gregspirited
08-26 04:14 PM
hi,
Currently I'm working for a major software firm (10,000+ employees) as a senior software engineer. My 6-yr H1-B expires by January 2010.
I filed for PERM with PD of October 2007 in Atlanta center under EB2 category for Sr.Software engineer position. As we know it is still in PENDING status after a AUDIT request.
Now, I have received an offer for a Sr.Technical Program manager internally in my company.
What are my options now?
1. Can I withdraw my current PERM (while it is PENDING after AUDIT) and apply for a new PERM under new position? OR
2. Can I use the same PERM since I'm staying with the same company?
3. Does the company size help in any way?
Currently I'm working for a major software firm (10,000+ employees) as a senior software engineer. My 6-yr H1-B expires by January 2010.
I filed for PERM with PD of October 2007 in Atlanta center under EB2 category for Sr.Software engineer position. As we know it is still in PENDING status after a AUDIT request.
Now, I have received an offer for a Sr.Technical Program manager internally in my company.
What are my options now?
1. Can I withdraw my current PERM (while it is PENDING after AUDIT) and apply for a new PERM under new position? OR
2. Can I use the same PERM since I'm staying with the same company?
3. Does the company size help in any way?
wallpaper If you have medium length hair
MissionImpossibleGC
09-02 06:07 PM
Most of the members here think. GC are long pending only because of beneficiary or USCIS only.
This news is also making me to think about the reality of the issues in finding the good company for GC processing.
Let have discussion on this how to find good company for GC processing. Appreciate in advance.
This news is also making me to think about the reality of the issues in finding the good company for GC processing.
Let have discussion on this how to find good company for GC processing. Appreciate in advance.
nlssubbu
05-17 03:04 PM
It is safe to apply for N-400 after 90 days prior to 5 years and your wife can wait and apply in another couple of months.
2011 Choppy Medium Hairstyle Choppy
chinu
11-07 07:29 PM
Hi All,
My employer is going put one newspapaer ad for two employee's. He is doing this to save moeny. Is this ok to put one ad for two employee's? Will there be any probelm in PERM.
Thank you.
Chinu
My employer is going put one newspapaer ad for two employee's. He is doing this to save moeny. Is this ok to put one ad for two employee's? Will there be any probelm in PERM.
Thank you.
Chinu
more...
Macaca
11-01 05:36 PM
Democrats Again Look to Change GOP Motions; After Defeats, Leaders Studying Ways to Neuter Republicans' Motions to Recommit (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_52/news/20763-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, October 31, 2007
Exasperated over Republicans' continued efforts - and occasional success - in thwarting the House floor schedule, Democratic leaders acknowledged Tuesday they are reviewing the chamber's rules to determine how to curb the minority's ability to put up roadblocks at critical moments in the legislative process.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D) said the committee's Democrats have begun meeting with both current and former Parliamentarians to discuss the chamber's rules and potential changes.
The New York lawmaker said those discussions have focused in part on the motion to recommit - one of the few procedural items in the minority party's toolbox that allows them to offer legislative alternatives when a bill hits the floor, and that Republicans have used to force difficult votes on Democrats or prompted legislation to be pulled from the floor - as well as other procedures, which she declined to detail.
Slaughter said no timeline exists for the review or potential alterations, however. "Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right," she said.
But one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the majority is considering neutering the motion-to-recommit process and converting it to little more than a last-chance amendment for the minority party.
Under current House rules, the minority's motion can effectively shelve legislation through minor alterations to the language of their motion - specifically designating for a bill to be returned to its committee "promptly," rather than the usual "forthwith."
Republican leaders have used that strategy to force Democrats to either vote against measures they would otherwise support or vote to kill their own bill. Earlier this month, the GOP used that procedure to target a bill governing federal wiretapping and surveillance programs, prompting Democrats to scrub an expected vote.
Another Democratic lawmaker, who also is familiar with discussions and asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of those conversations, said that is only one option under consideration.
