linuxra
07-22 11:56 AM
I submitted RFE with all necessary documents from my side everything is ok...
i got an email that my docs recieved and rfe docs recieved...
thats it nothing recieved after that and my pd is current next month
i got an email that my docs recieved and rfe docs recieved...
thats it nothing recieved after that and my pd is current next month
wallpaper of its exceptional design
neelu
01-02 01:04 PM
Hi everyone,
I am currently on a H4 Visa. The H4 visa on my passport expires on 20 June 2007. My husband recently got a 3 year extension on his H1 ( I 140 approved) and because of him, my H4 is also extended for 3 years (valid from 10/23/2006 to 08/07/2009 )
I intend to travel abroad in february 2007 to be back in the US by march 2007.
I have a few questions in this regard:
1. Can I travel on my current H4 visa which expires on 06/20/2007 or should I get a new H4 visa stamped with my 3 year extension before I travel?
2. If I travel on my current H4 visa , is there even a remote possibility of being stopped at Immigration because of my new extension?
3. Also if I decide to travel on my current H4 visa, since I only have 4-5 months left before it expires, will US immigration pose any problems when I re-enter in US?
I would greatly appreciate if you can respond to my questions.
Thank you very much in advance.
I am currently on a H4 Visa. The H4 visa on my passport expires on 20 June 2007. My husband recently got a 3 year extension on his H1 ( I 140 approved) and because of him, my H4 is also extended for 3 years (valid from 10/23/2006 to 08/07/2009 )
I intend to travel abroad in february 2007 to be back in the US by march 2007.
I have a few questions in this regard:
1. Can I travel on my current H4 visa which expires on 06/20/2007 or should I get a new H4 visa stamped with my 3 year extension before I travel?
2. If I travel on my current H4 visa , is there even a remote possibility of being stopped at Immigration because of my new extension?
3. Also if I decide to travel on my current H4 visa, since I only have 4-5 months left before it expires, will US immigration pose any problems when I re-enter in US?
I would greatly appreciate if you can respond to my questions.
Thank you very much in advance.
kicca
01-25 06:43 PM
^^
2011 Diamond Tattoos – Combination
krishgreen
04-26 01:54 PM
Hi,
I have a appointment for H1B Visa stamping at Matamoros on May 27th. Just checking to see if anybody went for H1B Visa stamping at Matamoros lately and would like to share the experiences.
Thanks.
I have a appointment for H1B Visa stamping at Matamoros on May 27th. Just checking to see if anybody went for H1B Visa stamping at Matamoros lately and would like to share the experiences.
Thanks.
more...
desi3933
02-21 08:29 AM
......
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
For employment based I-485, out of status is looked only since last entry into US on visa. Even then out-of-status (since last entry) for upto 180 days is forgiven as per section 245(k).
Here is my old post dated 09/09/2008 on this topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21386-ead-status-when-ead-renewal-delayed.html#post286704
.....
Section 245(k) allows adjustment of status if person is out of status for less than 180 calendar days since last legal entry into the US. Entering US on AP does NOT count as legal entry.
.....
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
My concern is (1) that when the time comes to adjudicate his 485, someone might look back and say err, ten years ago there was a problem... I hope it won't happen, but I just want to be safe and my understanding is that returning with a stamped H4 would cure this and (2) that if we decide to go for the stamping, whether someone in the embassy would dig up the records and cause us problems.
Thanks for the insight.
For employment based I-485, out of status is looked only since last entry into US on visa. Even then out-of-status (since last entry) for upto 180 days is forgiven as per section 245(k).
Here is my old post dated 09/09/2008 on this topic
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum5-all-other-green-card-issues/21386-ead-status-when-ead-renewal-delayed.html#post286704
.....
Section 245(k) allows adjustment of status if person is out of status for less than 180 calendar days since last legal entry into the US. Entering US on AP does NOT count as legal entry.
.....
And, my last point, out of status rule applies ONLY to applicants 17 years or older. so your son is ok.
In short, aal izz well.
