h4visa
07-27 12:37 PM
Can someone go fr 2 jobs after EAD approval( i will use my EAD). Is is required that the job description of these jobs has to be same as filed in the application ? appreciate your help
wallpaper Birthday Quotes For Sister.
dpp
10-25 01:22 PM
I would like to suggest that anyone in Indiana who can make it meet at the Starbucks coffee location in Westfield this Saturday.
This is at US31 and 146th Street north of Indianapolis.
I propose 11am.
Even if there are only half a dozen of us surely we can achieve more than as individuals.
Ok, count on me and will be there at 11:00 am.
This is at US31 and 146th Street north of Indianapolis.
I propose 11am.
Even if there are only half a dozen of us surely we can achieve more than as individuals.
Ok, count on me and will be there at 11:00 am.
ramus
05-31 04:12 PM
Great..
Just post in drive fund thread when you done..
Thanks,
Contributed $350 so far. Will contribute another $100 today.
Just post in drive fund thread when you done..
Thanks,
Contributed $350 so far. Will contribute another $100 today.
2011 tattoo quotes diamonds roses
Imm_Exploited
07-30 11:00 AM
I am not an expert on this situation, but here is my $0.02 since most of us should have been once on F1 and then moved on to H1 and then to GC:
1. GC is always filed for a future 'permanent employment' opportunity. That doesn't mean that the GC applicant cannot be working for the employer at the time of applying for I-485.
2. As long as the applicant can prove that he/she can start work with the sposoring emplyer as soon as the GC is approved, the F1 status should be fine (if at all the COS is approved by USCIS).
3. I cannot understand the reason for changing to F1 status and pusuing education on full-time basis. Is it for some sheer academic purposes or is it for some kind of a lower fee at school or is it for tax purposes? Does the person asking the question have an existing job with the sponsoring employer?
IMHO, as long as the applicant has the support of the sponsoring emplyer, it should be fine to go back and forth on statuses. My suggestion would be to just keep working on EAD and pursue education on a part-time basis. If the spouse has an EAD, he/she could either work and study on part-time basis or work full-time and go to school part-time. Bottomline, if it was me, I would never even consider changing my status to F1.
Sincerely - IE
1. GC is always filed for a future 'permanent employment' opportunity. That doesn't mean that the GC applicant cannot be working for the employer at the time of applying for I-485.
2. As long as the applicant can prove that he/she can start work with the sposoring emplyer as soon as the GC is approved, the F1 status should be fine (if at all the COS is approved by USCIS).
3. I cannot understand the reason for changing to F1 status and pusuing education on full-time basis. Is it for some sheer academic purposes or is it for some kind of a lower fee at school or is it for tax purposes? Does the person asking the question have an existing job with the sponsoring employer?
IMHO, as long as the applicant has the support of the sponsoring emplyer, it should be fine to go back and forth on statuses. My suggestion would be to just keep working on EAD and pursue education on a part-time basis. If the spouse has an EAD, he/she could either work and study on part-time basis or work full-time and go to school part-time. Bottomline, if it was me, I would never even consider changing my status to F1.
Sincerely - IE
more...
Blog Feeds
07-08 11:30 AM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
RLNY122004
06-15 10:09 PM
CaliGC,
Here is my interview experience which I attendend at NYC district office on Apr 4th 2006.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=208982
If your case is in service center then I think initiating the service request is as good as taking infopass and going to local office. becasue even if you take infopass and go to local office you will only talk to the information officer on infopass counter which is as good as calling the customre service. But if your case is in the local office then I would suggest you to take infopass and go there. If you are lucky you will get to talk to DAO (immigration officer who would be handling your case) and you may be able to find more info.
I am not sure why my case was transfered for interview. But mine was future employment based labor substitution case so that might be the reason.
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
Here is my interview experience which I attendend at NYC district office on Apr 4th 2006.
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=208982
If your case is in service center then I think initiating the service request is as good as taking infopass and going to local office. becasue even if you take infopass and go to local office you will only talk to the information officer on infopass counter which is as good as calling the customre service. But if your case is in the local office then I would suggest you to take infopass and go there. If you are lucky you will get to talk to DAO (immigration officer who would be handling your case) and you may be able to find more info.
I am not sure why my case was transfered for interview. But mine was future employment based labor substitution case so that might be the reason.
Any reason why your case was transferred to local office? Our PD is becoming current on July 1st do you recommend me taking an appointment and visiting the local office? please suggest.
Also, please elobrate the interview information you had, and what you carried for the interview.
TIA.
more...
validIV
06-16 11:09 AM
Thank you Ms. Martin for your replies, it has been very helpful. As a follow up to hiralal's post, I have a question regarding H-1 status, totally unrelated to the original poster.