"We don't want to limit the minority's ability to have legitimate motions to recommit," the Democrat said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Republicans' use of that particular tactic at his weekly press conference Tuesday, echoing complaints Democrats have raised off-and-on since March.
"The Republicans continue to use the motion to recommit for political purposes, not substantive purposes. Substantive purposes would be trying to change policy. For the most part, what they do with their motions to recommit are not change policy, but try to construct difficult political votes for Members," Hoyer said. "We understand that. To some degree, we did that as well. So it is not surprising."
While Hoyer acknowledged that Democrats had at times employed the same approach in the past, he criticized Republicans for using the method 22 times thus far in the 110th Congress, asserting that Democrats used the tactic only four times between 1995 and 1998.
"This is a game. It is a relatively cynical game," Hoyer added. "That doesn't mean it is not an effective game and causes questions. So we are trying to deal with that."
Democrats earlier had sought to alter the House rules on motions to recommit in May - an unusual step, given that the chamber's rules are rarely reopened mid-session - but Republicans rebelled on the House floor, and Democratic leaders agreed to forgo the changes, at least temporarily.
Democratic leaders suggested in August that they planned to offer legislation on the House floor aimed at dissuading Republicans from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to such hot-button issues as immigration. At the same time, Democrats hoped to provide insulation to their own Members with a separate vote on those topics, but have yet to produce any such resolutions.
Republicans have succeeded in winning 21 motions to recommit - the majority of which would not shelve the legislation they amend - in the past 10 months, a point that President Bush praised in a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), according to a GOP aide.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have lived under the very same germaneness rules since 1822, and changing them won't solve the majority's inherent inability to govern," Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said. "This isn't a question of rules, it's one of competence."
Exasperated over Republicans' continued efforts - and occasional success - in thwarting the House floor schedule, Democratic leaders acknowledged Tuesday they are reviewing the chamber's rules to determine how to curb the minority's ability to put up roadblocks at critical moments in the legislative process.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D) said the committee's Democrats have begun meeting with both current and former Parliamentarians to discuss the chamber's rules and potential changes.
The New York lawmaker said those discussions have focused in part on the motion to recommit - one of the few procedural items in the minority party's toolbox that allows them to offer legislative alternatives when a bill hits the floor, and that Republicans have used to force difficult votes on Democrats or prompted legislation to be pulled from the floor - as well as other procedures, which she declined to detail.
Slaughter said no timeline exists for the review or potential alterations, however. "Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right," she said.
But one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the majority is considering neutering the motion-to-recommit process and converting it to little more than a last-chance amendment for the minority party.
Under current House rules, the minority's motion can effectively shelve legislation through minor alterations to the language of their motion - specifically designating for a bill to be returned to its committee "promptly," rather than the usual "forthwith."
Republican leaders have used that strategy to force Democrats to either vote against measures they would otherwise support or vote to kill their own bill. Earlier this month, the GOP used that procedure to target a bill governing federal wiretapping and surveillance programs, prompting Democrats to scrub an expected vote.
Another Democratic lawmaker, who also is familiar with discussions and asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of those conversations, said that is only one option under consideration.
"We don't want to limit the minority's ability to have legitimate motions to recommit," the Democrat said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Republicans' use of that particular tactic at his weekly press conference Tuesday, echoing complaints Democrats have raised off-and-on since March.
"The Republicans continue to use the motion to recommit for political purposes, not substantive purposes. Substantive purposes would be trying to change policy. For the most part, what they do with their motions to recommit are not change policy, but try to construct difficult political votes for Members," Hoyer said. "We understand that. To some degree, we did that as well. So it is not surprising."
While Hoyer acknowledged that Democrats had at times employed the same approach in the past, he criticized Republicans for using the method 22 times thus far in the 110th Congress, asserting that Democrats used the tactic only four times between 1995 and 1998.
"This is a game. It is a relatively cynical game," Hoyer added. "That doesn't mean it is not an effective game and causes questions. So we are trying to deal with that."
