FAQs: Removing spouse from green card processing || Multiple green card petitions simultaneously and exploring concurrent filing of EB-2 NIW || What are the consequences of H-1B or green card fraud or misinterpretation? How does it affect my departure, assets and financial matters? || Transitioning from H-1B to I-485 GC EAD: maintaining status and re-employment considerations
If someone is on L-1 and got laid off, what are the alternatives?
Pretty much the same as H-1. 60 days grace period and if you still cannot find a job, leave the country or convert to student status if you want to go to school or B-1/B-2 if you want to just wait it out and look for jobs.
FAQ: Entering the U.S. on a visitor visa while green card is pending |Qualifying for Visa Waiver Program (VWP) | Spouse visa through H-1, L-1, or O-1 | Any special visas for UK, EU, Singapore, Dubai or Australia || Qualifying for EB-1C green card by working abroad for a year | Expected processing times for EB-1C for an L-1A visa holder from India || Consequences of employer withdrawing I-485 Supplement J || Layoff while on an H-1B visa - what if I cannot find a job in 60 days?
I had L-1B individual visa which was rejected during the extension process about 2 years back and my company filed fresh L-1A individual petition after I came back to India which is approved now. Does my case for L-1A individual visa qualifies for visa waiver? Note that : I also had H1-B denial after it was picked in lottery in RFE process before L-1B was approved.
It appears that you may not qualify for an interview waiver because you had an H one B denial that was never overcome.
---------------------------------------
Note: Unless the context shows otherwise, all answers here were provided by Rajiv and were compiled and reported by our editorial team from comments, blog and community calls on immigration.com. Where transcribed from audio/video, a verbatim transcript is provided. Therefore, it may not conform to the written grammatical or syntactical form.
Release Date
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address the documentation that certain E and L nonimmigrant spouses may use as evidence of employment authorization based on their nonimmigrant status.
For latest updates, watch this video with Rajiv from Dec 28, 2021.
I have reviewed the recent lawsuit settlement where the USCIS has agreed to consider H-4 holders to be eligible to continue working while their timely filed EAD extension is pending. Unfortunately, the settlement seems to state that the right to work is only co-extensive with your I-94 duration. Therefore, you do not have the right to continue working for 180 days; only till your I-94 expires. While it is better than nothing, the settlement is not everything that we would like to see.
When is a foreign person considered an employee?
If residing overseas, is the foreign person employee considered a broker?
Should current authorizations be replaced or amended to be consistent with current guidance?
Can multiple employees be covered under one authorization?
How is an employee providing marketing services overseas identified in a license application?
What if the foreign person’s place of birth is different from the country he/she now resides in and holds citizenship from?
What value should be entered on the license application?
How should the foreign person employee of a U.S. person be identified in the TAA or MLA?
Who should sign the DSP-83 for the transfer of U.S. classified information?
When is a foreign person considered an employee?
Over the last few years, approvals of L-1B cases have become particularly difficult. An L-1B (Intra-Company Transfer Visa) petitioner retained us after receiving a Request for Evidence from USCIS requiring additional proof that the beneficiary had specialized knowledge and that the job duties required an individual with unique knowledge of the petitioner’s complex technology. We provided documentation to show that the beneficiary had skills that could not be obtained in the open market. We were also able to show that, within the petitioner’s employee pool, the beneficiary was unique and