If one has a valid H-1, already extended beyond 6 years and is valid till 2011, has a pending I-485: what happens when that I-485 is denied? Is the H-1 status lost immdeiately as is the EAD/AP situation?
If one has a valid H-1, already extended beyond 6 years and is valid till 2011, has a pending I-485: what happens when that I-485 is denied? Is the H-1 status lost immdeiately as is the EAD/AP situation?
2010 quotes about roses. quot;Time
Green.Tech
07-23 06:40 PM
AFAIK, as long as the core duties mentioned in the LC don't change considerably (by more than 50%), the company can promote you anytime.
more...
sanjeev.mehra@gmail.com
08-15 11:28 AM
If I am working with X company & Y company is ready to file GC.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
If to be on safe side, I should join company Y at some point;
then what is that state - GC is approved (Once GC is in hand)
or even before that.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
(Assuming Y has no objections even if I do not join the company at all)
Is it mandatory for the candidate to join company Y at certain stage which has file GC?
If to be on safe side, I should join company Y at some point;
then what is that state - GC is approved (Once GC is in hand)
or even before that.
Regards,
Sanjeev.
hair roses. friendship quotes
mhtanim
01-30 01:52 AM
Just today, I spoke to one of my freind, he is also from Bangladesh and his PD is sometime in 2006. He got his GC. So it could very well be true. If you want PM me and I can give you his phone number, you are his compatriot after all.
If your friend is under EB2 category, then yes, his GC is no surpise. However, if PD is not current, I am not sure how someone's GC can be approved without calling it a USCIS' mistake.
Comments from anybody with more knowledge on this will be highly appreciated.
If your friend is under EB2 category, then yes, his GC is no surpise. However, if PD is not current, I am not sure how someone's GC can be approved without calling it a USCIS' mistake.
Comments from anybody with more knowledge on this will be highly appreciated.
more...
rsayed
08-22 11:25 AM
i APPLIED ON 7th July...
NO news
I applied on 7th July too - Receipt Date - 8th July - Notice Date - 9th July, 2008.
Paper-filed through my firm's lawyer - nothing so far!
Tried calling USCIS a few times - don't know whom to beleive - once, I was told an IO has not been assigned to my case. The other two times, they said, they're processing cases filed before April 2008 and I'll have to wait another 82-90 days!!!
Which doesn't sound true - coz' I know friends who filed in June/Jul - who got their approvals.
So, I'm compelled to logically arrive at one conclusion - USCIS is in a mess...through and through!!!
It's like the BLACK HOLE - No one knows what goes on in there - once, your app is in - only a miracle can get it out...
Sorry - just venting my frustrations...think I should go jog and drain myself silly...!!! :mad:
NO news
I applied on 7th July too - Receipt Date - 8th July - Notice Date - 9th July, 2008.
Paper-filed through my firm's lawyer - nothing so far!
Tried calling USCIS a few times - don't know whom to beleive - once, I was told an IO has not been assigned to my case. The other two times, they said, they're processing cases filed before April 2008 and I'll have to wait another 82-90 days!!!
Which doesn't sound true - coz' I know friends who filed in June/Jul - who got their approvals.
So, I'm compelled to logically arrive at one conclusion - USCIS is in a mess...through and through!!!
It's like the BLACK HOLE - No one knows what goes on in there - once, your app is in - only a miracle can get it out...
Sorry - just venting my frustrations...think I should go jog and drain myself silly...!!! :mad:
hot pictures of roses with quotes.
kmk2002
10-09 06:31 PM
is SOC_CODE 999.151-051 (from case data at FLCCenterdata.com) is same as 15-1051.00 mentioned above?
more...
house Mini Rose Disc Cookies
black_logs
05-26 07:23 AM
Guy, we can send a small hand written card to our senators and to QGA(if we are thankful enough). Thi is what I'm going to do:cool:
Would it be a good idea to create and send webfax to QGA and the Senators & their staff?
All the members, keep the contributions coming...we have a huge task ahead to get it through the House.
Would it be a good idea to create and send webfax to QGA and the Senators & their staff?
All the members, keep the contributions coming...we have a huge task ahead to get it through the House.
tattoo girlfriend quotes about roses.
immi_seeker
04-06 12:10 AM
Bump.
more...
pictures quotes about roses.
RayP
12-08 03:13 AM
Thanks for your response. Good to hear that I can file while I am outside the US.
Meanwhile, I was wondering if it expires due to (assume) my neglect... does that create issues or can I apply at a later date... this is just in case I forget !! Sorry !!
Meanwhile, I was wondering if it expires due to (assume) my neglect... does that create issues or can I apply at a later date... this is just in case I forget !! Sorry !!
dresses quotes about roses
Bytes4Lunch
03-07 09:25 AM
Visa stamping interview --> First week of Feb
Was asked to submit technical questionnaire and other documents as per 221g which I did
Received email confirmation that they have "received" the documents and sending it to DOS for further processing and will email me in sometime
After waiting for one month and no sign of the elusive email, I flew in to LAX and used my Advanced Parole successfully. I had not cancelled my pending H1B application.