Democrats earlier had sought to alter the House rules on motions to recommit in May - an unusual step, given that the chamber's rules are rarely reopened mid-session - but Republicans rebelled on the House floor, and Democratic leaders agreed to forgo the changes, at least temporarily.
Democratic leaders suggested in August that they planned to offer legislation on the House floor aimed at dissuading Republicans from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to such hot-button issues as immigration. At the same time, Democrats hoped to provide insulation to their own Members with a separate vote on those topics, but have yet to produce any such resolutions.
Republicans have succeeded in winning 21 motions to recommit - the majority of which would not shelve the legislation they amend - in the past 10 months, a point that President Bush praised in a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), according to a GOP aide.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have lived under the very same germaneness rules since 1822, and changing them won't solve the majority's inherent inability to govern," Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said. "This isn't a question of rules, it's one of competence."
Blog Feeds
09-10 12:50 PM
Just a month after her appointment as the DHS official charged with overhauling the immigration detention system, Dora Schriro announced she is leaving the position to become the director of corrections for the City of New York. The New York Times reports that Schriro is leaving to care for a sick family member in New York. The Times' Nina Bernstein discussed the impact of the departure on reform efforts: Immigrant advocates who learned of her imminent departure from a reporter expressed dismay and concern that the ambitious overhaul announced by the Obama administration last month would be delayed, if not...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/obama-immigration-detention-head-leaving-job.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/obama-immigration-detention-head-leaving-job.html)
more...
sam12sa
12-18 11:10 AM
Hi
I am transferring my H1 to a firm on full time basis(not consulting company, product based). Currently I am on a project with A and I am going to transfer my H1 to B (which is 6 yrs old, american based company). I have pay slips from past 4 months, and I was on bench for 2 months where I didnt get my pasylips. For transfer I gave my past 4 months pay slips.
I have 2 questions here.
1) With company A, my LCA was not accurate. My LCA was of NY state & I am working in NJ.
Will this create any issue for my H1 transfer with company B which is VA and they have got the approved LCA.
2) Will there be any issue with my 2 months pay slips (which are of July & Aug). Right now I have submitted my H1 transfer with past 4 months payslips (Sep,Oct, Nov & Dec).
Please advice, I will really appreciate your suggestions on this ASAP.
Thanks
I am transferring my H1 to a firm on full time basis(not consulting company, product based). Currently I am on a project with A and I am going to transfer my H1 to B (which is 6 yrs old, american based company). I have pay slips from past 4 months, and I was on bench for 2 months where I didnt get my pasylips. For transfer I gave my past 4 months pay slips.
I have 2 questions here.
1) With company A, my LCA was not accurate. My LCA was of NY state & I am working in NJ.
Will this create any issue for my H1 transfer with company B which is VA and they have got the approved LCA.
2) Will there be any issue with my 2 months pay slips (which are of July & Aug). Right now I have submitted my H1 transfer with past 4 months payslips (Sep,Oct, Nov & Dec).
Please advice, I will really appreciate your suggestions on this ASAP.
Thanks
2010 Prom Hairstyles for Long Hair
askreddy
09-25 12:36 AM
Bump..
more...
Macaca
02-18 06:55 PM
Some paras from In Majority, Democrats Run Hill Much as GOP Did (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701352.html).
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.
And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.
Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.
Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.
And yet, significant numbers of House Republicans have voted along with Democrats on the legislation passed so far -- a fact that somewhat mutes criticism about iron-fisted tactics.
In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Democrats said they would impose "regular order," the rules that permit the minority to participate more widely, in short order.
But even after passing their domestic agenda, Democratic leaders have continued to marginalize Republicans, preventing them from having a voice in legislation such as a bill to withhold federal pensions from lawmakers convicted of ethics felonies and a $463 billion bill to fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year.
