waitnwatch
08-04 12:03 PM
Thank you for this information. Never realized that this should be done.
wallpaper iomechanics tattoo designs
roseball
02-25 12:58 PM
I started talking to new employer about my joining and I requested for preparing PERM stuff before I join. This is the only this I want the new employer to do on behalf me before I join with him. The employer said Prevailing Wage determination takes 2 months. And the new employer mentioned that he can not do Prevailing Wage determination without joining. Is this right?
PWD has nothing to do with you joining them. All DOL does in PWD is it assigns a salary range based on the location of the job and the minimum requirements defined for the position. BTW, it is infact taking 2-3 months to get PWD these days.
PWD has nothing to do with you joining them. All DOL does in PWD is it assigns a salary range based on the location of the job and the minimum requirements defined for the position. BTW, it is infact taking 2-3 months to get PWD these days.
tnite
10-05 09:32 AM
My self and my wife both are on H1B. Both are working for different companies.
I filled I 485, EAD and AP through my company, for my self and my wife.
Questions:
1) I am the primary person. After getting the EAD, Is it possible, If my wife can open a consulting company with her name?
2) After opening a consulting company on her name, Is it possible, she can leave her H1B employer and run her own paystubs on her own company.
Your help will be really appreciated. :)
Check this thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14138
The questions are the same.thats why someone asked whether you're related to eadguru
I filled I 485, EAD and AP through my company, for my self and my wife.
Questions:
1) I am the primary person. After getting the EAD, Is it possible, If my wife can open a consulting company with her name?
2) After opening a consulting company on her name, Is it possible, she can leave her H1B employer and run her own paystubs on her own company.
Your help will be really appreciated. :)
Check this thread http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14138
The questions are the same.thats why someone asked whether you're related to eadguru
2011 Big fan of iomechanics.
webm
05-21 04:30 PM
Hi,
I had sent an e-mail to my attorney...below is his reply...looks like i will get my renewed EAD before current EAD expires.
USCIS typically issues new EADs within 90 days. If they don't, you may make an Infopass appointment to appear in-person at a local office to request that they process an interim EAD. The local office will not issue an EAD. Rather, they will contact the Service Center which will typically issue the EAD within two weeks.
I have applied EAD/AP renewals last April 22nd and got the receipts in 2weeks and today got CRIS email "Card Production Ordered" from TSC..so may be in 30days it should be on hand...Our's also expires in August...
It sounds like they are processing fast..dont panic keep hope!! Give it some time..
------------------------
EAD/AP renewal--TSC
I had sent an e-mail to my attorney...below is his reply...looks like i will get my renewed EAD before current EAD expires.
USCIS typically issues new EADs within 90 days. If they don't, you may make an Infopass appointment to appear in-person at a local office to request that they process an interim EAD. The local office will not issue an EAD. Rather, they will contact the Service Center which will typically issue the EAD within two weeks.
I have applied EAD/AP renewals last April 22nd and got the receipts in 2weeks and today got CRIS email "Card Production Ordered" from TSC..so may be in 30days it should be on hand...Our's also expires in August...
It sounds like they are processing fast..dont panic keep hope!! Give it some time..
------------------------
EAD/AP renewal--TSC
more...
hnordberg
June 18th, 2005, 12:58 PM
I like the top one the way it is. It is moody and the motion blur of the bird just adds to the feeling. Great capture.
With the rainbow, I think I may have tried to get an anchor for the foreground. Such as the yellow flower/bush in the lower right. I often find myself shooting with the camera at ground level. But it is a fine picture, nevertheless.
The bird shots are good. I would probably cut out some of the top of the last one.
Cheers
- Henrik
With the rainbow, I think I may have tried to get an anchor for the foreground. Such as the yellow flower/bush in the lower right. I often find myself shooting with the camera at ground level. But it is a fine picture, nevertheless.
The bird shots are good. I would probably cut out some of the top of the last one.
Cheers
- Henrik
houston2005
03-05 09:30 PM
We cannot justify the opposition to price increase as INS expects the fees to be paid by employer. So if needed employers can oppose not the employees. Only fees the candidates expect to pay is citizenship fees and all other immigration related fees should be paid by Employers as they are sponsoring gc
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
Totally disagree. Only a small %age of employers pay the fees, rest is all borne by the applicant. This includes universities, companies etc. There are so many components of fees that everything is not covered by employer.
