GC_Q
04-21 10:34 AM
Hello fromnaija,
I don't think we need to start out GC process everytime we move to a different location. I believe that GC is for future employment so according to me we don't need to re-start GC process when we move from east to west and north to south.
Thanks
I don't think we need to start out GC process everytime we move to a different location. I believe that GC is for future employment so according to me we don't need to re-start GC process when we move from east to west and north to south.
Thanks
wallpaper portal 2 chell redesign.
jasmin45
08-08 04:27 PM
You are correct. There shuld be a job offer from sponsoring company at the time of applying for AOS. I guess the question is what if the person is not working at all ( No pay stubs from any company ). In this case the candidate will be out of status? There might be cases where people might come on bench or not having a project etc...
You are correct! Question is not about 180 days limit.. it was about paystubs and job itself. If there is no paystub for extended period, its more than "in status" issue. From employer perspective, Its a voilation, not paying a sponsored Ailen. From employee perspective, this may generate hickups when IO ask to produce proof of salary and taxes during adjudication of 485 if total pay does not add up to statutory minimum for H1B.
You are correct! Question is not about 180 days limit.. it was about paystubs and job itself. If there is no paystub for extended period, its more than "in status" issue. From employer perspective, Its a voilation, not paying a sponsored Ailen. From employee perspective, this may generate hickups when IO ask to produce proof of salary and taxes during adjudication of 485 if total pay does not add up to statutory minimum for H1B.
vnsriv
06-25 11:44 AM
Couple of options
1. Don't file your I-485 till you return from India
2. Receipts notices usually depend on type of visa category(EB) and the center which will be processing your case
3. Your husband can have I-485 notice and still get H1 stamped in India
I got my H1 stamped even when I had AP and EAD
4. You have 90% chance of getting receipt before Oct if you are in EB2
5. For travelling you must have AP before Oct unless you have valid H1( < 6 years)
1. Don't file your I-485 till you return from India
2. Receipts notices usually depend on type of visa category(EB) and the center which will be processing your case
3. Your husband can have I-485 notice and still get H1 stamped in India
I got my H1 stamped even when I had AP and EAD
4. You have 90% chance of getting receipt before Oct if you are in EB2
5. For travelling you must have AP before Oct unless you have valid H1( < 6 years)
2011 portal 2 chell concept art.
Dipika
12-03 11:43 AM
I have...
Frist stamp from INDIA (home country),
2 Visa Stamps from Washington DC
Last stamping from Matamoros (Mexico)
Am i ELIGIBLE to get H1 visa stamp from Tijuana next year?
Just for updating everyone, I got my stamping done successfully at Tijuana. They give the passport next day as expected, so just make sure to make the arrangement for the night. It's pretty cool for H-1B people both for full-time plus contractors, albeit for contractors they sometimes will call/e-mail your employer to verify. It will usually happen in a day or two and they'll issue the visa then. Let me know if anyone wants any particular details on Tijuana/H-1B stamping there.
Frist stamp from INDIA (home country),
2 Visa Stamps from Washington DC
Last stamping from Matamoros (Mexico)
Am i ELIGIBLE to get H1 visa stamp from Tijuana next year?
Just for updating everyone, I got my stamping done successfully at Tijuana. They give the passport next day as expected, so just make sure to make the arrangement for the night. It's pretty cool for H-1B people both for full-time plus contractors, albeit for contractors they sometimes will call/e-mail your employer to verify. It will usually happen in a day or two and they'll issue the visa then. Let me know if anyone wants any particular details on Tijuana/H-1B stamping there.
more...
Oct007
11-06 02:26 PM
If I renew my H1B can I avoid visa stamping by using the AP travel document.
I still intend to use my H1B as long as I stay with my current employer, but If I want to change employers or take a different job EAD would be the way to go, in that case would my H1B be invalidated?
I am concerned if I use EAD for a future job and 485 gets into trouble can I fall back to my H1B easily?
Thanks to all for the responses.
I still intend to use my H1B as long as I stay with my current employer, but If I want to change employers or take a different job EAD would be the way to go, in that case would my H1B be invalidated?
I am concerned if I use EAD for a future job and 485 gets into trouble can I fall back to my H1B easily?
Thanks to all for the responses.
Libra
08-03 12:30 PM
Guys, I am july 2nd filer and i got my checks cashed and waiting for reciepts....your checks will be cashed soon dont worry........until then why start new threads on same topic....instead will go to contribution thread and will start our posting there.....howzatt
more...
dealsnet
07-23 12:50 PM
If you are out of USA for a longer period, your I-485 will be in trouble. If you didn't come before AP expiration, your AOS will be abandoned. You cannot renew AP away from USA.
You can not get a new AP while you are out of US. You have to be in the US at the time or applying and while it gets processed. Recently I have seen two cases where the AP was issues within 30 days of applying.
You can not get a new AP while you are out of US. You have to be in the US at the time or applying and while it gets processed. Recently I have seen two cases where the AP was issues within 30 days of applying.