Last week's debate on the Iraq war, culminating in its passage Friday by a vote of 246 to 182, was conducted under a "closed rule," which means Republicans could not offer alternatives. "I understand what they did on their agenda," said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). "But to do a closed rule on something like this is a huge mistake. We're talking about war and peace. You don't play politics with war."
While they did not allow amendments on the Iraq debate, the Democrats gave every member of the chamber five minutes to speak on the resolution -- an unprecedented amount of debate on a nonbinding resolution, according to Thomas E. Mann, a scholar at Brookings Institution. He said that is more than the Republicans offered Democrats when the GOP passed a resolution last spring supporting the war in Iraq.
hair medium length prom hairstyles.
kumar1
12-08 05:30 PM
He is right.
more...
setpit_gc
12-17 02:05 PM
My current AP expires on July 30, 2008. I am planning to apply for renewal in Jan or Feb 2008, which is 6 months prior to expiration. I understand that nowadays it takes more than 3 months for approval.
In case of emergency, Can I travel to India with my current AP while AP renewal petition is pending?.
Thanks for your help.
In case of emergency, Can I travel to India with my current AP while AP renewal petition is pending?.
Thanks for your help.
hot Short Medium Curly Hairstyles
lecter
November 21st, 2004, 11:34 PM
wow, great option for someone wanting to get into the MP race, but cannot go a 1Ds or a Mark II of any name
more...
house hair medium length prom
Macaca
02-17 04:51 PM
The Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law (http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx?committee=4)shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: immigration and naturalization, border security, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, non-border enforcement, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.
Democrats
Zoe Lofgren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=30), Chairman, California, 16th
Luis Gutierrez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=97), Illinois, 4th
Howard L. Berman (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=7), California, 28th
Sheila Jackson Lee (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=31), Texas, 18th
Maxine Waters (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=32), California, 35th
Martin T. Meehan (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=33), Massachusetts, 5th
William D. Delahunt (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=34), Massachusetts, 10th
Linda T. S�nchez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=39), California, 39th
Artur Davis (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=100), Alabama , 7th
Keith Ellison (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=101), Minnesota, 5th
Republicans
Steve King (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=22), Ranking Member, Iowa, 5th
Elton Gallegly (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=10), California, 24th
Bob Goodlatte (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=11), Virginia, 6th
Daniel E. Lungren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=50), California, 3rd
J. Randy Forbes (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=21), Virginia, 4th
Louie Gohmert (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=55), Texas, 1st
Democrats
Zoe Lofgren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=30), Chairman, California, 16th
Luis Gutierrez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=97), Illinois, 4th
Howard L. Berman (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=7), California, 28th
Sheila Jackson Lee (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=31), Texas, 18th
Maxine Waters (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=32), California, 35th
Martin T. Meehan (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=33), Massachusetts, 5th
William D. Delahunt (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=34), Massachusetts, 10th
Linda T. S�nchez (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=39), California, 39th
Artur Davis (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=100), Alabama , 7th
Keith Ellison (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=101), Minnesota, 5th
Republicans
Steve King (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=22), Ranking Member, Iowa, 5th
Elton Gallegly (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=10), California, 24th
Bob Goodlatte (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=11), Virginia, 6th
Daniel E. Lungren (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=50), California, 3rd
J. Randy Forbes (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=21), Virginia, 4th
Louie Gohmert (http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=55), Texas, 1st
tattoo Shoulder Length Hairstyles
biznuge
03-09 06:11 PM
lol
more...
pictures hairstyles for medium length
gc_check
07-02 09:52 AM
Folks, Also share the PD if y'all don't mind
dresses HairStyles,Prom Hairstyles
jennym
09-20 12:27 PM
The couple applied for the green card together. The husband applied under the EB1 category and his wife also applied with him as dependent. The green card of the couple has been approved and is expected to arrive in a month's time. The wife is not in US currently. She is outside US. Will the husband get his green card & the wife's green card in his wife's absence? Will there be any complications in the husband's green card in this case?
It is urgent. Please reply as soon as possible.
