psaxena
06-10 05:39 PM
wow thats a news.. as your alias is "vivid" write something "different"(vividh) which we dun know.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
USCIS tops any other US pubic office in these 3 qualities
1. Most greedy
2. Most arrogant
3. Most inefficient
Reason is simple, their customers are mostly non-US citizens. Their prime objective is to earn as much money as they can for the US treasury, if that means 'Screw Immigrants' than let it be, who cares ?
So any positive things like 10 years EAD/AP are dreams which will never come true...We should certainly put our case for 3 years EAD/AP combined document.
piyu7444
05-08 07:16 PM
thanks piyu7444 ... dont we all love green (like green card, green car, green back ...)
Yeah man atleast I do love all the greeeeeeeeensssssssss from dot to dollar....lol
Yeah man atleast I do love all the greeeeeeeeensssssssss from dot to dollar....lol
DDash
04-04 11:49 PM
I need some help with my situation. I am currently working for an employer A full time on H-1 B. I-140 Approved (> 180days) and 485 pending (July 2nd filer). I have my EAD. My H-1 is being extended and I have not received my approval notice yet.
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
Can someone please answer my questions? :confused:
1) I am planning on doing a H-1 transfer to employer B. Will it be possible to do H-1 transfer while employer A is extending my H-1?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
3) I have a job code that I used on LC. Should I maintain the same job code for H-1 transfer as well?
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer? :rolleyes:
5) With employer A I make x dollars. LC reflects this pay. When I switch to employer B should I also make only x dollars or can I make more? :eek:
Thanks in advance for you replies.
I got an offer from employer B for a consulting GIG. I would like to invoke AC-21.
Can someone please answer my questions? :confused:
1) I am planning on doing a H-1 transfer to employer B. Will it be possible to do H-1 transfer while employer A is extending my H-1?
2) Should I let USCIS know that I am changing my employment?
3) I have a job code that I used on LC. Should I maintain the same job code for H-1 transfer as well?
4) I am not sure how big employer B is (not sure how many employees work for them)....does it matter? Should I be concerned if employer B is a small employer? :rolleyes:
5) With employer A I make x dollars. LC reflects this pay. When I switch to employer B should I also make only x dollars or can I make more? :eek:
Thanks in advance for you replies.
sj2273
01-30 11:41 AM
Emailed Detroit News and Free Press
and NPR(Miradio.org)
and NPR(Miradio.org)
more...
linuxra
07-23 03:00 PM
Are u from vision systems too...and do u know anybody got approved
tomatocup
07-12 04:55 PM
It is partly true. You get stuck in name check , somebody get stuck at I-140, All in all this whole system is purposefully created to keep doors locked "legallly". The first and foremost question should be how the hell government has decided 140000 visas not 40000 and not 240000 but only 140000 and why the hell discrimination against people from only 4 countries?
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
Who and what will be used to decide the market need? If this is like what you said, what will happen to those 7 million in the next year where market need is only 7000? Does this mean many of them will be laid off or sent back? Does USCIS hire more people during the 7 million year and lay them off in the next year? How can a system be flawless with all these uncontroble things? People have to wait in many ways to get things done in most of the country with large population. Logiclife is right that life is not fare if you want to compare.
Infact employment based immigration is for sufficing the need of the market then let market decides what immigration numbers should be set as ceiling... If US economy need 7 milion in year 2007, ceiling should be 7 million and next year US market may need only 7000 then for that year ceiling should be 7000. I believe if they may freshen up the whole EB GC mess with starting restructuring based on this concept then only in future we can expect flawless legal immigration...
Who and what will be used to decide the market need? If this is like what you said, what will happen to those 7 million in the next year where market need is only 7000? Does this mean many of them will be laid off or sent back? Does USCIS hire more people during the 7 million year and lay them off in the next year? How can a system be flawless with all these uncontroble things? People have to wait in many ways to get things done in most of the country with large population. Logiclife is right that life is not fare if you want to compare.
more...
seahawks
06-26 03:16 PM
trying go get an answer if any one can give some insight?
gc_chahiye
11-13 12:13 PM
I would appreciate if any of you could shed light on the following scenario:
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
you will need to come back to atleast get AP approvals (AP expires every year), and if you are served a fingerprint notice, then come back for that. If you are going to be definately out for the next few years, another option is to do consular processing; talk to a lawyer it depends a lot on your specific case.
If 485 is pending for over six months and someone switched the job using AC21 for a position which would require extended stay [upto 2-3 years] outside the US. Would it any way impact the GC process? Given that priority date is 2007, it is unlikely(?) that 485 would be adjusted in that time.