2010 portal 2 chell face. portal 2
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
vxb2004
11-25 01:24 PM
Thank you very much for all your inputs. I hope everything goes well.
hair portal 2 chell hot. portal 2
on_h1b_since_1998
02-08 12:51 PM
I am new member to this forum. My friend referred me here.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
I have a very unique case scenario and need help if anyone is aware of this.
Background :
I worked for company X which went bankrupt and was absorbed by company Y. 3 months after I started
working for Y I got I-140 approved from company X(not sure how but got it).I had filed for I-140 abt.
2 months before I joined Y(then still an employee of X) and had opted for CP and not AOS(had
the option of concurrent filing but did not use which i regret till date). Since the X case was of
no use now I filed a fresh LC from Y and am still waiting for notification from BPC for recruitment(TR case).
I am planning to use the PD from earlier approved I-140 which is sept. 1999 when my LC gets approved.
Issue :
Last week I received a mail from NVC which was forwarded to me by the previous employers attorney.
The letter's main content says
"THIS LETTER SHALL SERVE AS YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT A VISA NUMBER IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
FAILURE TO PURSUE YOUR VISA APPLICATION BY COMPLYING WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW WILL COMMENCE
PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE YOUR IMMIGRANT VISA REGISTRATION ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER".
It mentions "Section 203(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the Secretary of State
to terminate the registration of any alien who fails to apply for an immigrant visa within one year
following notification of the availability of a visa number".
Letter is Dated Dec. 3 2006.
Question :
I want to know if this will in anyway prevent me from using my old case PD with my current case?
My interpretation of this is that only the registration with NVC gets cancelled but the
underlying LC and I-140 approved are not affected and I can still use the old PD on my
current case. Pls. help.
more...
Joey Foley
May 16th, 2005, 07:13 PM
Ok, this is something I don't think I have an eye for at all (or have ever had an eye for, yet).
I have a photo project for a other photo study I'm taken. It's to photo a beauiful outdoor vista (any outdoor scene I pick).
The objective is to produce a picture that gives a feeling of distance-a feeling of near or far.
The subject is to photo a wonderful view that stretches as far as the eye can see.
So am I even close or maybe getting close to achieving this?
What do you think?
I have some more to post but here's a few examples.
Comments,suggestions,anything?
Thanks again everyone for your help.
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test2.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test3.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test5.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test4.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/testing1.jpg
I have a photo project for a other photo study I'm taken. It's to photo a beauiful outdoor vista (any outdoor scene I pick).
The objective is to produce a picture that gives a feeling of distance-a feeling of near or far.
The subject is to photo a wonderful view that stretches as far as the eye can see.
So am I even close or maybe getting close to achieving this?
What do you think?
I have some more to post but here's a few examples.
Comments,suggestions,anything?
Thanks again everyone for your help.
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test2.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test3.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test5.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/test4.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/medium/testing1.jpg
hot portal 2 chell face. portal 2
go_guy123
11-03 08:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INo69f7f8bo
About CIR.
He talks of more H1B.....no green cards :(
About CIR.
He talks of more H1B.....no green cards :(
more...
house portal 2 chell. Chell grey hair.jpg
apahilaj
03-25 01:59 PM
Is this true?
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/86900247/
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/86900247/
tattoo portal 2 chell cosplay. portal
StuckInTheMuck
07-11 06:26 PM
Where was your finger printing? Did you talk to any IO there? My EAD FP is scheduled and I will try to utilize the chance if possible.
Thanks
It was in Jacksonville (FL). When I was called inside for EAD FP, I gave the lady (who was taking the FP) a copy of my I485 receipt notice, and told her that I still haven't got FP notice for that, even after 11 months (I am a July 2 filer). She briefly talked to her superior (it seemed they are well aware of this issue), took the code-3 (combining code-2 for EAD and code-1 for I485) biometrics for me and my wife, and stamped on both our original EAD notice and the I485 receipt copy. She also told me to ignore the separate I485 FP notice that will be mailed to me (apparently the machine generates this notice automatically when my file is accessed, but haven't got it yet).
Thanks
It was in Jacksonville (FL). When I was called inside for EAD FP, I gave the lady (who was taking the FP) a copy of my I485 receipt notice, and told her that I still haven't got FP notice for that, even after 11 months (I am a July 2 filer). She briefly talked to her superior (it seemed they are well aware of this issue), took the code-3 (combining code-2 for EAD and code-1 for I485) biometrics for me and my wife, and stamped on both our original EAD notice and the I485 receipt copy. She also told me to ignore the separate I485 FP notice that will be mailed to me (apparently the machine generates this notice automatically when my file is accessed, but haven't got it yet).
more...
pictures portal 2 chell. portal 2 chell model. hero; portal 2 chell model. hero
DSLStart
12-16 10:32 AM
Very first thing hire your own attorney if new company is not providing one. Have your attorney send USCIS G-28 (change of attorney) on your 485 and other pending cases. Make sure the new attorney sends this out on the second day you meet him. This way your ex employer's attorney will have not control over your case. Spend money from your own pocket if new company not providing attorney as this is an important thing.
