H1B-GC
06-25 09:54 AM
This is not correct.
Managing the business comes under employment authorization whether or not salary is drawn by the owner.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
D...3933,
A Different question. Do we need to file FBAR if anyone has more than 10K USD in foreign accounts?
Below are the links that might be of interest. a discussion is going on i other immigration forum.
FAQs Regarding Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) - Filing Requirements (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=210244,00.html)
US Taxes on NRE accounts in India (http://www.r2iclubforums.com/forums/showthread.php/12601-US-Taxes-on-NRE-accounts-in-India)
Thanks for your thoughts on this!!
Managing the business comes under employment authorization whether or not salary is drawn by the owner.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
D...3933,
A Different question. Do we need to file FBAR if anyone has more than 10K USD in foreign accounts?
Below are the links that might be of interest. a discussion is going on i other immigration forum.
FAQs Regarding Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) - Filing Requirements (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=210244,00.html)
US Taxes on NRE accounts in India (http://www.r2iclubforums.com/forums/showthread.php/12601-US-Taxes-on-NRE-accounts-in-India)
Thanks for your thoughts on this!!
wallpaper animal cell diagram gcse.
chanduv23
07-27 09:51 AM
I searched for my IV handle, and all my messages showed up. Impressive
deardar
07-03 10:30 AM
Dharna in front of USCIS building .
Hunger strike etc etc
Hunger strike etc etc
2011 and Animal Cell Worksheets
thomachan72
03-07 09:32 AM
Deadline added to this initiative to decide whether to proceed or not.
please see post below for details.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum14-members-forum/1599353-want-to-file-485-when-pd-is-not-current-gather-here-104.html#post2412248
[QUote = ashwin_27]
As suggested by several members on this thread, IV has set a goal of April 30th, 2011 to determine if there is even enough appetite within the EB community to proceed with this USCIS Admin Fix initiative or not.
As we know the initial goal was to use this survey to determine how many members will be benefitted by I-485 filing without current priority date. Rough calculations using PERM data showed that at least 50-70K folks are waiting to file I-485 since July 2007 (around 5K-6K out of this number are those with PDs prior to June/July 2007 missed the July 2007 boat).
So far we have had around 1200 such members respond. We need to see support of at least 5000 members in order for IV to launch the public action items. These action items include, but are not limited to, writing en-masse (i.e. in thousands) over 2-3 weeks to several concerned departments about the need for this USCIS administrative fix. Few other very interesting proposals/ideas are also being considered. All we need is our folks to BELIEVE that this initiative is worth investing in.
The IV forum is the best place for the impacted EB community to gather and that is why the number of votes on the survey is a great indication of our frustration and motivation to work with IV for this important admin fix.
So, we now have a Deadline and an Objective. It is up to our impacted members to decide on whether to still stick to silly excuses (why should I become a member, why should i vote on survey etc etc.) or DO something about getting this admin fix. It is surprising that we are not more desperate for this fix and are not convincing and pushing IV harder and harder to start working with USCIS to allow I485 filing with current PD (and all the benefits like EAD, AP that go with it).
Are we more comfortable with the alternative - Waiting endelesslly to file I-485 (at least 2-5 years for post July 2007 folks from any category), keep depending on H1B extensions in an uncertain immigration scenario where H1B RFE's, rejections, visa denials due to "admin processing" etc are on a steep rise? The choice is ours to make.
As a final reminder - please act and convince your friends/colleagues to participate in this initiative and send ivcoordinator@gmail.com the details requested below.
Please keep following and participating on this thread to show your desperation for this fix.
Good post but we need more information.
How many members does IV have in total?
What % out of that total has not filed 485 yet?
Only if we know these two can we say that you need 5000 to go ahead with this plan.
I think 5000 might be too big a number given the total membership and number of those who have already filed 485.
1200 seems to be a good number.
please see post below for details.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum14-members-forum/1599353-want-to-file-485-when-pd-is-not-current-gather-here-104.html#post2412248
[QUote = ashwin_27]
As suggested by several members on this thread, IV has set a goal of April 30th, 2011 to determine if there is even enough appetite within the EB community to proceed with this USCIS Admin Fix initiative or not.
As we know the initial goal was to use this survey to determine how many members will be benefitted by I-485 filing without current priority date. Rough calculations using PERM data showed that at least 50-70K folks are waiting to file I-485 since July 2007 (around 5K-6K out of this number are those with PDs prior to June/July 2007 missed the July 2007 boat).