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
kookoo
08-03 07:20 PM
If the letter was already sent to the USCIS can i stop further processing of my application?
more...
kartikiran
11-09 04:07 PM
Hey Krish2005, I see that you have a long wait before getting green card. I am not sure whether killing time by posting these would help you...:rolleyes:
Anyway, to answer your thoughts, it might be informative on a more relevant science based forum than an immigration forum.
Trying to see how it is relevant here?...:confused:
Maybe some of us might be aware on the importance of umbilical chord and cord blood. They are life savers as they contain stem cells which can be used to treat hematopoietic and genetic disorders.
Let me tie this to an important activity that happens in southern part of india (maybe its prevalent too in entire india - not sure though).
Whenever a baby is born, the umbilical chord is cut and a clip is put up in the baby's navel end with the umbilical chord part extending out. In a matter of few days the external portion will heal and fall off.
This is then taken to a goldsmith who in turn stuffs this into a small golden (or silver depending upon one's capacity) and seals them air tight (mind this air tight) using fire. this is then tied along with a thread and is generally worn around the hips of babies.
Maybe our ancestors knew that this part of tissue might help in healing some disorders for the babies. Who knows better than them. Many of us indians would have worn this without much aware of its importance.
Hope that I have submitted a informative post here.
Anyway, to answer your thoughts, it might be informative on a more relevant science based forum than an immigration forum.
Trying to see how it is relevant here?...:confused:
Maybe some of us might be aware on the importance of umbilical chord and cord blood. They are life savers as they contain stem cells which can be used to treat hematopoietic and genetic disorders.
Let me tie this to an important activity that happens in southern part of india (maybe its prevalent too in entire india - not sure though).
Whenever a baby is born, the umbilical chord is cut and a clip is put up in the baby's navel end with the umbilical chord part extending out. In a matter of few days the external portion will heal and fall off.
This is then taken to a goldsmith who in turn stuffs this into a small golden (or silver depending upon one's capacity) and seals them air tight (mind this air tight) using fire. this is then tied along with a thread and is generally worn around the hips of babies.
Maybe our ancestors knew that this part of tissue might help in healing some disorders for the babies. Who knows better than them. Many of us indians would have worn this without much aware of its importance.
Hope that I have submitted a informative post here.
2010 Tribal Tattoos – Symbolic
mrsr
06-26 09:50 PM
how filed ,with the help of lawyer right?
more...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
hair Sure, the whole process of
LostInGCProcess
09-19 05:01 PM
Quick Q:
Lets say my H1b renewal is pending..while its pending I used EAD for a diff company than my sponsoring company( I will be with my Sponsoring company but in bench). Then my H1b gets approved. Can I still work with a diff company till I choose to go out to stamp for H1b and once am in US i can start working for my sponsoring company again?
Yes. The only way to do a COS from AOS to H is, re-enter with appropriate status.
By the way what are you trying to accomplish? What do you really want to do and why?
Lets say my H1b renewal is pending..while its pending I used EAD for a diff company than my sponsoring company( I will be with my Sponsoring company but in bench). Then my H1b gets approved. Can I still work with a diff company till I choose to go out to stamp for H1b and once am in US i can start working for my sponsoring company again?
Yes. The only way to do a COS from AOS to H is, re-enter with appropriate status.
By the way what are you trying to accomplish? What do you really want to do and why?
more...
ram_ram
11-01 07:05 PM
Legally speaking, You should not change the Metro Location for which the labor is applied. Exemption is Consulting companies can specify alternate location as 'Various client locations as specified by the employer'. Primary location would be the Head Office. So it all depends on what is specified in the labor.
Hello
My PD is March 2006 and my 6th year on H1B ends in March 2007. My LC was approved in March 2006 and I-140 got approved in July 2006. My company has relocated me to a different state. (same job, same title and company)
I have updated INS about my address change by sending AR-11. Would the job location change (from CA to NJ) have any impact on my GC processing?
Could you please advice if you info on this?