Do most of the companies cover EAD (every year), Adv. parole (every year), I 485 etc.. fees. The arguemnt given by USCIS (read their website) for I 485 increase is that it will be processed in 6 months and therfore no need to apply for EAD and AP fees. The argument is fallible is that it does not counts retrogression adn name check, it is simply assumed everyone will get their I485 processed in 6 months.
They are not using technology (because they can't hire more H1b and softwarre professional) but using the excessive money to support theeri old fashioned systems.
What a mess 180% fees increase on most of the applications?
more...
inthehole
07-25 03:50 PM
I am trying to send AC21 letter to USCIS through my attorney. My attorney want the LC filing papers from my previous employer.(so that he can prove that my current job is same or similar)
So if we change our job using EAD, do we need to have LC filing paper from our ex employer for invoking AC21?.
So if we change our job using EAD, do we need to have LC filing paper from our ex employer for invoking AC21?.
2010 arm iomechanics tattoo
pune_guy
02-19 05:20 PM
I would suggest that you follow the option of joining some other company, if that is possible. You would be joining with enough experience so as to qualify for a new EB2 application. You can retain your EB3 application and priority date if 180 days have passed since filing 485, which in your case has happened so you are OK.
Trying to file an EB2 application through the same employer might be tricky because you cannot count the experience that you have gained with the employer. Even though a case could be made that you have a masters degree in business but I suspect that that may not be enough as, if I understand you correctly, you have no "business development" experience from your previous employment. Thus you would be a candidate with a degree but no experience.
Just my two cents.
Trying to file an EB2 application through the same employer might be tricky because you cannot count the experience that you have gained with the employer. Even though a case could be made that you have a masters degree in business but I suspect that that may not be enough as, if I understand you correctly, you have no "business development" experience from your previous employment. Thus you would be a candidate with a degree but no experience.
Just my two cents.
more...
750|140|765|131|485
11-24 12:43 AM
If your co-worker is giving you the letter it makes more sense to have it notarized to make sure that he really signed it - Its okay if he signs in front of Canada or other countrie's notary public. Since this an RFE - you dont want to take any chances.
In general big companies wont issue this letter in this format and small companies disappear - so co-worker route is a pretty popular way !!
************* general layout , change accordingly ************
January 01, 2007
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Nebraska Service Center
P.O. Box 87140
Lincoln, NE 68501-7140
Re: XXXX XXXXX
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I write this letter to verify that Mr. XXXX XXXXX worked at YYYY YYYYY from Aug 1998 until December 2004. During this period he worked 40 Hours per week.
During the period of employment at YYYY YYYYY Mr. XXXX XXXXX’s duty were to Analyze, Plan, Design, Develop and Test computer programs for Business applications using Oracle, PL/SQL, UNIX, JAVASCRIPT, JAVA, J2EE, XML, JSP, EJB, Hardware/Software Configurations, JDBC, ASP, VB6, DHTML, Linux, COM, DCom, Lotus Notes, Domino, SQL Server, DB2, and Informatica.
Mr. XXXX XXXXX rendered these services with the highest degree of responsibility and professionalism.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Mr. ZZZZ ZZZZZ
Designation
Company Name
**************************************
You should write the job duties, salary , 40hrs.week and get it approved by the lawyer and then email to lawyer. Once lawyer approves you should send it to your friend in Canada and he should print I believe he can notarize in Canada and send it back to you or may be he can print in his company letter head. Thank you.
In general big companies wont issue this letter in this format and small companies disappear - so co-worker route is a pretty popular way !!
************* general layout , change accordingly ************
January 01, 2007
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
Nebraska Service Center
P.O. Box 87140
Lincoln, NE 68501-7140
Re: XXXX XXXXX
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I write this letter to verify that Mr. XXXX XXXXX worked at YYYY YYYYY from Aug 1998 until December 2004. During this period he worked 40 Hours per week.
