sammyb
10-19 04:54 PM
if you want to pay $100, it is easy. lesser amount is very difficult. I went through pain of using my banks online bill pay. It took me an hour to set it up. And couple of days back I received an email saying the bill has been returned - probably because it is more than 90 days!
I lost valuable time , IV lost some donation.
I am not sure why paying less than $100 has been made so difficult.
if you ask me I would feel comfortable to contribute a varying amount of donation every month ... at present we have pre-determined donation option ... which I feel sometime deter people from contributing ... unless we have some issue from the service providers, can go for a user entered donation option along with the existing pre-determined options ...
I lost valuable time , IV lost some donation.
I am not sure why paying less than $100 has been made so difficult.
if you ask me I would feel comfortable to contribute a varying amount of donation every month ... at present we have pre-determined donation option ... which I feel sometime deter people from contributing ... unless we have some issue from the service providers, can go for a user entered donation option along with the existing pre-determined options ...
rolrblade
07-27 10:35 AM
Guys�
Urgent advise is required.
My PERM was approved in April-07 and now I have just filed the concurrent 140/485. Now the company is transferring me to a new location (State) early next month with a possible change in the salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM. Can anyone please advise if there will be some impact on my 140/485 applications if:
a) I moved to a different state and, (My work location on PERM is California) - Yates memo says you are fine.
b) If I will be getting less salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM - The question is what is the deviation? Also remember that you are transferring within the same company and I assume your JOB FUNCTION remains similar. In that case you are not even using AC21. You dont need to worry unless the salary is too drastically lower AND falls below the PERM minimum wage requirement.
Thanks much,
Your answers above and PM me if you need more clarification
Urgent advise is required.
My PERM was approved in April-07 and now I have just filed the concurrent 140/485. Now the company is transferring me to a new location (State) early next month with a possible change in the salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM. Can anyone please advise if there will be some impact on my 140/485 applications if:
a) I moved to a different state and, (My work location on PERM is California) - Yates memo says you are fine.
b) If I will be getting less salary than what�s mentioned on my PERM - The question is what is the deviation? Also remember that you are transferring within the same company and I assume your JOB FUNCTION remains similar. In that case you are not even using AC21. You dont need to worry unless the salary is too drastically lower AND falls below the PERM minimum wage requirement.
Thanks much,
Your answers above and PM me if you need more clarification
sheela
08-06 12:35 PM
Received an email from CRIS stating that Notice mailed welcoming the new permanent resident. Those who are tracking approval, check out IV profile/tracker.
Congrats!!!
Quick question: What is the best time to check for update on USCIS site. Does it happen all the time/real time/ morning/evening. It will prevent/help people visiting case status every now-and-then.
Congrats!!!
Quick question: What is the best time to check for update on USCIS site. Does it happen all the time/real time/ morning/evening. It will prevent/help people visiting case status every now-and-then.
mk26
05-27 08:28 AM
Looks like this is another bigger issue after our green card issue. Can we do something about this?
more...
reddy77
09-26 12:21 PM
Applied on July18th NSC , got the receipts, but no update on AP or EAD, No LUD's too ..
narimmigration
08-13 02:45 PM
When my spouse started working using EAD, my employer told us that they cannot renew her H4 since she had already started using her EAD; also my employer renewed only my H1 and H4 for my minor son.
I suggest you to contact a good attorney to know what you should do now.
Good luck.
I suggest you to contact a good attorney to know what you should do now.
Good luck.
more...
life99f
05-31 09:07 AM
Order Details - May 31, 2007 09:44 GMT-04:00
Google Order #157436954936945
Google Order #157436954936945
HRPRO
03-07 11:29 AM
I haven't file 485 and have no EAD.
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
How many years do you have left on your H-1?
Just an approved 140 with looming layoffs.
How many years do you have left on your H-1?
more...
ashkam
04-02 10:46 AM
you dont have to marry. just remain as illegal and they will GC sooner.
I know you're kidding, but I don't think Mr Sebastian knows that. It's kinda dangerous to tell him he'll get his GC by remaining illegal. Just my opinion.
I know you're kidding, but I don't think Mr Sebastian knows that. It's kinda dangerous to tell him he'll get his GC by remaining illegal. Just my opinion.
gparr
April 16th, 2004, 03:01 PM
I like the first one best.
Gary
Gary
more...
njboy
05-08 09:47 AM
hey, my paki friend,
this forum was created for the express purpose of addressing the backlog for employment based adjustment of status. Maybe you should try a more general forum to ask questions about H1 visa stamp/criminal issues etc. Infact on the Murthy forum, there is a specific area devoted to such issues and you will perhaps get better response.
regards.
this forum was created for the express purpose of addressing the backlog for employment based adjustment of status. Maybe you should try a more general forum to ask questions about H1 visa stamp/criminal issues etc. Infact on the Murthy forum, there is a specific area devoted to such issues and you will perhaps get better response.
regards.
