Intrem EAD at Chicago Local office
I have applied for my 3rd EAD on May 11,2005. My current EAD was expiring on July 23,2005. Since It has been 70 days, and I have not received the new EAD, I got the infopass appointment for today @7:30 and got out from there at 8:30 with IEAD for 3 months. Here is what I've noticed.
was there early in the morning 6am, entered line in orchard st taken inside at 8.00am, to 2nd floor office
- iEAD applications must have a duplicate application prepared with documents. they check before you get in
- make sure you have an address in NJ, they ask proof of residence in NJ to issue your documents, bring DL, utility bill etc to prove that.
- got the card the same day for 8 months,
- they lost our documents, then found them in the 3'rd office where your pictures will be taken
Purpose of Form :To provide information on your eligibility to act on behalf of an applicant, petitioner, or respondent.Number of Pages :Form 2; Instructions 3Edition Date :02/28/13. No previous editions accepted.Where to File :
File Form G-28 with the related application, petition, or appeal.
Filing Fee :$0Special Instructions :
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32418-32424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12793]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
[CIS No. 2533-13; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2007-0028]
RIN 1615-ZB20
Extension of the Designation of El Salvador for Temporary
Protected Status
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