During the period of employment at YYYY YYYYY Mr. XXXX XXXXX’s duty were to Analyze, Plan, Design, Develop and Test computer programs for Business applications using Oracle, PL/SQL, UNIX, JAVASCRIPT, JAVA, J2EE, XML, JSP, EJB, Hardware/Software Configurations, JDBC, ASP, VB6, DHTML, Linux, COM, DCom, Lotus Notes, Domino, SQL Server, DB2, and Informatica.
Mr. XXXX XXXXX rendered these services with the highest degree of responsibility and professionalism.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Mr. ZZZZ ZZZZZ
Designation
Company Name
**************************************
You should write the job duties, salary , 40hrs.week and get it approved by the lawyer and then email to lawyer. Once lawyer approves you should send it to your friend in Canada and he should print I believe he can notarize in Canada and send it back to you or may be he can print in his company letter head. Thank you.
hair Digital-Clipart – Biomechanics
sanz
03-31 12:07 PM
Sen. Grassley calls for new L-1 visa probe
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
Raises concern that a 2006 report on L-1 visa was ignored
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa) has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general to investigate the L-1 visa program, saying he is increasingly concerned about loopholes in it.
Grassley on Tuesday released a letter to Charles Edwards, the DHS inspector general, asking him to dust off a 2006 inspector general report about the visa program and find out why the report's recommendations "were never implemented."
Grassley, who has been pressing for reforms of the H-1B visa, said he wants to find out the number of L-1 visa holders now living in the U.S.
The L-1 is used for multinational companies to bring employees into the U.S. and doesn't have has many restrictions as the H-1B visa, such as a prevailing wage requirement.
In his letter, Grassley wrote that "there's growing concern by many experts that companies are turning to L visas when the supply of H-1B visas are low. There is also a general consensus that L visas are being used to bring in 'rank and file' employees rather than top-level professionals with truly 'specialized knowledge.'" Specialized knowledge usually means advanced knowledge or expertise in a field.
In the 2006 study, the DHS's inspector general report referred to the L-1 visa as "the computer visa." It reported that from 1999 to 2004, nine of the 10 firms that petitioned for the most L-1 workers were computer and IT-related outsourcing service firms that specialized in labor from India. The number of L-1 petitions approved from 1995 to 2005, in most years, was just over 40,000. In 2001, nearly 60,000 were approved.
The report also found that the visa program was vulnerable to abuse and made several recommendations, including requiring immigration enforcement officers to assist in "checking the bona fides" of L visa petitions; putting in place a process for overseas verification of a petition; and clarifying what was meant by specialized knowledge, a requirement for the visa similar to what is asked for in H-1B visas.
Grassley said he wanted another look at the program because, "I have grown increasingly concerned that loopholes within the L-1 visa program have led to manipulation and broad overreach by those who use the program and have resulted in a great deal of fraud and abuse within the program
more...
willigetagc
08-19 09:27 AM
Folks,
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
relax until the new biometrics notice comes. Chances are it never will. The CSR you spoke to probably did'nt read/know the new rules.
I am a July filer, I called USCIS last week and they stated that they need a new set of biometrics. I had initially given my biometrics after I filed my AOS last year in July 2007. According to what I have read USCIS should be able to retrieve my biometrics from their Biometric storage system. Should I call USCIS and argue with them which may be futile. Or should I just bite the bullet and await the new biometric appointment. I would appreciate any input.
PD: 10/2002
I-140 - Approved Jan 2007
Category - EB3, ROW
relax until the new biometrics notice comes. Chances are it never will. The CSR you spoke to probably did'nt read/know the new rules.
hot arm iomechanics tattoo
speddi
10-05 10:43 AM
Hi,
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
I am a July 2nd filer and I got my receipt notices, EADs and completed the FP too. I didnt get the AP yet but my wife's AP shows as approved. When I talked to an IO couple of days ago, she said my AP is approved but they didnt update the website. I called USCIS Customer Service today 3 to 4 (it seems they keep track of it) times and each gave me a different information. Sometimes they said they have Aug 17th as the receipt date but my receipt date is July 2nd(on the RN) and Aug 20th is the ND. So, I dont know what this Aug 17th date is and they say that is what they have in their systems as received date and I am still in the processing time. I am confused. According to my attorney, my wife's AP shudnt have been approved without my AP getting approved since I am the primary applicant.