Munna Bhai
01-10 04:09 PM
munabhai
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
what that RFE was for?? education or pay??
i filed my I-140 in may 07 and got RFE in NOV-07 and replied in dec07.
what that RFE was for?? education or pay??
more...
legal_la
06-25 03:39 PM
Guys,
here's my thoughts on this; If her h1 gets stamped she doesn't need AP. however if H1 gets rejected for some reason, in that case she can stay back in India until I recieve the AP documents. I send it to her then she can travel back on AP. ??
Any Suggestions or gyan on this !!!
-shree
I dont think you will be able to do this, I am not sure but I think one should be present in US at the time of AP approval only then they can use that Advance parole to leave and re enter.
May be converting back to H4 and attend for visa as dependent is an option. Ask your lawyer.
here's my thoughts on this; If her h1 gets stamped she doesn't need AP. however if H1 gets rejected for some reason, in that case she can stay back in India until I recieve the AP documents. I send it to her then she can travel back on AP. ??
Any Suggestions or gyan on this !!!
-shree
I dont think you will be able to do this, I am not sure but I think one should be present in US at the time of AP approval only then they can use that Advance parole to leave and re enter.
May be converting back to H4 and attend for visa as dependent is an option. Ask your lawyer.
Blog Feeds
07-09 12:30 PM
AILA Leadership Has Just Posted the Following:
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
While the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (�IRCA�) prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, the Obama Administration�s decision to vigorously enforce employer sanction laws against employers, before providing a path to U.S. employers to legalize critical essential workers, is plain bad policy. �Immigration officers are investigating workplaces in every state in the US to check whether they are hiring illegal workers.� ICE launches workplace immigration crackdown (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_EhhmjIcqAzvJainjWnJTLRylXQD995P1T80)
We are in the midst of the �Great Recession� and U.S. industry is struggling to remain competitive. President Barack Obama�s strategy puts U.S. employers and industry between a rock and a hard place. While the law requires U.S. employers to verify, through a specific process, the identity and work authorization eligibility of all individuals, whether U.S. citizens or otherwise, it is practically impossible to obtain legal status for employers who discover undocumented workers in their workforce � even if they have been employed for decades. Immigrant Visa Numbers Hopelessly Encased In Amber (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/06/immigrant-visa-numbers-hopelessly.html).
The diligent employer questioning the veracity of employment eligibility documents can face discrimination charges and vigorous enforcement by the U.S. Department of Justice, if for example, they check only Latino workers, or subject certain classes or worker to extra scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel enforces the antidiscrimination provisions that protect most work-authorized persons from intentional employment discrimination based upon citizenship or immigration status, national origin, and unfair documentary practices relating to the employment eligibility verification process. The law prohibits retaliation against individuals who file charges and who cooperate with an investigation. Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair ... (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc/)
No one knows how many of the 6,000,000 U.S. employers, as well as household employers, are familiar with, and in full compliance with the complex U.S. immigration law. Many employers are surprised when told the law requires ALL employers to complete an Employment Verification Form I-9 for any new employee hired after November 6, 1986, or face huge civil fines, and possible jail sentences. The I-9 Employee Verification form must be completed within three days of hire for all hires including U.S. citizens.
Vigorously enforcing this law without providing employers any way to keep essential workers puts employers struggling to make ends meet with the possibility of receiving huge fines, and even prison sentences if they "knowing continuing to hire five or more workers." Actual knowledge of the undocumented worker's status isn't always required, and "constructive knowledge" will suffice where the employer "should have known" of the worker's status. For example, if the employer tries to sponsor an undocumented worker for immigration benefits, the employer is presumed to know of the workers lack of immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security, through its enforcement division, Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) has undertaken a massive new enforcement effort directed at employers large and small. More than 650 US businesses to have employee work files audited (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/more-than-650-businesses-nationwide-to-have-employee-work-files-inspected.html) Los Angeles Times - ?Jul 1, 2009.?
The focus on audit enforcement is clearly evidenced by the rising number of worksite audits, increased heavy civil penalties and likely continuing criminal prosecutions resulting from worksite violations. Immigration Focus Is on the Employers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02immig.html?ref=global-home) New York Times - ?Jul 1, 2009? �The Obama administration began investigations of hundreds of businesses on Wednesday as part of its strategy to focus immigration.�
While employers need to be extremely cautious and take steps to ensure that their employee verification papers are in order, the government needs to fix the immigration mess BEFORE pursuing this new aggressive policy of conducting ICE AUDIT "RAIDS�. Employers should be given an opportunity to pursue a legal path for essential workers before the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers come �knocking at the door.�
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immigemploy2-2009jul02,0,7434438.story) Los Angeles Times: L.A. employers face immigration audits.