So far we have had around 1200 such members respond. We need to see support of at least 5000 members in order for IV to launch the public action items. These action items include, but are not limited to, writing en-masse (i.e. in thousands) over 2-3 weeks to several concerned departments about the need for this USCIS administrative fix. Few other very interesting proposals/ideas are also being considered. All we need is our folks to BELIEVE that this initiative is worth investing in.
The IV forum is the best place for the impacted EB community to gather and that is why the number of votes on the survey is a great indication of our frustration and motivation to work with IV for this important admin fix.
So, we now have a Deadline and an Objective. It is up to our impacted members to decide on whether to still stick to silly excuses (why should I become a member, why should i vote on survey etc etc.) or DO something about getting this admin fix. It is surprising that we are not more desperate for this fix and are not convincing and pushing IV harder and harder to start working with USCIS to allow I485 filing with current PD (and all the benefits like EAD, AP that go with it).
Are we more comfortable with the alternative - Waiting endelesslly to file I-485 (at least 2-5 years for post July 2007 folks from any category), keep depending on H1B extensions in an uncertain immigration scenario where H1B RFE's, rejections, visa denials due to "admin processing" etc are on a steep rise? The choice is ours to make.
As a final reminder - please act and convince your friends/colleagues to participate in this initiative and send ivcoordinator@gmail.com the details requested below.
Please keep following and participating on this thread to show your desperation for this fix.
Good post but we need more information.
How many members does IV have in total?
What % out of that total has not filed 485 yet?
Only if we know these two can we say that you need 5000 to go ahead with this plan.
I think 5000 might be too big a number given the total membership and number of those who have already filed 485.
1200 seems to be a good number.
more...
delhis_007
12-28 11:12 AM
Hi,
I am in a similar position and have decided to go back to school in USA. My PD is Jan 2004 EB2, and I am sure I am not going to hit the jackpot before Sep 07. Is there any possible way I can save my GC?
Thanks in advance.
Vijay
I am in a similar position and have decided to go back to school in USA. My PD is Jan 2004 EB2, and I am sure I am not going to hit the jackpot before Sep 07. Is there any possible way I can save my GC?
Thanks in advance.
Vijay
kumar1
12-13 04:17 PM
On top of that, companies that come for campus placement - they will put a big board for you -"Only US citizens and Green Card holders apply". I have friends who spent 50-60 K on MBA degree and they are doing software development job (They were developers even before doing MBA and they wanted to get out of it). Think about their investment - 2 years of MBA tution fee ~ 60 K + 2 years of wage loss ~ 160 K. After investing 220K if someone tell you to go and get Green Card first, dude believe me that ain't gonna feel good. Someone please give me few green dots, I have lost hope for my green card....for the time being red dots are good.
My 2 cents.
My 2 cents.
more...
tinamatthew
07-21 12:05 AM
OK agreed , when it's a law we should abide by them.But what are the other options available for B? He can't be covered under 245(K) so this option is ruled out.He needs to forget about GC? Will it be helpful if he contacts good lawyer any hope? Or just rely on luck?
If this is a real scenario, then if I was him/her I would only give the last 3 paystubs, W2s, tax returns. If the USCIS can't guess that I have no paystubs for 185 days then I will not hand it to them on a platter. I would however answer EVERY question TRUTHFULLY on all forms completed
If this is a real scenario, then if I was him/her I would only give the last 3 paystubs, W2s, tax returns. If the USCIS can't guess that I have no paystubs for 185 days then I will not hand it to them on a platter. I would however answer EVERY question TRUTHFULLY on all forms completed
2010 tattoo plant cell and animal cell venn diagram. Blank diagram has a animal
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
more...
CHHAYA
04-20 01:19 PM
I filed on March 10 2011 at texas service center, check was cashed on 3/15. Hope that helps.
Thanks.
Thanks.
hair and this Comparing
bigboy007
10-11 01:31 PM
Consult with your current company immigration attorney and find out why your current job will not qualify for EB2.
Just in case start your EB3 GC and port your PD to this new GC I-140. That will help you with the H1B renewal for 3 years. You have got 14 more months. you should be able to get I-140 filed by then, do a premium for I-140 to get it approved by the time you renew your H1B.