Do I need to worry or just wait some more days? I am mainly worried that they have the wrong date as receipt date in their system and it might affect on future processing.
Thank you for any kind of input.
more...
house Easter Island 14 - tattoo
TeddyKoochu
01-24 10:14 AM
TeddyKoochu, based on the 2010 report, can we estimate what the total EB quota would be for 2011?
We are back to 140K, refer to demand data. This year both EB1 and EB2 are showing much lower consumption the dates will definitely move into 2007.
We are back to 140K, refer to demand data. This year both EB1 and EB2 are showing much lower consumption the dates will definitely move into 2007.
tattoo Flowers tattoos
fcres
08-09 10:19 AM
Here it is
Q #17 in http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations.
And here is what OH says in his breaking news for July 24th after this memo
0724/2007: AC 21 Three-Year Increment H-1B Extension Petition Availability in July and August 2007
Under Section 104(c) of AC 21 Act, those who have an approved I-140 petition or pending EB-485 application with the approved I-140 petition are eligible for the H-1B extension in three-year increment, if they cannot file EB-485 or EB-485 is pending but cannot be adjudicated because of the visa number unavailability for him/her. The question remained whether visa number should be unavailable at the time of filing of H-1B extension or at the time of adjudication of filing. The USCIS FAQ indicates that it will be determined by the date of filing rather than date of adjudication.
You should ask your lawyer to get an amendment. I read here yday somebody doing that.
Q #17 in http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf
Q17: How will USCIS interpret the language of AC21 Sec 104(c) (for three-year H-1B extensions) during a period in which AOS applications could be filed?
A17. USCIS interprets AC21 �104(c) as only applicable when an alien, who is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, is eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status but for application of the per country limitations. Any petitioner seeking an H-1B extension on behalf of a beneficiary pursuant to AC21 �104(c) must thus establish that at the time of filing for such extension, the alien is not eligible to be granted lawful permanent resident status on account of the per country immigrant visa limitations.
And here is what OH says in his breaking news for July 24th after this memo
0724/2007: AC 21 Three-Year Increment H-1B Extension Petition Availability in July and August 2007
Under Section 104(c) of AC 21 Act, those who have an approved I-140 petition or pending EB-485 application with the approved I-140 petition are eligible for the H-1B extension in three-year increment, if they cannot file EB-485 or EB-485 is pending but cannot be adjudicated because of the visa number unavailability for him/her. The question remained whether visa number should be unavailable at the time of filing of H-1B extension or at the time of adjudication of filing. The USCIS FAQ indicates that it will be determined by the date of filing rather than date of adjudication.
You should ask your lawyer to get an amendment. I read here yday somebody doing that.
more...
pictures iomechanics tattoo designs
go_guy123
01-11 09:47 AM
The second part also sounds pretty reasonable to me:
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
This PAV would be issued upon successful completion of an application process that would involve the following:
1. Providing documentary evidence (school records, doctor�s records, etc.) that the applicant was in the United States before he or she reached their thirteenth birthday and be no older than twenty-five at the time they file their application;
2. Background checks for any prior convictions involving fraud, assault, reckless driving or DWI, failure to appear at any immigration hearing, or any past record of voluntary or involuntary deportation. Any such convictions would lead to a presumption of an unsuccessful application;
3. Evidence of the withholding of any relevant information, or submitting false information would result in the automatic failure of an application. Any failure of an application would result in the applicant returning to his previous immigration status;
4. Failure of an application due to withholding information or providing false information would subject the applicant to expedited removal proceedings;
5. Waivers of any requirement connected with the application process could only be made on a case by case basis by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security setting out in detail the "compelling evidence" underlying such a waiver and the evidence used to support such a determination.
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following authorizations:
1. PAV holders would be allowed to legally work and obtain a U.S. passport (on the condition of turning in any other passports) for foreign travel;
2. It would allow holders to establish residency in any state according to that state's requirements and be on equal footing with other legal immigrants with regard to state and local laws and policies;
The Permanent Administrative Visa would carry with it the following prohibitions:
1. Holders of the PAV would not be able to sponsor family members and relatives for LPR status;
2. Holding an PAV would not imply any safe harbor for applicant's family members;
3. Holders of PAVs would not be eligible to receive means-tested public welfare benefits;
4. Holders of PAVs would not be able to adjust their immigration status for a period of 10 years and then only through an administrative hearing in which the holder presented compelling evidence that such an adjustment is in the public interest. Such evidence would consist of, but not be limited to, applicant's work history, community service, military service, family circumstances, and the results of policy and security checks.