Many employers are caught in a Catch-22 when it comes to employee verification. �If you�re in the roofing business, if you�re in the concrete business, you don�t have American-born workers showing up at your door ... you have Hispanic workers showing up at your door, and they have what looks to be a legitimate Social Security card ... under our current law, if they have a card that looks legitimate and you don�t hire them because you suspect they are illegal, then you are guilty of discrimination and could be investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that�s the current system and it�s broken." Said Norman Adams, co-founder of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy to the Houston Chronicle: Immigration crackdown goes after employers. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/6506722.html)
Vigorously enforcing these laws without providing an option to employers is plain bad policy and it could make our economic situation worse. My experience with the employer verification law is most employers are simply not familiar with all aspects of the complex immigration laws. Most employers don't know that if they question a legal worker�s documents, the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S.D.O.J.) may charge them with discrimination. The adverse impact on the economy and on the housing market could be serious. The substantial economic contribution of hard working immigrants is clear. Economic contributions of immigrants come in many forms in California. (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) The California Immigrant Policy Center (http://topics.sacbee.com/California+Immigrant+Policy+Center/) estimates that the state's immigrants pay $30 billion in federal taxes, $5.2 billion in state income taxes, (http://topics.sacbee.com/state+income+taxes/) and $4.6 billion in sales taxes (http://topics.sacbee.com/sales+taxes/) each year. The Selig Center for Economic Growth (http://topics.sacbee.com/Selig+Center+for+Economic+Growth/) calculates that the purchasing power of Latino and Asian consumers in California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) totaled $412 billion in 2008 � nearly one-third of the state's total purchasing power. The U.S. Census Bureau (http://topics.sacbee.com/U.S.+Census+Bureau/) found that California (http://topics.sacbee.com/California/) businesses owned by Latinos and Asians constituted more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state as of 2002, employing 1.2 million people and generating sales and receipts of $183 billion. Where would our economy be without these immigrants? http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1981220.html) Sacramento Bee: Immigrants are not a fiscal drain.
Comprehensive immigration reform requires a path to legal status for the undocumented and an orderly system for future worker flows to allow U.S. industry to innovate and compete globally. It will require a complete overhaul of the government agencies that now mismanage a slew of immigration programs that could and should be the rejuvenating lifeblood of our nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/lweb30dream.html) New York Times: Opening a Door to Young Immigrants.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) understands the issues from a deep perspective, not merely from an emotional view. We believe that a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package will have to include smart enforcement, a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the U.S., elimination of family and employment-based visa backlogs, adequate visas to meet the needs of U.S. families and businesses, a new visa program for essential workers to enable employers to legalize critically needed workers in agriculture, construction, and to provide future flows in certain areas including scientific fields, where as many as two thirds of our advanced degreed graduates are international students. We must also provide due process protections and restore the rule of law in immigration adjudications, and in our immigration courts. AILA Welcomes Obama's Proactive Push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform This Year (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=29372).https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/186823568153827945-4886898674742904565?l=ailaleadership.blogspot.com
More... (http://ailaleadership.blogspot.com/2009/07/ice-cracks-audit-whip.html)
more...
copsmart
02-20 08:44 PM
You are not alone�
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
This is the case for most people, for instance, my current salary is at least 10K higher than my LC wage.
Bottom line is, you need to have a job in the "same or similar occupational classification" as the position which was the subject of the labor certification application. Salary does not matter, as long as it does not seem to evidence a totally different type of position.
How about the opposite problem. The LC wages are lower that what I am being paid. the LC reflects what I was being paid at the time it was filed. not sure if the lawyer screwed up. Right now, I am doing a similar job (non-IT, non-technical), but with wider responsibility and earning ~ 40% more. What now??
-a
GCOP
06-23 02:46 PM
I know that, we had not been successful in earlier years for this bill. But, as CIR chances are very uncertain, we should concentrate at least only on this Visa Recapture Bill this year. Passing of this bill will reduce backlog significantly. Let us focus on this bill .
more...
immi2006
08-17 09:29 AM
Most folks here would have used a lens to double check their APplns before mailing it.
