Got there at 6am and there were already about 80 people ahead of us.
At 6:15 they started handing out tickets. At 7:30 we had ours.
Went inside to sit down and at 7:45 our number came up. Handed over copies of the I-765 and I-485 receipt notices (it speeds up things if they do not have to make the copies) and newly filled out I-765s (they want them).
I applied for post-grad OPT on Feb 14, my card was approved on May 26. I never received my card and I decided to go ahead and go to get interim EAD. Handed in my infopass appointment sheet at the door of 26 Federal Plaza and was directed to the 3rd floor. At 3rd floor, an officer scanned my sheet and my I797 Notice to make sure its more than 90 days since I first applied for EAD. Then he gave me an N number and directed me to the 9 floor. At the 9 floor, my number was called. Unforunately, I need a proof of residence in new york.
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