Recently I have been to Baltimore District Office to collect my interim EAD, I was told that if INS Processing Center(Vermont) requested some additional documentation, that requested documentation should be sent to Vermont(that information should be updated in INS database), then only they can issue interim EAD. They are taking 30 days to issue Interim EAD.
I walked in to the Detroit USCIS Center on Monday Sept 9th 2003 at 11:30pm. They gave me the waiting number & gave me an application form for Employment Authorization. At around 3:00 pm the duty officer wanted receipt notices (over 90-day proof), the original I-765 application, I-94 & driving licence (proof of picture ID). She asked me to get photo copies of each of these documents, which I got it immediately for her. After an hour someone called my name and took my picture and provided the card good for 6 months.
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