Dhundhun
10-13 11:59 AM
:confused:
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
Almost everyone knows USCIS rule that EAD can be applied 120 days in advance before previous EAD expires and normal processing time for EAD is 90 days.
With few exceptions, people are applying in time. They have other issue such as one person got in 6 days. In 20-30 days it is not uncommon.
You are one of the few people who did not apply EAD in time and trying to draw attention.
Dear gurus,
I have one fundamental question.
why EAD renewal can take up to 3 months? (90 days). It just does not make sense. I can understand if it is fresh application OR it has been expired for quite sometime before applying for renewal. If it is fresh app, there might be some security checks, application verificaiton checks etc. But EAD Renewal is very simple. You were approved once, your application does not boast any address changes. All you are requesting is renewal based on pending I-485. No common sense!:eek:
This is very very unacceptable and shows the lazyness of USCIS in adjucating timely. But they are VERY TIMELY in increasing fees....:eek:
I know I am very furious but dont we think we should raise some momentum in allowing special processing for EAD renewal or allowing local offices to issue Renewals for EAD which has been eliminated now????
Sincerely...
Almost everyone knows USCIS rule that EAD can be applied 120 days in advance before previous EAD expires and normal processing time for EAD is 90 days.
With few exceptions, people are applying in time. They have other issue such as one person got in 6 days. In 20-30 days it is not uncommon.
You are one of the few people who did not apply EAD in time and trying to draw attention.
wallpaper ob marley quotes wallpaper.
ChainReaction
04-18 09:09 AM
I already have two labor certification petition both of which are stuck in PBEC. MY first labor cert has PD of March 2003 and the other Feb 2005 . ON my lawyers advice i filed my second labor under RIR instead of waiting for another month and filing under PERM what a big mistake i made... I am onmy 5th yr on H1b and was hoping to Get at least 3yr ext if i was able to file 1-140 and have it approved before i file for the H1b . :(
ita
11-19 11:03 AM
Is is it ok if you receive just 2 AP papers?
WHat is the difference between 2/ 3 AP papers?
Thank you.
WHat is the difference between 2/ 3 AP papers?
Thank you.
2011 Bob Marley Quotes About
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.
more...
ajju
03-01 11:55 AM
USCIS can pre-adjudicate a case, even when visa numbers are not available. This means that USCIS processes all the application, but just waits for a visa number to finalize it.
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
does it reflect on online status? How else can we find out that one's case has been pre-adjudicated... LUD?? or any specific status?? or only IO can tell??
sledge_hammer
05-14 09:29 PM
^^^^
more...
WaldenPond
02-24 11:57 AM
Here is my honest opinion.... you guys need to highlight the fact that IV is equlally concerned about PBEC issue. This is what i have heard and read from a lot of folks... Just to let u guys know that even my app is stuck with PBEC..
The main goal of IV is to bring an end to labor processing delay in the backlog center and I-485 retrogression. We have consistently mentioned this in all possible forums. This has been clearly mentioned on home page. And if there is anybody who has any doubt, could you please request them to please call at (281) 576-7185.
I am beginning to realize that for some people who do not want to contribute, there will always be plenty of reasons and plenty of excuses not to participate & contribute. I think these people are the once who are actually responsible for the problems of all of us. Our problems do not originate in the slow GC process or the existing bad legislation. Our problems originate due to the people who are always looking for reasons to not participate or do anything or these people who are always looking for reasons to feel offended. And these people are sure doing a wonderful job because there will always be plenty of reasons to feel offended or not feel part of the group or not find enough motivation to feel part of the bigger community.
Asking questions or requesting a specific item in the goals is one thing. People beating the drum of transparency �. That is no big deal either. Everybody is entitled for their opinion. But people watching from the sidelines or for the people who want to include agenda as Goals of the IV or for the people putting conditions to their contributions, here is what I have to say to you. I would sincerely request you to never visit Immigration Voice or any other immigration related forum or website. You guys are the real problem because you are the once helping to foster the current system by not participating in brining the change. At the end of the day, know that you are the real culprits not the system which will be shaped by the contribution of each of us.
In last 2 weeks the contributions has really come down drastically. Everybody please note that we are running very low on the funds collection. All of us have two choices. One, contribute for this cause generously and lead the friends and acquaintances by example and tell them to do the same. Secondly, find reasons to not participate or not to contribute due to this, that or whatever �. The choice is entirely yours. But with your choice also understand whether you are being part of the solution or part of the problem. And whatever you do (including posting negative messages), I would sincerely request everybody to ask yourself one question, whether you (or your post) are strengthening or weakening this effort.