I'm EB3 (ROW)...PD: May 2006. My I485 is pending more than 18 months and I140 is approved a year ago. Recently, my boss fired me. I left the company and got a better job within a week. thanks god.
Now my ex-employer is calling my lawyer and bringing some alligation against me and asking my lawyer to withdraw my case. He also mentioned to my lawyer that he is going to call the immigration and take action against me by withdrawing my case.
1...Does anyone have any idea how the immigration going to react after listening to his alligation against me?
2...by submitting any paperwork to them can he hamper my proessing?
3...Do i have anything to scare about?
4...what should i do now?
This issues a very crutial to me now. he is one of those nasty desi employer's who underpaid me last 6 years not just acting funny when I'm asking for my rights. He setup the whole alligation against me and have some office staff working and supporting him.
I need help.....please let me know what should i do....please people help me....
I'm EB3 (ROW)...PD: May 2006. My I485 is pending more than 18 months and I140 is approved a year ago. Recently, my boss fired me. I left the company and got a better job within a week. thanks god.
Now my ex-employer is calling my lawyer and bringing some alligation against me and asking my lawyer to withdraw my case. He also mentioned to my lawyer that he is going to call the immigration and take action against me by withdrawing my case.
1...Does anyone have any idea how the immigration going to react after listening to his alligation against me?
2...by submitting any paperwork to them can he hamper my proessing?
3...Do i have anything to scare about?
4...what should i do now?
This issues a very crutial to me now. he is one of those nasty desi employer's who underpaid me last 6 years not just acting funny when I'm asking for my rights. He setup the whole alligation against me and have some office staff working and supporting him.
I need help.....please let me know what should i do....please people help me....
dresses portal 2 chell hot. portal 2
vikramy
09-02 10:48 AM
When i called last time when my wife EAD got approved, they told me the address on the application. So they should know.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
more...
makeup portal 2 chell hot. portal 2
BPforGC
06-23 04:12 PM
Guys,
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.
Lets focus energies on "Reuniting Families Act". Use this word. Its important. Visa recapture is part of it, but emphasize "FAMILY".
We need this bill and 350,000 VISAS that come with it. We have to make sure that those VISAs don't need to used 'per country' basis. Those VISAs must be distributed to whoever is in line, no matter which country they belong to.
IV core, please focus on this. We need this bill and all those recaptured VISAs can be used for anyone in the line, pre-adjudication complete and held-up because there is no VISA, irrespective of the changeability.
girlfriend portal 2 chell hot. portal 2 chell cosplay. portal 2 chell cosplay.
gcwait2007
07-23 12:28 AM
For Labor substitution cases, is there premium processing for I-140? Earlier, USCIS announced that from 05/18/2007 to 07/16/2007, it was stopping premium processing for Labor substitution cases. Any change now?
hairstyles portal 2 chell face. portal 2
priderock
11-29 03:36 PM
I am currently in US on H4. I had applied for my H1B while in India , through a consultant based in US and have the approval with me now.
The problem is that I might have to go back to India next year for good, due to which I wont be able to utilize my H1b for working in the US.
My question is:
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
What is the validity on the H1 ? Did you get this H1 before you got H4 stamped and before landing in USA on H4 ?
It is not possible to get the stamping on company "B" if you have H1 from company "A".
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
You can get the stamping done overseas based on the current H1. You can enter US based on that stamping. You are expected to work for that company to transfer teh H1 to a different company. You will be asked to send at least one pay stub (more some times in case of RFE) with your transfer application.
Any help is greatly appreciated, I need to decide fast. Thanks a lot.
The problem is that I might have to go back to India next year for good, due to which I wont be able to utilize my H1b for working in the US.
My question is:
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
What is the validity on the H1 ? Did you get this H1 before you got H4 stamped and before landing in USA on H4 ?
It is not possible to get the stamping on company "B" if you have H1 from company "A".
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
You can get the stamping done overseas based on the current H1. You can enter US based on that stamping. You are expected to work for that company to transfer teh H1 to a different company. You will be asked to send at least one pay stub (more some times in case of RFE) with your transfer application.
Any help is greatly appreciated, I need to decide fast. Thanks a lot.
cris
08-30 10:59 AM
now, I'm really confused . Based of the last comments, she or he (I'm not familiar with indian names- sorry ) travelled outside USA while application for extension was pending . and got approved AFTER arrival .
guys, there is something, somewhere to read or to get a proper information ?
guys, there is something, somewhere to read or to get a proper information ?
SNLive999
06-05 05:35 PM
Hello,
I live in Massachusetts, Where should I send my EAD application ( Initial EAD, not renewal). My I-485 is pending with Texas Service Center.
Should I mail the EAD application to the following address:
Texas Service Center
P.O Box 851041
Mesquite, TX
Thank you for letting me know.
I live in Massachusetts, Where should I send my EAD application ( Initial EAD, not renewal). My I-485 is pending with Texas Service Center.
Should I mail the EAD application to the following address:
Texas Service Center
P.O Box 851041
Mesquite, TX
Thank you for letting me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment