tejonidhi
02-04 04:43 PM
I am working for a client which gave me an offer for a respectable amount. it is much higher than the amount specified in ETA 9089 (F/5) column. my Onet code for the original labor is 15-1071.00. my new job is defined as System Specialist. my job functions( roles) are pretty much the same as my original labor certificate. I tried to search the Onet Code for System specialist and did not find a good match.
Can any one suggest me what are the options.
I also wanted to know weather USCIS will send any letter to new employer regarding to the offer extended to me. MY situation is the client is not willing to sponsor me.
Thank you
Can any one suggest me what are the options.
I also wanted to know weather USCIS will send any letter to new employer regarding to the offer extended to me. MY situation is the client is not willing to sponsor me.
Thank you
wallpaper Flower Coloring Pages - 6
eb2aug07
08-05 03:26 AM
I am Aug 07 filer , I was not able to submit my medicals with my I-485 application .
I got my medicals done with civil surgeon in sept 2007 and was waiting for RFE to submit the sealed cover . I never got a RFE but I got a interview at local office next month .
So can I submit the sealed cover that the civil surgeon filled in 2007 or do I need to get all the tests done again now and fill a new form .
Thanks
I got my medicals done with civil surgeon in sept 2007 and was waiting for RFE to submit the sealed cover . I never got a RFE but I got a interview at local office next month .
So can I submit the sealed cover that the civil surgeon filled in 2007 or do I need to get all the tests done again now and fill a new form .
Thanks
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
2011 cat in hat coloring pages. dr
silverandre
03-17 11:07 PM
Hello! I went to US to work in a summer/work travel experience under a J1 VISA.
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
My VISA expired on APR/01/2007 , but I sent a letter to USCIS asking to change my VISA status to B1/B2. The letter just arrived at the USCIS Office on APR/02/2007. I kept working until JUN/15.
In JUN/20/2007 I left US back to my home country and later accessing the USCIS site I figured out that my request was processed and denied.
Now I'm graduated in Business and was hired to work in a big company in NYC, they are requesting me to get another J1 VISA (this time J1 Trainee for a 1,5 year).
I would like to know if this kind of situation generates a BAN, or if I will have any kind of trouble in the interview in the US Embassy.
Thank you so much!
more...
virat
08-02 11:57 AM
Hi,
I got an LUD on my I140 on 07/28/07. There is no message change though. This I-140 was approved way back in Aug 2006. I have filed my I-485 etc on June 1st 07, and its in process. Does anyone know what doesn this LUD mean.
Thanks
I got an LUD on my I140 on 07/28/07. There is no message change though. This I-140 was approved way back in Aug 2006. I have filed my I-485 etc on June 1st 07, and its in process. Does anyone know what doesn this LUD mean.
Thanks
deecha
01-26 11:25 AM
Hi Gurus,
I was wondering if anyone on this site has ever filed an EB2-NIW I-140 petition ? And if so, what fields have you filed it in ? Do you necessarily need a masters degree or would 10+ years of experience in systems development qualify ?
I was also wondering if working in the health-care technology field, to create systems to diagnose and monitor cardiovascular systems to detect/prevent heart diseases would be something that could considered in the "national interest" ? If there is a job offer already extended to someone to work on such projects, would you still need a labor certification ?
Thank you in advance for taking the time out to read this and reply.
I was wondering if anyone on this site has ever filed an EB2-NIW I-140 petition ? And if so, what fields have you filed it in ? Do you necessarily need a masters degree or would 10+ years of experience in systems development qualify ?
I was also wondering if working in the health-care technology field, to create systems to diagnose and monitor cardiovascular systems to detect/prevent heart diseases would be something that could considered in the "national interest" ? If there is a job offer already extended to someone to work on such projects, would you still need a labor certification ?
Thank you in advance for taking the time out to read this and reply.
more...
ankitab617
07-27 03:57 AM
I have applied for my I-485 ( PD: jan 2007- EB2, India).
