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)
wallpaper Dress Up Games,
prav27
07-09 12:33 PM
We got RFE for my wife case too but it specifically mentioned that in the submitted report it was not cleraly mentioned if the skin test was done and so new medical form with TB Skin test( last time the Doctor just did the x-ray) needs to be submitted
tikka
08-08 12:07 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Lets move people!!
Lets move people!!
2011 justin ieber dress up games
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
more...
vrbest
05-07 02:38 PM
I dont think soft LUD provides any logic.. I had soft LUD on my H1B case last week .. this was approved last year for 3 yr extension and I have not applied for anything recently (last one was for AP in Feb 1st week). No other cases had LUD updates...
They are not random. The do have some logic.
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
They are not random. The do have some logic.
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
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...
GCVictim
05-07 11:57 AM
Me and my wife got soft LUD on 485 files. the date was 03/19/2009. we are Jul 07 filers. PD was May 07
2010 justin ieber dress up like a
ArunAntonio
10-17 01:07 PM
Sorry to Bump ... but I am going nuts.. am I doing something wrong in the way I am going about this?
more...
RLNY122004
06-15 03:56 PM
Our I485 approved today and officer told us we will receive our cards in 6 to 8 weeks. Thanks
hair justin ieber dress up like a
smuggymba
07-28 02:26 PM
Your Payments When You Are Outside The United States (http://ssa.gov/international/countrylist4.htm) ??? What does this mean .... looks like you can claim benefits.
hmm..we need to double check then. there was a huge discussion here, can u search that thread...i'll check also
hmm..we need to double check then. there was a huge discussion here, can u search that thread...i'll check also
more...
gc28262
04-01 10:54 PM
Regarding your H1B status, please read the following newsletter from murthy.com
Effect of Travel While in H1B / L-1 Status and Pending I-485 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_efftrv.html)
Traveling on AP doesn't necessarily switch you out of H1B. If you are working for the same employer after entering on AP, you can still extend your H1 and continue to be on H1 status.
Based on my limited understanding, your lawyer is wrong when he says "3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others". 3 year degree issue comes up during I-140 stage. Nowadays USCIS has a strict requirement that the degree should be a "single source" 4 year degree for EB2 applications.
As for the successful outcome of trying to downgrade your application to EB3, your labor certification should be flexible enough to allow your application to be downgraded to EB3.
IMO it is better to get a second opinion/consultation with a reputed lawyer. If I were you I wouldn't trust your current lawyer.
Effect of Travel While in H1B / L-1 Status and Pending I-485 (http://www.murthy.com/news/n_efftrv.html)
Traveling on AP doesn't necessarily switch you out of H1B. If you are working for the same employer after entering on AP, you can still extend your H1 and continue to be on H1 status.
Based on my limited understanding, your lawyer is wrong when he says "3 year degree issue is mostly with PERM applications and not with others". 3 year degree issue comes up during I-140 stage. Nowadays USCIS has a strict requirement that the degree should be a "single source" 4 year degree for EB2 applications.
As for the successful outcome of trying to downgrade your application to EB3, your labor certification should be flexible enough to allow your application to be downgraded to EB3.
IMO it is better to get a second opinion/consultation with a reputed lawyer. If I were you I wouldn't trust your current lawyer.
hot justin ieber dress up like a
raysaikat
06-20 08:59 PM
[snip...]
As long as you have the I-797 approval petition you are good.
S/he has to have a valid I-94 to stay in the country legally. I-797 usually comes with an I-94. However, what the original poster said is that his/her I-94 is going to expire. I am interpreting the statement to mean that among the I-94's (one or more) s/he holds, the one with farthest validity is going to expire. If it does, s/he has to go out and get a new I-94 while re-entering. If s/he applies for some other status, and relevant I-797 comes with another I-94, then that's different. The bottom-line is, s/he has to have a valid I-94. It is irrelevant if the I-94 is given by the IO at the entry post or attached to an I-797.
As long as you have the I-797 approval petition you are good.
S/he has to have a valid I-94 to stay in the country legally. I-797 usually comes with an I-94. However, what the original poster said is that his/her I-94 is going to expire. I am interpreting the statement to mean that among the I-94's (one or more) s/he holds, the one with farthest validity is going to expire. If it does, s/he has to go out and get a new I-94 while re-entering. If s/he applies for some other status, and relevant I-797 comes with another I-94, then that's different. The bottom-line is, s/he has to have a valid I-94. It is irrelevant if the I-94 is given by the IO at the entry post or attached to an I-797.
more...
house Bieber Dress Up Game,
glus
05-31 10:37 AM
Thank you once again for contributing guys. We will achieve our success very soon.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
tattoo justin ieber dress up games
shankar_thanu
07-27 09:10 AM
Very helpful man, thanks.
and yes, it would be helpful to have this somewhere in a prominent spot on IV..
and yes, it would be helpful to have this somewhere in a prominent spot on IV..
more...
pictures justin ieber dress up games.
Rb_newsletter
09-21 06:31 PM
My previous employer got to know about this and sued me for stupid and fake charges.
What was the fake charges?
In which state you and your employer were then?
What was the fake charges?
In which state you and your employer were then?
dresses justin ieber dress up games
ozone123
07-16 09:20 PM
Just posted this reply at http://www.numbersusa.com/helpform
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
Hello,
I happened to come across your fax initiative "Ask your Members of Congress to oppose the SKIL Act H-1B increases".
Seems like you have got many facts wrong.
I'm surprised that an advocacy group as yours would try to make statements that would dilute your own credibility.