A One-time Only Policy: Consistent with the knowledge that adjusting the status of illegal immigrants brings with it the expectation that adjustments of the same kind will be made in the future, the language authorizing this initiative will explicitly state that:
1. That no further adjustments to legal status will be made for children brought into the country illegally after the date on which this bill becomes law;
2. That parents who bring their young children into the country illegally after the date of enactment will be subject to expedited removal proceedings.
This is still riddled with amnesty....more punitive versions will surely come which the democratic party will oppose for sure.
dresses “To a tattoo I give the
bang
01-07 05:03 PM
Thank you all for your repiles. I have asked my wife to talk to their lawyer directly.
It is not a rule, but it depends on how the approval is given by USCIS. If you get a extended I94 along with the H1 approval then you are all set, if you get an approval with no I94 then you need to get a stamping before starting work. Consult lawyers they will explain it better.
My wife went through the H4 - H1 Conversion which got approved last week, we are still wating to see the approval document.
It is not a rule, but it depends on how the approval is given by USCIS. If you get a extended I94 along with the H1 approval then you are all set, if you get an approval with no I94 then you need to get a stamping before starting work. Consult lawyers they will explain it better.
My wife went through the H4 - H1 Conversion which got approved last week, we are still wating to see the approval document.
more...
makeup foot iomechanics tattoo
tikka
06-03 02:07 AM
Thanks. When you get a chance can you please send web faxes. It is under main menu on the left side.
You can send the faxes to all 50 states. Please update the web fax thread once you are done!
Thank you again!
Keith Ellison, Congressman from MN was in Milwaukee, WI today.
I had a chance to meet with him on a small gathering for his fund raiser.
He is a member of Judiciary commitee.
We asked him questions on how to become more active in Politics, how Congress works etc etc.
He gave a good example:
He said politicians are like a mom with many kids..one kid is labor union asking for help for their issues, other is teachers union etc etc.
And if one kid is shy and does not say anything then he is not going to get anything.
Point is very simple, Congress needs to heard like crazy from legal Immigrants about issues. So please on Mon during lunch call your congressman every day for next week. Send them faxes, emails etc.
So when they vote they know that what are issues for legal immigrants.
If you don't then you won't get anything. It is that simple.
thanks,
engineer
You can send the faxes to all 50 states. Please update the web fax thread once you are done!
Thank you again!
Keith Ellison, Congressman from MN was in Milwaukee, WI today.
I had a chance to meet with him on a small gathering for his fund raiser.
He is a member of Judiciary commitee.
We asked him questions on how to become more active in Politics, how Congress works etc etc.
He gave a good example:
He said politicians are like a mom with many kids..one kid is labor union asking for help for their issues, other is teachers union etc etc.
And if one kid is shy and does not say anything then he is not going to get anything.
Point is very simple, Congress needs to heard like crazy from legal Immigrants about issues. So please on Mon during lunch call your congressman every day for next week. Send them faxes, emails etc.
So when they vote they know that what are issues for legal immigrants.
If you don't then you won't get anything. It is that simple.
thanks,
engineer
girlfriend iomechanical tattoo.
mna123
07-30 08:04 PM
Thanks Ray and Kondur for your replies.
So my understanding is that if I file for CP then I would be asked to interview in home country for my GC and it could take long once again if it gets stuck in name check.
But if I wait for H-1 name check clearance then I could enter to US and apply for I 485 and even if it takes longer than 6 months, I would get I 185 approved.
The thing is I am not sure how long it would take to get my name check clearance so I am thinking of CP.
Another thing is that I am on unpaid leave for last 3 months. My company let me worked for first 6 months remotely but then asked me to take unpaid leave. Would it be an issue when I go for interview for CP. Let's assume that if I get interview for CP after a year, wont they ask that I am not working for my current company so why are they doing CP for me.