Regards
Hello
My PD is March 2006 and my 6th year on H1B ends in March 2007. My LC was approved in March 2006 and I-140 got approved in July 2006. My company has relocated me to a different state. (same job, same title and company)
I have updated INS about my address change by sending AR-11. Would the job location change (from CA to NJ) have any impact on my GC processing?
Could you please advice if you info on this?
Regards
hot Recently Added Tattoos
getgreensoon1
01-26 02:57 PM
2 people from Andhra get into top positions in IIT exams. 1600 people get caught going to fake universities in the US. That is a disgrace. People fron Andhra show desperation in the US and affect the diginity of every Indian in the US.
more...
house kimberly wyatt tattoo on hand.
vandanaverdia
09-09 02:52 PM
Just sent the details on email.
tattoo Try Some Interesting Clown
sk2006
04-23 01:03 AM
First and foremost we are a nation of laws, or as we are all anticipated? But years of previous administrations have neglected the illegal immigrant problem, to the detriment of American workers.
.
.
Brittanicus,
Would you or NumbersUSA, still be so mad on illegal immigration if illegal immigrants were WHITE EUROPEANS instead of brown skinned mexian people?
Please search your soul and reply to this question honestly.
.
.
Brittanicus,
Would you or NumbersUSA, still be so mad on illegal immigration if illegal immigrants were WHITE EUROPEANS instead of brown skinned mexian people?
Please search your soul and reply to this question honestly.
more...
pictures What To Consider When Choosing
ajju
04-10 10:15 AM
Friends,
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
please help
The only missing thing I see is that I-485 has also been pending for > 180 days.. If thats true.. you are good to go... 140 > 180 days has not much significance... only approved 140 is important... Good luck...
1. I have approved I140 > 180 days in actually 300 days
please help
The only missing thing I see is that I-485 has also been pending for > 180 days.. If thats true.. you are good to go... 140 > 180 days has not much significance... only approved 140 is important... Good luck...
dresses Greek Tattoos – Can You Resist
chi_shark
09-09 04:30 PM
:eek:
What the h### am i getting the red dots for anyway? it looks kinda cool!
What the h### am i getting the red dots for anyway? it looks kinda cool!
more...
makeup Can You Resist A Flower
legal_la
07-17 06:24 PM
PLEASE HELP PLEASE
I am going to India on 19th July as my mothe ris very sick... what should i need to do? i am coming back on 4th august
Nothing is more important than visiting her dont even worry about this, and regarding your filing you are still fine you will be able to file after you come back. Just keep all documents ready best you can before you leave and even after you come back you will have 13 days to send the application.
I am going to India on 19th July as my mothe ris very sick... what should i need to do? i am coming back on 4th august
Nothing is more important than visiting her dont even worry about this, and regarding your filing you are still fine you will be able to file after you come back. Just keep all documents ready best you can before you leave and even after you come back you will have 13 days to send the application.
girlfriend Find Perfect Anchor Tattoos
anilsal
01-08 05:15 PM
the latest passport information once you got it..
hairstyles kimberly wyatt tattoo on hand.
santa123
08-15 07:21 AM
Welcome back vdlrao...
what does the SEP VB indicate to you?
you had predicted that there will be a mild retro and does the fwd movement indicate better days ahead?
We IVians look fwd to your analysis and insight. Thanks!
what does the SEP VB indicate to you?
you had predicted that there will be a mild retro and does the fwd movement indicate better days ahead?
We IVians look fwd to your analysis and insight. Thanks!
rsdang
08-25 02:06 PM
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
She can work for any company she wants... her EAD is not limited to any job/profession... So she can work for Company B or C or D
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
She can work for any company she wants... her EAD is not limited to any job/profession... So she can work for Company B or C or D
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
ch102
04-04 03:09 PM
I found this in another website:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=685c8d8b3b760210VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
"Since the beginning of this fiscal year (October 2008), USCIS has adjudicated over 75,000 employer petitions, reducing the pending caseload of petitions to under 55,000.USCIS� goal is to have adjudicated all the older employer petitions, and to be processing newer petitions within 4 months, by the end of September 2009"
No comments:
Post a Comment