Thanks
you will need to come back to atleast get AP approvals (AP expires every year), and if you are served a fingerprint notice, then come back for that. If you are going to be definately out for the next few years, another option is to do consular processing; talk to a lawyer it depends a lot on your specific case.
more...
eastindia
01-06 09:44 AM
I understand that this bill many not pass or even move any forward. I thought two senior senators from both parties showing interest in this topic is a great opportunity for IV to present our case in a different light. We have been clamoring about the difficulties we are facing because of the present delay in green card processing. Unfortunately this is only our problem and no one else really has to be bothered about it. If we present our case in a mutually beneficial point of view perhaps some of the politicians will have little more interest in our situation. Remember JFK’s famous words…”Ask not what the country can do for you….” If we write to Senators Kerry and Lugar now, even if the bill does not pass, they will consider our situation slightly differently next time CIR or another immigration bill is introduced in the congress. I think IV ought to present our case in all different angles possible rather than the one way approach of expecting mercy in our situation. Most importantly, I think the premise of the proposed Kerry/Lugar bill is very much applicable the folks in IV. Aren’t many people in this forum waiting for an opportunity to do some business on their own? That is how new immigrants in America have always been. We shouldn’t be any different. I am sure we cannot bring in the capital that senators are looking for. But why don’t they view us slightly differently?
If it is a great opportunity, why dont everyone work on it. Start with investing in IV and taking part in it. IV is you and me.
75% of us in this forum do not qualify for the legislation being proposed here!
You are saying we folks cannot even invest 100K into business?
Even if I agree with you for a second. According to you out of 50 thousand IV members 10 thousand members qualify for this legislation. 10 thousand is a very big number.
Where are these ten thousand members? Even if these 10 thousand members invest $25 per month to lobby this bill it will be 250K per month to lobby. This is a huge amount and they can lobby this bill easily. The problem I see in IV is that out of 50 thousand people only 50 people have $25 per month to invest to lobby their own issues. Rest everyone is just sitting here and only contributing opinions.
If it is a great opportunity, why dont everyone work on it. Start with investing in IV and taking part in it. IV is you and me.
75% of us in this forum do not qualify for the legislation being proposed here!
You are saying we folks cannot even invest 100K into business?
Even if I agree with you for a second. According to you out of 50 thousand IV members 10 thousand members qualify for this legislation. 10 thousand is a very big number.
Where are these ten thousand members? Even if these 10 thousand members invest $25 per month to lobby this bill it will be 250K per month to lobby. This is a huge amount and they can lobby this bill easily. The problem I see in IV is that out of 50 thousand people only 50 people have $25 per month to invest to lobby their own issues. Rest everyone is just sitting here and only contributing opinions.
vindas
06-14 02:05 PM
Don't worry. I had received a call 3 years back from Department of Homeland security. They asked me that someone was taking picture from my car on the highway. someone had complained that we were taking pictures of "George Washington Bridge sign board" from our car. We had not even gone on that highway that day.
We told him that it is a wrong car. Why would we go on the highway and takie picture of the sign board. Somone have given wrong information.
After that we never got that kind of call. No issue at all.
We told him that it is a wrong car. Why would we go on the highway and takie picture of the sign board. Somone have given wrong information.
After that we never got that kind of call. No issue at all.
more...
jonty_11
07-05 04:41 PM
I have got my canadian PR approval for me and my wife and have sent the passports to the Canadian Consulate in NYC for immigrant visa stamping. To get my PR card I have to land in Canada before Dec 19, 2007 when the visa expires.
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
there is a Automatic VISA reavalidation Rule that allows u to visit Canada or Mexico and return within30 days only w/o valid US VISA...google it. or search on these forums...
I have not traveled outside the US after I got my H1B and am planning to go to Canada for stamping H1B for me H4 for my wife.
Would there be any problem for me to land in Canada since I will not be landing there with the intention to settle but will return after getting my H1B stamped in a couple of days.
Anyone gone through my kind of situation before. Please send me a PM.
I am concerend about being denied entry in Canada and then I will be nowhere because I cannot return to US without a vaid H1B stamp.
there is a Automatic VISA reavalidation Rule that allows u to visit Canada or Mexico and return within30 days only w/o valid US VISA...google it. or search on these forums...
purgan
11-09 11:09 AM
Now that the restrictionists blew the election for the Republicans, they're desperately trying to rally their remaining troops and keep up their morale using immigration scare tactics....
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
If the Dems could vote against HR 4437 and for S 2611 in an election year and still win the majority, whose going to care for this piece of S#*t?
Another interesting observation: Its back to being called a Bush-McCain-Kennedy Amnesty....not the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty...
========
National Review
"Interesting Opportunities"
Are amnesty and open borders in our future?
By Mark Krikorian
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”
Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?
Nope.
That’s not to say the amnesty crowd isn’t hoping for it. Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat, “The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task it has been wrestling with: how to translate the emerging consensus into legislation to repair the nation's broken immigration system.”
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
Nor do the results of Tuesday’s balloting bear out the enthusiasts’ claims of a mandate for amnesty. “The test,” Fred Barnes writes, “was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats.” But while these two somewhat strident voices were defeated (Hayworth voted against the House immigration-enforcement bill because it wasn’t tough enough), the very same voters approved four immigration-related ballot measures by huge margins, to deny bail to illegal aliens, bar illegals from winning punitive damages, bar illegals from receiving state subsidies for education and child care, and declare English the state’s official language.