If your friend wants to know ask him to join IV , why are you proxying for him > He shud be more worried than you. Pls talk to a professional lawyer on this situation, I am sure none of the folks here can advise on this,
Please
If your friend wants to know ask him to join IV , why are you proxying for him > He shud be more worried than you. Pls talk to a professional lawyer on this situation, I am sure none of the folks here can advise on this,
Please
desi3933
06-21 05:21 PM
I have Old EB3 Labor and I-140 approved with PD 2003. I changed my employer and ready to file I-140, would like to port the PD from my old I-140. Could you tell me what steps I need to take care so that porting will be done by USCIS. Job Titles do not match, however description and salary are same.
Thanking you in advance.
You need to have 2 (or more) approved I-140s for Priority Date transfer.
Job Title, Description and Salary do NOT matter.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
-------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
Thanking you in advance.
You need to have 2 (or more) approved I-140s for Priority Date transfer.
Job Title, Description and Salary do NOT matter.
Please check and verify details with your attorney/lawyer. This is NOT a legal advice.
-------------------------------------
Permanent Resident since May 2002
GcInLimbo
11-17 11:38 AM
Me and my wife both got notice from USCIS with intent to deny citing evidence of continued leagal immigration. Attached the scanned copy removing personal information.[
The mentioned period in the letter that is requesting evidence is the time I applied for H1B renewal. The application had an RFE and we were waiting on response from my employer. My employer replied to the RFE and it was sent to local processing center for further processing. Meanwhile on July 2007, I applied I-485 when they are current which puts us in AOS as the H1B was still pending approval from USCIS. I read some where that you can not stay in U.S with H1B renewal pending beyond 240 days from your previous H1B expiration date. So I applied another H1B with a different company before the 240 days and got that H1B approved after two months of applying.
I am sure I didnt break any rule or stayed illegally during that period as my H1B was pending and moved on to a different company after appying I -485. My previous employer have no issue to continue to support my GC processing.
Where do I stand with regards to this notice? What are my options and how to approach this problem, so that the IO doesn't get confused and deny the application.
I am sure I will go through my lawyer but want to get first hand information and have a clear picture on the path to follow from experienced people here.
I tried to attach the attachment but its failing.
Thanks
The mentioned period in the letter that is requesting evidence is the time I applied for H1B renewal. The application had an RFE and we were waiting on response from my employer. My employer replied to the RFE and it was sent to local processing center for further processing. Meanwhile on July 2007, I applied I-485 when they are current which puts us in AOS as the H1B was still pending approval from USCIS. I read some where that you can not stay in U.S with H1B renewal pending beyond 240 days from your previous H1B expiration date. So I applied another H1B with a different company before the 240 days and got that H1B approved after two months of applying.
I am sure I didnt break any rule or stayed illegally during that period as my H1B was pending and moved on to a different company after appying I -485. My previous employer have no issue to continue to support my GC processing.
Where do I stand with regards to this notice? What are my options and how to approach this problem, so that the IO doesn't get confused and deny the application.
I am sure I will go through my lawyer but want to get first hand information and have a clear picture on the path to follow from experienced people here.
I tried to attach the attachment but its failing.
Thanks
sanju_dba
09-30 10:50 AM
Unfortunately NO. you cannot declare anything while leaving India.
My question is; Why do you really want to bring your jwellery here? Why not keep in some safety locker (bank) in India. Is it attractive to walk around with huge gold chains/bangles in the US? Also we have been hearing about burglaries in Indian households becuause of easy access to gold.
Buy gold and keep it in locker in India. Come here with some "duplicate gold" and live free.:D:D:D
Thats what we did when comming back to US in 2007 . but couldnot resist on few and bought along. Now those few are the one i am concerned about travelling back and forth!
Last time when i went to India took 10coins and had to feed the customs Rs.10K. Not sure if it was still a good math compared to pay cash and buy gold in India instead of travelling with coins.
My question is; Why do you really want to bring your jwellery here? Why not keep in some safety locker (bank) in India. Is it attractive to walk around with huge gold chains/bangles in the US? Also we have been hearing about burglaries in Indian households becuause of easy access to gold.
Buy gold and keep it in locker in India. Come here with some "duplicate gold" and live free.:D:D:D
Thats what we did when comming back to US in 2007 . but couldnot resist on few and bought along. Now those few are the one i am concerned about travelling back and forth!
Last time when i went to India took 10coins and had to feed the customs Rs.10K. Not sure if it was still a good math compared to pay cash and buy gold in India instead of travelling with coins.
pamposh
10-26 08:36 AM
guys can someone please let me know what is meant by lud.
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
lud: Last updated Date
my fringerprinting was done 2 days ago and received ead no ap yet.
i have seen posts saying online status of i485 been adjusted to lud after
finger printing done.i donot see any changes online for i485 after finger printing.
i highly appreciate if someone let me know what is lud
lud: Last updated Date
No comments:
Post a Comment