Below are some corrections,
"(1) The six-year visas allow foreign workers to bring in their families, and guarantee thousands of anchor babies."
The above statement is a matter of perspective. People can still come on visitor visas and have babies here.In any case, I personally do know of people who have gone back to their own countries to have their babies.
"(2) H-1B salaries are tax-exempt - no FICA, no federal or state income taxes. They can live at the same level as tax-paying Americans at a lower cost. Therefore, Congress allows foreigners to "low-ball" American workers."
The above statement in COMPLETELY incorrect.
Everyone on H1-B is required to pay federal, state, medicaid, Social Security and other taxes that any other native employee would pay.
On the other hand, H1-B employees dont stand to gain from the Social Security when they relocate back to their country after 6 years.
(3) H-1Bs can leave the job they came to fill and seek other jobs, not necessarily in the "hard to fill" category.
This is incorrect too.H1-B requires labor clearance and specific skills, even for h1-b transfers.
(4) Most H-1Bs are of a "protected" ethnic group, so H-1Bs have an affirmative action preference when competing with Americans for the same jobs.
You got to be kidding.There is no such thing.
I would appreciate it if you can quote any official source of this info.
Well,I'm sure that the well versed senators and congressmen will be aware of these facts, and you are only losing you own credibility with them.
The trust will be out soon.
Sincerely.
XXXXX
more...
makeup justin ieber dress up games
senthil1
04-01 07:25 PM
If extension is denied it is better to leave asap especially within 30 days. More the delay more problem while applying any visa in Consulate in future.
Hi there, I'm new to the forum but really need legal advice.
I came to the US at the end of October and received a stay until the end of January. I'm staying here with my partner (of course I didn't say anything about that on the border). I tried to extend my visa but I was declined. I tried to call different lawyers and one of them just told me about the 180 days rule: since my extension is denied and I was told to leave the US within 30 days of the date of the decision (March 17th), I'm here illegally anyway and it won't really matter if I leave in 2 (like I'm supposed to) or 4 weeks as long as I won't hit the 180 days. Unfortunately she failed to mention what the 180 days apply to. Is it since the date of my arrival (in which case the 180 days have already passed) or is it since the expiration of my I94, the end of January? The problem is that neither me or my partner are ready to be separated again so soon and we want to do anything to buy us some time.
Also, I'm very sorry if somebody asked a similar question before...
I'd appreciate any advice. Thank you so much!
Hi there, I'm new to the forum but really need legal advice.
I came to the US at the end of October and received a stay until the end of January. I'm staying here with my partner (of course I didn't say anything about that on the border). I tried to extend my visa but I was declined. I tried to call different lawyers and one of them just told me about the 180 days rule: since my extension is denied and I was told to leave the US within 30 days of the date of the decision (March 17th), I'm here illegally anyway and it won't really matter if I leave in 2 (like I'm supposed to) or 4 weeks as long as I won't hit the 180 days. Unfortunately she failed to mention what the 180 days apply to. Is it since the date of my arrival (in which case the 180 days have already passed) or is it since the expiration of my I94, the end of January? The problem is that neither me or my partner are ready to be separated again so soon and we want to do anything to buy us some time.
Also, I'm very sorry if somebody asked a similar question before...
I'd appreciate any advice. Thank you so much!
girlfriend circus ringleader, Dress
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.
hairstyles justin ieber dress up 2011;
dagabaaj
09-25 10:49 AM
So spouse can just use the EAD card and apply for a job. What does the employing company ask for when hiring?
What if they do not know what an EAD card is?
Also when can the spouse apply for SSN# after getting EAD card. Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?
What if they do not know what an EAD card is?
Also when can the spouse apply for SSN# after getting EAD card. Is the there a time frame within which one has to get the SSN#?
jayleno
06-20 08:05 AM
I don�t know about the port of entry, but for EAD and AP they might insist. You must have read my earlier post. In my case they had enough evidence to verify that I had a 485 application pending, but they still chose to send it back. I guess it also depends on the knowledge of the person handling your case. The only way to find out for sure is to apply and see if they send it back. Are you the primary applicant in your case or is it your husband? My lawyer said they did not get the 485 notice for 1 year now, but I know for sure that he has it.
I went for my driver's license in CT and they asked for an I-485 receipt notice when I showed my EAD as my status. They too sent me back saying they cannot give me a license without the I-485 receipt. You never know where they ask for that.
I would like to know if we can travel on AP without a I485 notice, do they ask for it at POE??
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
I went for my driver's license in CT and they asked for an I-485 receipt notice when I showed my EAD as my status. They too sent me back saying they cannot give me a license without the I-485 receipt. You never know where they ask for that.
I would like to know if we can travel on AP without a I485 notice, do they ask for it at POE??
Our attorney never told us that he did not receive my I485 notice till date!! we filed in July and he received one of the notice in Oct 2007. He is telling me now when I about to fly in a months time. He has also asked me apply for the renewal of AP & EAD, he has asked me attach the biometric notice instead of I485 notice and my husbands I485 notice.
Can anyone who has traveled on AP without a I485 notice share their experience. Any suggestions are welcome...
Thanks
ksairi
08-18 08:06 PM
USCIS will accept any applicaiton filed at a wrong service center uptil Aug 29th. If an applicant has not filed a form as per the direct filing instructions that became effective July 30th, still USCIS will accept any application filed at wrong locaiton as per their press release for direct filing that came sometime in June.
That's great
That's great
No comments:
Post a Comment