More broadly, this was obviously a very bad year for Republicans, leading to the defeat of both enforcement supporters — like John Hostettler (career grade of A- from the pro-control lobbying group Americans for Better Immigration) and Charles Taylor (A) — as well as amnesty promoters, like Mike DeWine (D) and Lincoln Chafee (F). Likewise, the winners included both prominent hawks — Tancredo (A) and Bilbray (A+) — and doves — Lugar (D-), for instance, and probably Heather Wilson (D).
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it.
—* Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
more...
immi_seeker
07-14 12:31 PM
I called uscis and they have asked me to refile I-765. They said they will issue new EAD with extended dates. Not sure how long will it take. And i dont believe issuing 3 month EAD was intentional. They probbaly wont have any idea when the 485 would be adjudicated when they approve EAD.
LostInGCProcess
03-03 12:02 PM
Yes, the wording is very important. When I sent the AC21 documentation, it was just a letter explaining employment details and particulars, but when I replied to NOID, they specifically requested "prospects of employment" - and we responded as "this is a full time permanent job and the prospects are good" - which means they see it as future employment.
As long as you have worked for original employer for a good period of time, stick to your skills, have good w2 history, you don't have to worry - you can always show that your prospects are good.
Though Green card if for future employment - the entire process revolves around how best you fit the future employment category - AC21 is one such rule that gives you room and flexibility.
Thanks for your quick response. I might as well ask one more question that's in my mind. Did you go thru the company's attorney or you hired yourself? I really don't trust my company's attorney as they work for the best interest of the company rather then the employees...may not be the norm but mostly its that way.
Could you PM me if you know good attorney's other then Ms Murthy (cause they are expensive)
Thanks.
As long as you have worked for original employer for a good period of time, stick to your skills, have good w2 history, you don't have to worry - you can always show that your prospects are good.
Though Green card if for future employment - the entire process revolves around how best you fit the future employment category - AC21 is one such rule that gives you room and flexibility.
Thanks for your quick response. I might as well ask one more question that's in my mind. Did you go thru the company's attorney or you hired yourself? I really don't trust my company's attorney as they work for the best interest of the company rather then the employees...may not be the norm but mostly its that way.
Could you PM me if you know good attorney's other then Ms Murthy (cause they are expensive)
Thanks.
more...
carbon
09-25 04:19 PM
I agree that 1/2 million people can't impact housing market significantly.
but look at the numbers, 1/2 million people means $100 billion untapped
market. Personaly I can't imagine any business community who wouldn't consider
this huge potential market seriously.(We are not poor
immigrants that they can ignore, we are professinals with good credit)
Who knows they might help a little to push our issues in DC or reach our goal of
raising 60K !
All IV has to do is send a simple letter to them. Whats harm in doing that !!!
but look at the numbers, 1/2 million people means $100 billion untapped
market. Personaly I can't imagine any business community who wouldn't consider
this huge potential market seriously.(We are not poor
immigrants that they can ignore, we are professinals with good credit)
Who knows they might help a little to push our issues in DC or reach our goal of
raising 60K !
All IV has to do is send a simple letter to them. Whats harm in doing that !!!
vxg
09-08 04:50 PM
Thanks for starting this. I am in same boat, i called TSC and the IO told me my case was approved on 9/4/09 and i have an LUD on 9/4/09 however online status says case pending. I asked that to the IO and she says she does not know about the online status but in there system it is approved. I did that after i received a call from an IO from local field office ( i went for Infopass last week at local office) informing that my and my wife's cases were approved on 9/4/09.
I am hoping to get the cards as have to travel to India next week. The IO in Texas advised me to get the Passport stamped.
Bump! Anyone in same situation? What steps you took if any?
I am hoping to get the cards as have to travel to India next week. The IO in Texas advised me to get the Passport stamped.
Bump! Anyone in same situation? What steps you took if any?
more...
Soul
06-14 07:02 AM
Haha :beam:
qualified_trash
09-21 11:01 AM
joozz.......
do not worry about where the lawyer is located. immigration law is under federal jurisdiction.
pick a good lawyer (www.murthy.com, www.shahandkishore.com, www.immigration.com) and go with them
do not worry about where the lawyer is located. immigration law is under federal jurisdiction.
pick a good lawyer (www.murthy.com, www.shahandkishore.com, www.immigration.com) and go with them
amsgc
04-12 12:49 PM
As someone mentioned - Do not Lie.
Also note that by not replying, you are in fact condoning the actions of your previous employer. You had a good reason to leave him, and the DOL probably knows about it. If you are worried about your H1, you can go for premium processing on your H1 and then send the letter to DOL.
Also note that by not replying, you are in fact condoning the actions of your previous employer. You had a good reason to leave him, and the DOL probably knows about it. If you are worried about your H1, you can go for premium processing on your H1 and then send the letter to DOL.
bekugc
03-18 12:41 PM
while we use Ead to chg to a different company during ac21, is it possible to first chg the company using ead and then later apply for h1 transfer ?
Waitingnvain
08-04 03:36 PM
I believe one will be eligible for SS after attaining 40 credits. There is no residency requirement. WRT 401K, you might ending up paying a penalty of 10% in addition to 30% tax.
No comments:
Post a Comment