I want to leave MS and join a different company now ...Question is do you know if MS withdraws I-140 ????
does anybody know what is the official policy ?? Please respond to me with a PM if you think it is inappropriate to discuss publicly...
Thanks
-A
I want to leave MS and join a different company now ...Question is do you know if MS withdraws I-140 ????
does anybody know what is the official policy ?? Please respond to me with a PM if you think it is inappropriate to discuss publicly...
Thanks
-A
2010 Easter Coloring Pages
EndlessWait
10-18 11:26 AM
it could be they found out ? i hope u sent ur pictures ..so it cant be that
more...
helpmeExperts
02-06 01:43 PM
go to nvars.com & take US embassy apointment for visa stamping.
generally its filled 4 weeks ahead, so keep trying. first get a canadian visa from nearby canada embassy or by courier/mail
generally its filled 4 weeks ahead, so keep trying. first get a canadian visa from nearby canada embassy or by courier/mail
hair Mothers Day Coloring Pages
augustus
05-01 08:50 PM
Dear Members,
Recently my husband had received an RFE on I-485 requesting information about his employment verification letter. He had sent all documents back to USCIS and today, I saw an update on my case. The message read that case processing resumed and there will be a decision or update made in 60 days.
Do you know what kind of decision they usually make? Is it normal to have such statements written up for a denial or approval?
Any words of comfort would help. My husband is the primary applicant.
Thanks a ton!
Augustus.
Recently my husband had received an RFE on I-485 requesting information about his employment verification letter. He had sent all documents back to USCIS and today, I saw an update on my case. The message read that case processing resumed and there will be a decision or update made in 60 days.
Do you know what kind of decision they usually make? Is it normal to have such statements written up for a denial or approval?
Any words of comfort would help. My husband is the primary applicant.
Thanks a ton!
Augustus.
more...
cbpds
05-21 02:40 PM
Still waiting for a response, this is urgent situation for me,please reply
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
hot the latest coloring pages
f1vlad
10-29 12:36 PM
Nashua,NH here.
more...
house Care Bears Coloring Pages
kevinkris
07-14 03:32 PM
Hi,
My PD is Aug 2005 EB2 India, and my 140 is approved.
I know my dates are current and i want to know how to
- Take infopass appointment?
- Does it has any affect on my 485?
- What are the things we can ask in Infopass appointment.
Did you sent the HIGH FIVE to IV?
If not do so right now..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20183
Thanks,
Kevinkris
My PD is Aug 2005 EB2 India, and my 140 is approved.
I know my dates are current and i want to know how to
- Take infopass appointment?
- Does it has any affect on my 485?
- What are the things we can ask in Infopass appointment.
Did you sent the HIGH FIVE to IV?
If not do so right now..
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20183
Thanks,
Kevinkris
tattoo free coloring pages of flowers
geniousatwork
06-23 02:21 PM
You referring to FLC Data Center website?
FLCDataCenter.com (http://www.flcdatacenter.com/)
FLCDataCenter.com (http://www.flcdatacenter.com/)
more...
pictures true story st valentine
khmo
07-02 02:22 PM
On 25 Jun 09 President Obama holds a press conference on immigration reform where Mr. President mention about the new customer friendly, efficient, effective and transparent website will be launch in 90 days...
Please go the USCIS home page and take the online Survey. please make sure write your comments that what improvements you want in the website. here is link
USCIS - Help Improve uscis.gov Website (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c16516ee3d132210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4b18dc4d88889010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
I wrote that we need more information on our pending cases...
Please go the USCIS home page and take the online Survey. please make sure write your comments that what improvements you want in the website. here is link
USCIS - Help Improve uscis.gov Website (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=c16516ee3d132210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4b18dc4d88889010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
I wrote that we need more information on our pending cases...
dresses printable valentine hearts.
senocular
11-02 12:21 PM
mcdonalds? I surely was expecting an apple logo�
Ditto
Ditto
more...
makeup Coloring Pages Of Hearts.