The POE officer was very polite unlike the officer at the Mumbai consulate. They didn't ask me even "one" question about my pending h1B application or the H1b in general, had to wait in the secondary inspection room while they looked up my information. Was out in 20-25 mins.
When I asked the POE officer what happens to the H1, he said it gets void. But as per earlier INS memos(Cronin Memo) and threads on forums, this is not the case right ? although I didn't start a discussion on this with him, because I didn't want to confuse him. My I-94 has AOS written on it which probably puts me in a Parolee status.
Now my question is:
---------------------------------------
I really would like to get back on the H1 status, so when the email arrives from Mumbai, does anyone know if its possible to withdraw the application .
Then arrange for the h1B visa stamping interview at say Tijuana, Mexico. Wouldn't I be in the PIMS system now (since I would have received the email from the mum consulate) and make the stamping faster at the regular timelines. I have my multiple entry AP as backup, so I can be back if I need to.
I'd really appreciate if anyone can shed any light on this, I really hate to work on my EAD and would like to continue on the H1 as a backup for my entire family's sake.
Was asked to submit technical questionnaire and other documents as per 221g which I did
Received email confirmation that they have "received" the documents and sending it to DOS for further processing and will email me in sometime
After waiting for one month and no sign of the elusive email, I flew in to LAX and used my Advanced Parole successfully. I had not cancelled my pending H1B application.
The POE officer was very polite unlike the officer at the Mumbai consulate. They didn't ask me even "one" question about my pending h1B application or the H1b in general, had to wait in the secondary inspection room while they looked up my information. Was out in 20-25 mins.
When I asked the POE officer what happens to the H1, he said it gets void. But as per earlier INS memos(Cronin Memo) and threads on forums, this is not the case right ? although I didn't start a discussion on this with him, because I didn't want to confuse him. My I-94 has AOS written on it which probably puts me in a Parolee status.
Now my question is:
---------------------------------------
I really would like to get back on the H1 status, so when the email arrives from Mumbai, does anyone know if its possible to withdraw the application .
Then arrange for the h1B visa stamping interview at say Tijuana, Mexico. Wouldn't I be in the PIMS system now (since I would have received the email from the mum consulate) and make the stamping faster at the regular timelines. I have my multiple entry AP as backup, so I can be back if I need to.
I'd really appreciate if anyone can shed any light on this, I really hate to work on my EAD and would like to continue on the H1 as a backup for my entire family's sake.
more...
makeup best friend quotes. i love
kewlchap
04-06 01:15 AM
Hello all,
Anyone knows if there is a certain length of time that I need to be employed with my GC sponsor after 485 approval?
I have heard 3-4 months, but I am wondering if there is legal time limit or if this is a "good faith" limit.
Appreciate responses.
Anyone knows if there is a certain length of time that I need to be employed with my GC sponsor after 485 approval?
I have heard 3-4 months, but I am wondering if there is legal time limit or if this is a "good faith" limit.
Appreciate responses.
girlfriend Share Graphic - Roses Quotes
GCwaitforever
02-13 01:44 PM
Stuck in Immigration backlog? Join IV for a furlong.
hairstyles pictures of roses with quotes;
Rb_newsletter
04-15 05:20 PM
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
Does anyone know which law states that GC should not be approved when PD is not current? I guess the whole 'PD' concept was invented by administration people.
GCBy3000
03-31 02:21 PM
it isnot dependent on how gradual your change is. If your LC process takes 10 years, you can gradually move to VP position. It does not mean it is legal. You should never change your job duties dramatically. You could move from Software engineer to Sr. Software engineer and not to Team lead or project manager. Again, it is not hard and fast rule. Legally, you could take up any job as long as you move back to the job described in the LC after the adjustment of status(I485).
Again the entire GC is for future job. I did not say "YOU HAVE TO" stay in that job. May be my wording is little bit wrong. It is always better to stay with the same company atleast for 6 months and min of one year after you get GC. If you do not, then if you intent to become citizen, there may be some questions regarding your intent for GC. I am not an attorney, but whatever, I have expressed above came directly from my company attorney.
Thanks
Again the entire GC is for future job. I did not say "YOU HAVE TO" stay in that job. May be my wording is little bit wrong. It is always better to stay with the same company atleast for 6 months and min of one year after you get GC. If you do not, then if you intent to become citizen, there may be some questions regarding your intent for GC. I am not an attorney, but whatever, I have expressed above came directly from my company attorney.
Thanks
Leo07
01-14 01:06 PM
...and Good Luck
0 comments:
Post a Comment