Renewing your H1B based on the revoked I-140 would be risky.
Did USCIS sent you any notice that your 485 is not valid ?
Just in case start your EB3 GC and port your PD to this new GC I-140. That will help you with the H1B renewal for 3 years. You have got 14 more months. you should be able to get I-140 filed by then, do a premium for I-140 to get it approved by the time you renew your H1B.
Renewing your H1B based on the revoked I-140 would be risky.
Did USCIS sent you any notice that your 485 is not valid ?
more...
meher
12-24 11:48 AM
Thank you Swamy and Reachinus.
Reachinus
That is definetly helpful.
What is substitue w2. Please send me any link that can give me more details.
Based on Sep pay stub, my new company has filed for H1B Transfer in december and have received the Receipt. Will there be any out of status issues in H1B Transfer because of no pay stubs after september?
Reachinus
That is definetly helpful.
What is substitue w2. Please send me any link that can give me more details.
Based on Sep pay stub, my new company has filed for H1B Transfer in december and have received the Receipt. Will there be any out of status issues in H1B Transfer because of no pay stubs after september?
hot hair animal cells diagram.
anilsal
10-12 12:52 AM
If you apply too early, then if you get approved early, you lose out on overlapping days.
If you apply and the EAD does not come in time, then you are off the payroll until the thing actually comes.
Interim EAD is the immediate solution to this.
If you apply and the EAD does not come in time, then you are off the payroll until the thing actually comes.
Interim EAD is the immediate solution to this.
more...
house plant and animal cell
abhijitp
06-21 09:07 AM
Thanks Raj. No, I do qualify for EB-2 so I would not want to apply under EB-3, but I just don't know if the attorneys filed everything (e.g progressive experience letters) appropriately, if not, what happens? Hopefully an RFE.
If it instead got rejected, so would the I-1485 (AOS) application that depends on it right?
If it instead got rejected, so would the I-1485 (AOS) application that depends on it right?
tattoo makeup Plant And Animal Cells Diagram plant and animal cell worksheets.
GCSOON-Ihope
11-05 10:35 PM
When you already hold an H1 and it comes time to renew it/ file for extension/ 7th year etc, or if you want to switch jobs, you don't have to worry about the H1 quota. You can file at any time of the year, regardless of H1 availability.
Your new H1 will be exempted from the quota, hence called "non-cap".
Your new H1 will be exempted from the quota, hence called "non-cap".
more...
pictures plant cell vs animal cell
ingegarcia
08-29 01:57 PM
I think an MBA will not help you becasue STEM is for Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math, not for business.
dresses diagram of the animal cell
AB1275
12-12 11:29 AM
My PERM was applied in Nov 2007 and 140 in early- mid 2008.
It was applied under EB2 category (Masters Degree). Currently, I'm on the 5th yr of my H1. My 6th year starts in Feb 2009.
Had received an RFE to which we responded but it still got denied. The main reason being the company has a loss and the books are not audited.
My lawyer suggested that we appeal the deinal and start a new PERM in EB3 category.
Are these my only option to make sure I can renew my H1 after the 6th year? Any suggestions?
I'm confused and scared at the same time. Not sure what to do..
please suggest me all the options available to me.
Thanks!
It was applied under EB2 category (Masters Degree). Currently, I'm on the 5th yr of my H1. My 6th year starts in Feb 2009.
Had received an RFE to which we responded but it still got denied. The main reason being the company has a loss and the books are not audited.
My lawyer suggested that we appeal the deinal and start a new PERM in EB3 category.
Are these my only option to make sure I can renew my H1 after the 6th year? Any suggestions?
I'm confused and scared at the same time. Not sure what to do..
please suggest me all the options available to me.
Thanks!
more...
makeup animal cell worksheets.
acecupid
07-06 11:59 AM
Dear Friends:
I am not sure why nobody is answering to my questions on their AP travel experiences. Please reply, I am almost freaking out not know what sorts of obstacles I might face at Delhi and Amsterdam without a H1B stamped visa. My queries are as below:
I will be returning from India soon by KLM (via the Delhi-Amsterdam-U.S route), with an AP, 485 pending receipt, an H1B status BUT with an expired H1B visa on your passport? Given that I have these documents, I have decided not to get my H1B visa re-stamped in India. But now, I am getting a little panicked as the time is nearing for the following reasons (and these related questions). Will you please answer them for me:
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
1) You should have absolutely no problem entering on AP with a expired H1B visa and valid petition.
