Search results

I'm saying that the panel members stated that there was no set policy on this, and to the extent that they did state a policy, they said that an I-140 would probably need to be approved. These panel members were about 10 levels over an IIO and I don't think that if they decided differently that...

Risky? Well, I guess but there was a chance, even if she stayed with him, that the conditions would not be removed. If she can prove that they married in good faith (they needed to prove that at the original I-130 interview and it is the same type of documentation) then she should be ok. Since...

If they are in removal proceedings, the person then fails to appear and is issued an in absentia order of deportation.

If you guys want to take the legal advice of an IIO on something that stumped the panels at the Annual AILA Conference (the panels that discussed this issue included Lynen Melmedm Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, DHS, Washinton D.C., William Yates, Associate Director, Operations, USCIS...

Whichever employer holds your H-1 (I assume your current employer) needs to file to extend it.

Don't need voluntary departure unless you are in removal proceedings. The only other exception where you would want Voluntary Departure would be if you have an overstay of more than 180 days and less than 365 days. You then get yourself placed in removal proceedings, get the Judge to order...

She can file for divorce. Once divorced, she can immediately file an I-751 to remove conditions based on a good faith marriage that ended in divorce. She will need to prove that she married her husband in good faith. She does not need to wait until September 2005 to file an I-751 on this...

Deportation procedures and mandatory detention are changing rapidly. I am not here to say that there is no way you will be taken into custody or required to pay bail. Probably your best bet would be to call CIS/ICE and ask them if they would return your passport so you could self-deport. My...

It seems that this issue has started to get some attention and even NSC is unsure of the answer. In a recent meeting with AILA, the minutes of which were posted on the AILA website 2 days ago, the following question and answer took place: QUESTION: If the contract states that employment...

Based on what you have said your chances are virtually zero. If you did not meet the requirements when the LC was filed, you cannot use the LC.

Been there, done that. I normally estimate an additional six months for USCIS to obtain a duplicate LC from DOL. I've seen USCIS (it was INS in those days) deny the case even though I have told them that they need to get the duplicate from DOL. It's an up-hill battle but it can be done...

This line of thinking is clearly not universally followed, otherwise there would be a huge stink about it by now in AILA. The fact that this AAO decision can exist without every immigration attorney in the US knowing about it (my guess is very few do) is indicative of the infrequent nature that...

A little perspective here please. On April 30, 2001, 245i sunset creating a huge number of filings for green cards, many of them frivilous. On September 10, 2001, President Bush met with Mexican President Vincente Fox to discuss extending 245i. The next morning, on September 11, 2001 some...

Not as long as the I-94 has not expired.

I have to remember Alvin so I never take him on as a client. :) I can't imagine that this will become a big deal. It has nothing to do with the approvability of the case and an entirely new beneficiary can be substituted when filing for the I-140. If you really want it fixed, I'd get the...

Absolutely INCORRECT. Working on EAD invalidates your H-1B status but entering on AP does NOT.

Absolutely, along with a certified LCA.

Appeal the denial to BALCA and refile. There is no final decision until BALCA decides the case, therefore the LC is still valid and the H-1 remains valid also.

Actually, as I previously posted in another thread when I heard about the first change, the way that it is now (and the way that it was done for years prior to the announcement a month or two ago, was consistent with ALL filing policies with USCIS, that is that a person must be eligible for a...

I have never seen this and I think it is probably either a USCIS error or an inaccurate statement of USCIS position. I have not seen this on the AILA website or any site other than that mentioned in the post. I would not worry about it.