I would like to request all the members who have not yet contributed to please contribute generously. Please put your money where your mouth is. This effort or any similar effort for that matter cannot do much without the necessary funds that only come in the form of contributions from its members. And for those of us who have already contributed in the past, its time to please contribute more and help to fuel this effort.
This is not just about the life of the people who started this effort or the core/active members who have taken the initiative and responsibility. This is about all of us whether or not you feel part of it or not. It doesn�t make any difference how you feel about the situation or state of affairs. Why? Because this will be over very soon. And for the people who want to continue to ponder over this idea of whether or not they have a sense of belonging to IV, I would sincerely request you to please understand and know that by any contribution to this effort, you are strengthening your our voices. Know that this is not about anybody else but you.
The main goal of IV is to bring an end to labor processing delay in the backlog center and I-485 retrogression. We have consistently mentioned this in all possible forums. This has been clearly mentioned on home page. And if there is anybody who has any doubt, could you please request them to please call at (281) 576-7185.
I am beginning to realize that for some people who do not want to contribute, there will always be plenty of reasons and plenty of excuses not to participate & contribute. I think these people are the once who are actually responsible for the problems of all of us. Our problems do not originate in the slow GC process or the existing bad legislation. Our problems originate due to the people who are always looking for reasons to not participate or do anything or these people who are always looking for reasons to feel offended. And these people are sure doing a wonderful job because there will always be plenty of reasons to feel offended or not feel part of the group or not find enough motivation to feel part of the bigger community.
Asking questions or requesting a specific item in the goals is one thing. People beating the drum of transparency �. That is no big deal either. Everybody is entitled for their opinion. But people watching from the sidelines or for the people who want to include agenda as Goals of the IV or for the people putting conditions to their contributions, here is what I have to say to you. I would sincerely request you to never visit Immigration Voice or any other immigration related forum or website. You guys are the real problem because you are the once helping to foster the current system by not participating in brining the change. At the end of the day, know that you are the real culprits not the system which will be shaped by the contribution of each of us.
In last 2 weeks the contributions has really come down drastically. Everybody please note that we are running very low on the funds collection. All of us have two choices. One, contribute for this cause generously and lead the friends and acquaintances by example and tell them to do the same. Secondly, find reasons to not participate or not to contribute due to this, that or whatever �. The choice is entirely yours. But with your choice also understand whether you are being part of the solution or part of the problem. And whatever you do (including posting negative messages), I would sincerely request everybody to ask yourself one question, whether you (or your post) are strengthening or weakening this effort.
I would like to request all the members who have not yet contributed to please contribute generously. Please put your money where your mouth is. This effort or any similar effort for that matter cannot do much without the necessary funds that only come in the form of contributions from its members. And for those of us who have already contributed in the past, its time to please contribute more and help to fuel this effort.
This is not just about the life of the people who started this effort or the core/active members who have taken the initiative and responsibility. This is about all of us whether or not you feel part of it or not. It doesn�t make any difference how you feel about the situation or state of affairs. Why? Because this will be over very soon. And for the people who want to continue to ponder over this idea of whether or not they have a sense of belonging to IV, I would sincerely request you to please understand and know that by any contribution to this effort, you are strengthening your our voices. Know that this is not about anybody else but you.
2010 Bob+marley+quotes+love
h1vegas
10-07 12:30 PM
I got same audit in september as well
the guy came in to my desk and took pictures and i was asked to show my pay stubs
then they went to my hr and asked all questions
on being asked he said its the normal procedure
so no big deal , pls make sure if they coem to your office you should atleast have a copy of your paystubs
the guy came in to my desk and took pictures and i was asked to show my pay stubs
then they went to my hr and asked all questions
on being asked he said its the normal procedure
so no big deal , pls make sure if they coem to your office you should atleast have a copy of your paystubs
more...
fide_champ
08-04 05:41 PM
Please see my answers inside:
I came to US in March 2007 on L1B, mean time applied for H1b during April 2008 which got approved with COS effective from Oct 1 2008,
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
Ans: You cannot work for new employer while COS is in progress. You can do that during H1 transfer but not during COS from L1-H1.
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
Ans: COS is eligible for premium processing. If your client is waiting, better go for premium processing as getting a client is more harder these days than getting a visa.
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave
Ans:It's better to get your family here first and then apply for COS. If you change your status to H1, then your family will have to get H4 stamped before they can enter USA. That can be a problem sometimes if your company is not a well established one. They could avoid the H4 stamping and the hassles that comes with it(221g processing).