2) Airlines are well aware of AP, it is not a new document.
Stop worrying so much and enjoy your vacation. Have a safe trip back to US.
I am not sure why nobody is answering to my questions on their AP travel experiences. Please reply, I am almost freaking out not know what sorts of obstacles I might face at Delhi and Amsterdam without a H1B stamped visa. My queries are as below:
I will be returning from India soon by KLM (via the Delhi-Amsterdam-U.S route), with an AP, 485 pending receipt, an H1B status BUT with an expired H1B visa on your passport? Given that I have these documents, I have decided not to get my H1B visa re-stamped in India. But now, I am getting a little panicked as the time is nearing for the following reasons (and these related questions). Will you please answer them for me:
(1) If I have the AP documents, the 485 pending receipt, and my HIB paperwork with me (but not the H1B visa stamped in my passport), will I be able to re-enter the U.S? Will there be any problems at the port of entry?
(2) At Delhi and at Amsterdam, will the immigraiton folks give me trouble if they see an expired HIB visa on my passport? Can they refuse to let me board the plane? Have any of you traveling via Delhi and Amstredam experienced any problems from the immigration folks?
Please share your experiences. Thanks a lot.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
1) You should have absolutely no problem entering on AP with a expired H1B visa and valid petition.
2) Airlines are well aware of AP, it is not a new document.
Stop worrying so much and enjoy your vacation. Have a safe trip back to US.
girlfriend plant and animal cell
sreedhar
09-07 09:01 AM
Yes… It’s me Sreedhar. According to the conversation with my cousin, what ever I posted here is true. I am not sure what IO said is going to be happen or not. My cousin and myself working in the same office. I will keep update what ever happen to his case.
-Sree
This one was posted by one of the IV members, sreedhar in other section of the forum. Don't know how much truth to it...:rolleyes:
If anyone has seen this already, my apologies...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=285637#post285637
Hello All,
I am giving this information after my cousin complete the interview with USCIS on 09/03/2008. Please take a look at the detail conversation bellow.
IO: Immigration Officer
MC: My Cousin
MCL: My Cousin Lawyer
-Sree
-Sree
This one was posted by one of the IV members, sreedhar in other section of the forum. Don't know how much truth to it...:rolleyes:
If anyone has seen this already, my apologies...
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=285637#post285637
Hello All,
I am giving this information after my cousin complete the interview with USCIS on 09/03/2008. Please take a look at the detail conversation bellow.
IO: Immigration Officer
MC: My Cousin
MCL: My Cousin Lawyer
-Sree
hairstyles animal cell diagram with
waiting4gc02
01-09 02:05 PM
Guys:
I know it's a drag...but what the heck..!!!
What do you think..the dates are going to move too..!!!
I know it's a drag...but what the heck..!!!
What do you think..the dates are going to move too..!!!
guchi472000
07-01 04:09 PM
Hi All,
I had a previous empoyer A > Then a Prefered Vendor B > Then a Client C.
Now I have transferred my H1 to a Preferred Vendor X & Still working on same project with the Client C, but with a different contract all togeather.
Preferred Vendor X > the Client C
Now the issues is , my previous employeer A is harassing me ( Vendor B is having no problems) , asking for money or filing a legal case agaist me,as I have signed a non-compete agreement with them. Can he do so ?? what can be the worst consequences?
I had a previous empoyer A > Then a Prefered Vendor B > Then a Client C.
Now I have transferred my H1 to a Preferred Vendor X & Still working on same project with the Client C, but with a different contract all togeather.
Preferred Vendor X > the Client C
Now the issues is , my previous employeer A is harassing me ( Vendor B is having no problems) , asking for money or filing a legal case agaist me,as I have signed a non-compete agreement with them. Can he do so ?? what can be the worst consequences?
chandra140
08-25 09:14 AM
Hi kondur_007,
Now can i do the 140 premium processing,to know the result asap.
If my 140 is still in process,can i file another perm labour and can i use my old labour dates.
Thanks for ur response.
Now can i do the 140 premium processing,to know the result asap.
If my 140 is still in process,can i file another perm labour and can i use my old labour dates.
Thanks for ur response.