EBpipeline
06-13 10:26 AM
Hi ,
1.My wife works for part ime H1b. She has her H1B till Aug 2011. She would Like to apply for her GC. Can she apply for labor certification with part time job? She can get a full time job after she gets in to adjustment of status. She doesn't want full time job now as our kids are still small.
2.I have a fulltime H1B and Approved I-140 EB2. PD sept 2007, waiting for retrogression to file 485!!!! god know when that will happen.Can I apply for EB1 while my EB2 pending?
I have good credential to meet EB1.
Thanks
1.My wife works for part ime H1b. She has her H1B till Aug 2011. She would Like to apply for her GC. Can she apply for labor certification with part time job? She can get a full time job after she gets in to adjustment of status. She doesn't want full time job now as our kids are still small.
2.I have a fulltime H1B and Approved I-140 EB2. PD sept 2007, waiting for retrogression to file 485!!!! god know when that will happen.Can I apply for EB1 while my EB2 pending?
I have good credential to meet EB1.
Thanks
girlfriend Hearts Coloring Pages
waiting_4_gc
07-31 07:13 PM
I found the answer to my question but i cant delete my post :(
hairstyles coloring pages of hearts with
vikramark
10-18 08:34 AM
Hello,
Online Status for my EAD application says, RFE has been sent.....
What kind of RFE do we get on EAD?
140 Approved on 10/06/06
485/765/131 RD 07/31/07
485/765/131 ND 10/11/07
Approvals:??????
Online Status for my EAD application says, RFE has been sent.....
What kind of RFE do we get on EAD?
140 Approved on 10/06/06
485/765/131 RD 07/31/07
485/765/131 ND 10/11/07
Approvals:??????
hrcar01
07-15 11:14 AM
My 11 year old neice is in Hong Kong and I want to know
could she come in as a tourist and have a school accept her in Houston Texas, then change the status into student using I-20 issued by the school?
how long it will take to have the status change? more than 2 months?
Do I have to get an immigration lawyer to do it? Or could I do it myself? If yes what is the form number?
Please help, thank you.
Sincerely,
Caroline Ho
could she come in as a tourist and have a school accept her in Houston Texas, then change the status into student using I-20 issued by the school?
how long it will take to have the status change? more than 2 months?
Do I have to get an immigration lawyer to do it? Or could I do it myself? If yes what is the form number?
Please help, thank you.
Sincerely,
Caroline Ho
annasttasiaaa
08-26 09:39 AM
My H1B expires in September and was filed under a different company name, but they are a successor in interest. so we were planning on amending the H1B when we file to extend. The problem now is - the beneficiary is in a new position AND as of September 1, 2009 the company has changed addresses.
A) In filling out the I-129 in Part 2, questions 2 and 5, what are the appropriate boxes to check?
I am afraid if we amend the current application, it won't also be extended and he will fall out of status.
part 2 Q 2asks " basic for classification" such as
1- new employment
2-continuance of previous approved employment
3-change in previously approved employment
4-new concurrent employment
5-change of employer
6- amended petition
B) Also, what documents, other than what we have, should be included in the filing?
We will file a new LCA with all updated information once we receive a certification of the current LCA and then withdraw it.
A) In filling out the I-129 in Part 2, questions 2 and 5, what are the appropriate boxes to check?
I am afraid if we amend the current application, it won't also be extended and he will fall out of status.
part 2 Q 2asks " basic for classification" such as
1- new employment
2-continuance of previous approved employment
3-change in previously approved employment
4-new concurrent employment
5-change of employer
6- amended petition
B) Also, what documents, other than what we have, should be included in the filing?
We will file a new LCA with all updated information once we receive a certification of the current LCA and then withdraw it.
No comments:
Post a Comment