Just being hopeful.....:-)
I'm pretty sure it will. Hope you get your card soon. I got already my card but I still get tensed up when the visa bulletin is out :D. And I still haven't stopped visiting IV. I still get the retrogression night mares :-)
The writing is on the wall, as far as I see it.
When you put in sufficient years of work ex on EB3-I, change your job to the one requiring EB2 qualifications (if you have US masters it makes it even easier to justify EB2 ) and your PD will get carried forward, unchanged, to EB2 without issues.
Most EB3-I seniors (PD upto 03) would have already gotten to senior positions with the same employer, so the original job app for the EB3 labor would have been null and void in any case ;)
Going by the past trend, EB2-I PD will continue its onward march next fiscal year.
more...
pictures Vanessa+hudgens+new+leaked
kgwithnogc
05-08 09:59 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/06/wchina06.xml
dresses vanessa hudgens leaked photo
GCmuddu_H1BVaddu
02-01 08:11 PM
I would suggest to build a wind mill and generate own power next winter :D
My a** was burned with big electricity bill last winter when I was in apartment . If I put 70 hall will be very hot and bed room will be very cold. If I put 75 bed room is ok but people in hall are sweating. No proper control because of poor maitenance and also the apartment location.
You will be surprised I am paying less power bill now in new house of 2500 SQFT than I was paying in 1100 SQFT apartment (with no one at home from 8 AM to 6 PM and all lights off by 10.30 PM).
I am repeating myself, most of the times it is because of the poor maintenance of the heating system. That causes the system to run all the time.Ask how long ago the management did maintenance to the heating system (not just replacing the filter twice a year which doesn't do anything other than clean air)
My a** was burned with big electricity bill last winter when I was in apartment . If I put 70 hall will be very hot and bed room will be very cold. If I put 75 bed room is ok but people in hall are sweating. No proper control because of poor maitenance and also the apartment location.
You will be surprised I am paying less power bill now in new house of 2500 SQFT than I was paying in 1100 SQFT apartment (with no one at home from 8 AM to 6 PM and all lights off by 10.30 PM).
I am repeating myself, most of the times it is because of the poor maintenance of the heating system. That causes the system to run all the time.Ask how long ago the management did maintenance to the heating system (not just replacing the filter twice a year which doesn't do anything other than clean air)
more...
makeup New Vanessa Hudgens Leaked
swashbuckler
06-17 08:23 PM
Thanks to every one for considering my message and answering to the questions.
Today I have received a mail from our Immigration team saying that they are going to file my GC petition next month (July-2010) for Employment-3rd category (EB-3). But I have 17 years of education (in India, 10+2+3+2) plus 11 years of progressive experience. Am I not qualified for EB-2 category? When I asked the same to our Immigration team, they said, "You do not qualify for EB2 because you do not meet the minimum salary and educational requirements. USCIS does not accept a 3-year Bachelor + 2-year Master education combination to qualify for EB2". What does it mean? Please some one let me know what are the requirements to qualify for EB-2 category? Thank you again in advance.
Regards,
swashbuckler
Today I have received a mail from our Immigration team saying that they are going to file my GC petition next month (July-2010) for Employment-3rd category (EB-3). But I have 17 years of education (in India, 10+2+3+2) plus 11 years of progressive experience. Am I not qualified for EB-2 category? When I asked the same to our Immigration team, they said, "You do not qualify for EB2 because you do not meet the minimum salary and educational requirements. USCIS does not accept a 3-year Bachelor + 2-year Master education combination to qualify for EB2". What does it mean? Please some one let me know what are the requirements to qualify for EB-2 category? Thank you again in advance.
Regards,
swashbuckler
girlfriend vanessa hudgens leaked photos
smarth
07-10 10:41 PM
EB3-I is still 'U'....any prediction for EB3-I in October'09 Visa bulletin?:(
hairstyles Vanessa+hudgens+leaked+
seekerofpeace
04-23 03:33 PM
I am in similar situation. While my street address will also stay the same the building is same I am just changing floors...going from a 1 bed to 2 bed which I have to and can't avoid.
I checked with USPS and they told me that they do automatic mail forwarding for 3 months and which could be expanded...I am not going to intimate USCIS till I have to...I mean delay it as long as you receive your mails you won't miss a thing + the attorney also gets the RFE and their address is fixed and you will get that anyway.
The postal people can mess up delivery too and i have had friends who did not receive letters from USCIS due to delivery problems .....anything and everything can happen.
Point is to delay the notification to avoid an RFE....but if everything else is fine and legit I won't mind filling up the address change notification.
SoP
I checked with USPS and they told me that they do automatic mail forwarding for 3 months and which could be expanded...I am not going to intimate USCIS till I have to...I mean delay it as long as you receive your mails you won't miss a thing + the attorney also gets the RFE and their address is fixed and you will get that anyway.
The postal people can mess up delivery too and i have had friends who did not receive letters from USCIS due to delivery problems .....anything and everything can happen.
Point is to delay the notification to avoid an RFE....but if everything else is fine and legit I won't mind filling up the address change notification.
SoP
sodh
07-24 12:57 AM
Hi,
My situation is as follows:
1) approved RIR labor 2002
2) approved perm labor 2005
3) approved i-140 2006 (PD 2005)
4) ALL of above for company-A. 2006 company-B took over.
My lawyer said i cannot file and have to start again with new labor as merger/acquistion was 'asset only' type.
I want to self-file i-485 giving the company "name change" letter as the only proof along with the rest of regular documents. Company-B employer is in 100% support of my application.
SHOULD I just waste $$$$ money or take a chance ? PLEASE HELP...TIRED OF WAITING FOR LAST 5 years :(
Regards,
-Ravi
Your Lawyer is right if the merger is only asset type and not transfer of shares between your old company and new company your application will be rejected.
My situation is as follows:
1) approved RIR labor 2002
2) approved perm labor 2005
3) approved i-140 2006 (PD 2005)
4) ALL of above for company-A. 2006 company-B took over.
My lawyer said i cannot file and have to start again with new labor as merger/acquistion was 'asset only' type.
I want to self-file i-485 giving the company "name change" letter as the only proof along with the rest of regular documents. Company-B employer is in 100% support of my application.
SHOULD I just waste $$$$ money or take a chance ? PLEASE HELP...TIRED OF WAITING FOR LAST 5 years :(
Regards,
-Ravi
Your Lawyer is right if the merger is only asset type and not transfer of shares between your old company and new company your application will be rejected.
gccube
08-30 05:05 PM
EB2 or EB3?
Post Title
→leaked vanessa hudgens photos 2011
Post URL
→http://idephairstyles.blogspot.com/2011/06/leaked-vanessa-hudgens-photos-2011.html
Visit Idep Hairstyles for Daily Updated Idep Hairstyles
No comments:
Post a Comment