!
I came to US in March 2007 on L1B, mean time applied for H1b during April 2008 which got approved with COS effective from Oct 1 2008,
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
Ans: You cannot work for new employer while COS is in progress. You can do that during H1 transfer but not during COS from L1-H1.
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
Ans: COS is eligible for premium processing. If your client is waiting, better go for premium processing as getting a client is more harder these days than getting a visa.
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave
Ans:It's better to get your family here first and then apply for COS. If you change your status to H1, then your family will have to get H4 stamped before they can enter USA. That can be a problem sometimes if your company is not a well established one. They could avoid the H4 stamping and the hassles that comes with it(221g processing).
!
hair soccer quotes funny.
piyu7444
04-01 02:37 PM
Hi Vinnysuru
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
Case is approvable but my question is - will I have to wait till Visa bulletin has PD date showing NOV 2006 or beyond or Current or they can just get a visa number now (say April 08) and send it for card prodcution ?
more...
gcseeker2002
01-02 02:56 PM
Please anyone.........help me.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
You dont have to get it stamped if you are returning before your current stamping expires. However it is better to get stamping if you are planning travel after your current stamping expires.
I couldn't find any other thread in this forum discussing the same problem as mine. Please let me know if it has been discussed already.
Thank you very much.
You dont have to get it stamped if you are returning before your current stamping expires. However it is better to get stamping if you are planning travel after your current stamping expires.
hot quotes from ob marley,
chicagobuddy
05-25 01:02 PM
thanks dude..
if you don't mind, can you please answer few questions?
Did u take help from any third party guys who arrange things for you like bank draft/getting mexican permit and other stuff?
Could you list out documents you carried for stamping?
if you don't mind, can you please answer few questions?
Did u take help from any third party guys who arrange things for you like bank draft/getting mexican permit and other stuff?
Could you list out documents you carried for stamping?
more...
house love quotes bob marley. love
map_boiler
07-05 04:52 PM
If your labor cert contains language such as "...may work at one or more unanticipated locations", you should be fine with no need to re-start the GC process.
However, I would check with an attorney to be on the safe side.
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
However, I would check with an attorney to be on the safe side.
Gurus, need a lil help clarifying issue in GC process.
I've a question regarding location of work place for a H1B employee filing GC process.
I've learnt that either after filing I-140 or I-485 stage, one should maintain as an employee at the same job position(job description as mentioned in LC) and also the geographical location. I've learnt instances where if an employee is half way through (lets say approved labor or I-140) his GC process has to start all over if he had to move to another branch of the same company in another city/state.
Is this true? I might be wrong about the infomation above but I'm concerned as being consultant, I might have to move to a different city or state if I find a better project and am contemplating whether this would be an issue in future for my green card.
If I'm right, employer has to file LCA for prevailing wage for current city I'm residing now. What will be the process incase I've to move to another city/state.
I'd really appreciate if someone who has better official info or gone through this can clarify my queries so ppl like me can be better informed.
Thanks in advance.
tattoo love quotes bob marley. love
alterego
04-09 11:20 PM
Take the offer on EAD as you are now legally eligible to do.
In the unlikely event that something happens to your 485, you could then approach the program and ask them to do a H1 visa for you, otherwise you would have to leave the program. They would likely not risk losing GME funding.
Nowadays getting a good fellowship has gotten rather difficult, I'd consider taking the small risk involved.
Consult a good attorney to get their professional advise.
In the unlikely event that something happens to your 485, you could then approach the program and ask them to do a H1 visa for you, otherwise you would have to leave the program. They would likely not risk losing GME funding.
Nowadays getting a good fellowship has gotten rather difficult, I'd consider taking the small risk involved.
Consult a good attorney to get their professional advise.
more...
pictures ob marley quotes and sayings.
yalavarthi_sree
08-18 03:26 PM
In 2008 My wife applied for H1B and My wife got her H1B approved and along with the approval she got new I-94
valid till Sep 2011.
But she was not able to start working/ find a job due to family reasons and economy conditions.
1. Whether she Out of status since she did not work on her H1?
2. If she starts working now for the employer can she get back the status?
3. What are the ways for her get back to H4 if she not going work?
4. How we can correct her status?
valid till Sep 2011.
But she was not able to start working/ find a job due to family reasons and economy conditions.