It is urgent. Please reply as soon as possible.
more...
makeup prom hairstyles for medium
siddharth_rulz
05-09 03:02 PM
Hi Friends,
I am currently working on L1b and I want to swicth to H1b so I just wanted to ask if i file a fresh H1b or trasnfer my existing L1b to H1b ,will I be able to work right away without any hiccups ?
Response is appreciated.
Thanks,
Siddharth.
I am currently working on L1b and I want to swicth to H1b so I just wanted to ask if i file a fresh H1b or trasnfer my existing L1b to H1b ,will I be able to work right away without any hiccups ?
Response is appreciated.
Thanks,
Siddharth.
girlfriend Prom hairstyles for medium
atlgc
04-23 03:21 PM
Hello
I am EB3 and recently got my h1-b extension from 10th to 13 year and got approved without any RFE in 2months from VSC.approved in 3rd week of january.i am working for the same company since 2002 an I am permanent employee not consultant and no clients
Now all the sudden out of nowhere an immigration inspector came to our workplace and asked details about my work, salary. They didn't ask anything else. They asked about me but I was working from home that day an per hr its related to h1-b but they have no clue as i am the only one non immigrant in 1600 employees
Is this common?
Should I enquiry with uscis? If so how
Since I worked from home that day and didn�t meet me, will there be an issue?
Should I be concerned anything or just forget about it. Any of your experiences thoughts are much advised
thanks
I am EB3 and recently got my h1-b extension from 10th to 13 year and got approved without any RFE in 2months from VSC.approved in 3rd week of january.i am working for the same company since 2002 an I am permanent employee not consultant and no clients
Now all the sudden out of nowhere an immigration inspector came to our workplace and asked details about my work, salary. They didn't ask anything else. They asked about me but I was working from home that day an per hr its related to h1-b but they have no clue as i am the only one non immigrant in 1600 employees
Is this common?
Should I enquiry with uscis? If so how
Since I worked from home that day and didn�t meet me, will there be an issue?
Should I be concerned anything or just forget about it. Any of your experiences thoughts are much advised
thanks
hairstyles Black Prom Hairstyles
Blog Feeds
06-25 01:30 PM
From time immemorial, the world has been a dangerous place; no less so today. Those with the means and will have have always relocated to less threatening or merely more desirable locales. In today�s globalized and interconnected era, the European debt crisis, terrorism, declared and undeclared wars, restrictions on religious and political freedom, and the remarkable rise to world leadership of a bi-racial man with roots in Kenya, Indonesia and Hawaii �- all of these developments, and still other enticements, have coalesced to make the United States the world�s premier immigration destination for affluent individuals. The federal government, however, has...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/06/my-entry-2.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2010/06/my-entry-2.html)
lvaka
05-26 03:59 AM
Hello There,
I just got an RFE on my 485 as following.
Submit a letter of employment attesting to your current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead and cite the date you started working, whether the position is permanent and full-time, a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and the offered salary.
When I invoked my AC21, my new lawyer submitted G-28 but with out any details about my new employment. I hoping that this RFE is related to that. My only concern is that my old job title is programmer analyst and my new job title is Business Solutions Architect with similar (probably a little more) job duties.
Please share your experiences if any one has received similar RFEs.
Thanks
I just got an RFE on my 485 as following.
Submit a letter of employment attesting to your current employment. This letter should be written on the company's official letterhead and cite the date you started working, whether the position is permanent and full-time, a description of the position, a description of the position that you currently hold for the company (if any), and the offered salary.
When I invoked my AC21, my new lawyer submitted G-28 but with out any details about my new employment. I hoping that this RFE is related to that. My only concern is that my old job title is programmer analyst and my new job title is Business Solutions Architect with similar (probably a little more) job duties.
Please share your experiences if any one has received similar RFEs.
Thanks
fasterthanlight�
05-02 01:46 AM
I wish I could, but I deleted the .psd, my bad :(
No comments:
Post a Comment