And one more thing how long does it take generally to get interview once a person has applied for CP ??
I am so confuse and cursing myself why did I leave US. My apartment, my car , my belongings every thing is back in US and I am stuck here :-(
So my understanding is that if I file for CP then I would be asked to interview in home country for my GC and it could take long once again if it gets stuck in name check.
But if I wait for H-1 name check clearance then I could enter to US and apply for I 485 and even if it takes longer than 6 months, I would get I 185 approved.
The thing is I am not sure how long it would take to get my name check clearance so I am thinking of CP.
Another thing is that I am on unpaid leave for last 3 months. My company let me worked for first 6 months remotely but then asked me to take unpaid leave. Would it be an issue when I go for interview for CP. Let's assume that if I get interview for CP after a year, wont they ask that I am not working for my current company so why are they doing CP for me.
And one more thing how long does it take generally to get interview once a person has applied for CP ??
I am so confuse and cursing myself why did I leave US. My apartment, my car , my belongings every thing is back in US and I am stuck here :-(
hairstyles Tribal Tattooes.
GCard_Dream
06-18 06:15 PM
Just so you know, EB3-ROW has the exact same issue as the EB3-India; they are both unavailable. Is that not a problem? Don't take my word for it, just look at the recent visa bulletins.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
My intent is not to divide IV. I was just highlighting EB non-ROW.
Forgive my ignorance. Is there any specific Issues that hamper EB-ROW ?
Please enlighten me.
Having said that, if you don't know what all the problems are with different preference categories for ROW or non-ROW then may be you need to spend some time educating yourself before making statements suggesting that ROW does't need any relief or only Indians are suffering through the EB mess.
My intent is not to divide IV. I was just highlighting EB non-ROW.
Forgive my ignorance. Is there any specific Issues that hamper EB-ROW ?
Please enlighten me.
naturopathicpt
06-29 01:46 PM
Hi Atty. Prashanthi, I signed a contract from my local Philippine recruiter who brought me here in the US. My recruiter made a hardcopy of terms and agreement and gave my employer and I a copy to sign on. The agreement inlcudes if and when I breach the contract, I have to pay all the expenses incurred by my employer to bring me here in the US (immigration fees, recruitment fees, etc.). I would just like to know if there is a law that allows recruiters to hold employees through this agreement.
fromnaija
07-31 11:06 AM
Hi,
My wife is on H4 and I am on H1. We both have EAD. How ever, I have not converted to EAD and intend to be on H1 till i get my GC. Also our H4 and H1 3 year extensions are pending with CSC. My wife has a job offer for which she will need to use her EAD. The question is:
1) Can she change her status to EAD while her H4 extension is pending ?
2) Will her working on EAD jeopardise her H4 extension adjudication ? We want to maintain valid H4 as a backup.
3) What is the process for her to convert from H4 to EAD. Do we have to inform uscis ?
4) Is required, can she change her status form EAD to h4 (if we maiantain valid H4 as well)
Your quick response is appreciated. Thank You.
As far as I know, EAD is not a status but an interim benefit based on the fact that you have a pending adjustment of status. I believe your wife could work and this will not jeopardize your status. (Please note that I am not a lawyer. My answer is based on common knowledge and you may want to ask a lawyer for a legal opinion).
My wife is on H4 and I am on H1. We both have EAD. How ever, I have not converted to EAD and intend to be on H1 till i get my GC. Also our H4 and H1 3 year extensions are pending with CSC. My wife has a job offer for which she will need to use her EAD. The question is:
1) Can she change her status to EAD while her H4 extension is pending ?
2) Will her working on EAD jeopardise her H4 extension adjudication ? We want to maintain valid H4 as a backup.
3) What is the process for her to convert from H4 to EAD. Do we have to inform uscis ?
4) Is required, can she change her status form EAD to h4 (if we maiantain valid H4 as well)
Your quick response is appreciated. Thank You.
As far as I know, EAD is not a status but an interim benefit based on the fact that you have a pending adjustment of status. I believe your wife could work and this will not jeopardize your status. (Please note that I am not a lawyer. My answer is based on common knowledge and you may want to ask a lawyer for a legal opinion).