1. Whether she Out of status since she did not work on her H1?
2. If she starts working now for the employer can she get back the status?
3. What are the ways for her get back to H4 if she not going work?
4. How we can correct her status?
dresses love quotes by ob marley
ksahmed
11-15 04:31 PM
Service Center NSC
I-131
Primary Applicant:
10/22: Soft LUD
11/6: Document Mailed
11/7: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/15: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/22)
Secondary Applicant
10/12: Soft LUD
10/31: Document Mailed
11/1: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/6: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/12)
I-131
Primary Applicant:
10/22: Soft LUD
11/6: Document Mailed
11/7: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/15: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/22)
Secondary Applicant
10/12: Soft LUD
10/31: Document Mailed
11/1: Document Mailed (Soft LUD)
11/6: Phisically Received (The AP says I-131 was approved on 10/12)
more...
makeup love quotes bob marley. ob marley quotes about; ob marley quotes about
eb3_nepa
02-12 02:41 PM
I would think Cross-Charegeability is automatic. I mean if one spouse is birth country India/China and one is ROW, I would think cross charegeability is automatic but then again not a 100% sure.
girlfriend ob marley quotes about women.
munnu77
04-06 09:35 PM
i am sorry..i couldnt follow todays proceedings..whn i cam to iv site in the evening..everyone says bill is dead
whn i went to immigration-law.com, they say the following
cud someone tell me which one is true??????????
We reported earlier the Senate Republican Members Agreement last night. Today, the Democratic Minority Leader and other Democractic leaders agreed to the proposal, turning the Republican agreement into the Bi-Partisan Agreement. This dramatic break-through opens a door to the possibility of passing the Senate version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2454, as amended before this week is over and before the Congress goes into the recess next two weeks.
The development is accompanied by three other developments:
President released statement supporting the bi-partisan agreement;
Senate rejected the Democrat's motion to cloture for the Specter amendments to S.2454;
Senate also relected the Republican Kyl' motion for his amendments.
Now we see the light at the end of the tunnel!!
whn i went to immigration-law.com, they say the following
cud someone tell me which one is true??????????
We reported earlier the Senate Republican Members Agreement last night. Today, the Democratic Minority Leader and other Democractic leaders agreed to the proposal, turning the Republican agreement into the Bi-Partisan Agreement. This dramatic break-through opens a door to the possibility of passing the Senate version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2454, as amended before this week is over and before the Congress goes into the recess next two weeks.
The development is accompanied by three other developments:
President released statement supporting the bi-partisan agreement;
Senate rejected the Democrat's motion to cloture for the Specter amendments to S.2454;
Senate also relected the Republican Kyl' motion for his amendments.
Now we see the light at the end of the tunnel!!
hairstyles ob marley soccer quotes. love
Leo07
02-09 10:24 AM
When the H1B is for 3 years, having you sign the contract for for 4 years is a quite stretch. I have signed such contracts before, it's usually not more than 6 months to 1 year (max). Please consult a able attorney, you are likely to have a valid case and make some money too:)
saileshdude
07-21 06:41 PM
In rare cases RFE has been issued. My doc also wrote that I need to follow-up with my PCP for INH treatment on my medical form. I visited my PCP and they sent me to a Infectious Disease specialist. The ID specialist said that there is no urgency for treatment although it is recommended to have the treatment. But said I can my take my own time to think if I need to go through the treatment.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
Asked what if USCIS sends an RFE, the ID said that they usually do not ask for it for younger people but for someone over 50 , they may ask. In any case he said if I received any RFE he was willing to provide me a letter that INH treatment is not urgently needed.
roseball
08-07 10:37 AM
1> Marriage certificate.
2.> I-864 + employment letter (copy will do) + tax returns (last 3 years) + W2s (last 3 years) + paystubs for last 3 months + bank letter
3.> Proof of status for her (I-94s, I-20s, I-797, EAD, etc)
4.> Copy of her complete passport (including expired one if it exists)
5.> Her birth certificate / affidavits
6.> Copy of your I-140 approval
7.> 6 photographs of her
8.> Filing fees
You also need to include the filled in Form I-134.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-134.pdf
2.> I-864 + employment letter (copy will do) + tax returns (last 3 years) + W2s (last 3 years) + paystubs for last 3 months + bank letter
3.> Proof of status for her (I-94s, I-20s, I-797, EAD, etc)
4.> Copy of her complete passport (including expired one if it exists)
5.> Her birth certificate / affidavits
6.> Copy of your I-140 approval
7.> 6 photographs of her
8.> Filing fees
You also need to include the filled in Form I-134.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-134.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment