gcformeornot
04-07 01:08 PM
http://www.cilawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/AAO-Decision-re-Substituted-LC.pdf
wallpaper First Look At Taye Diggs Baby
f1vlad
07-17 02:18 PM
can you provide the link to that blog? I cannot find it.
nrk
02-02 01:04 PM
Congrats.... :)
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
Finally after nine years in US my Green Card is approved.
On this very day in 2001 i was in flight to USA
1) Came to US on Feb 1st 2001
2) Changed employer in 2002 and GC applied in 2003 in EB3
3) After 2 years, changed the employer in 2004 and applied GC in EB2 at the end of 2004
4) Application with the DOL sent to the BEC
5) DOL approved the petition in Jan 2007
6) Applied I140 in April 2007
7) Applied I485 in July 2007
8) FP completed and EAD received in September 2007
9) I140 RFE Aug 2008
10) I140 denied in March 2009 - Reason is Too may petitions from the employer
11) Appeal sent in April 2009
12) Once the dates are current in Sep 2009, i talked to the attorney and decided to file a new I140 with the same labor
13) New I140 filed in Sep 2009
14) Received a notice from USCIS to withdraw the appeal inorder to process the new I140
15) Appeal withdrawn in October 2009
16) New I140 approved in Nov 2009
17) FP notices received in November for I485
18) FP done in December 2009
19) Infopass appointment in Jan 2010. Background check is completed
20) Received CPO emails for both the cases on Jan 21st 2010
21) Welcome notice mailed on Jan 22nd 2010
22) Welcome Notice and Cards received on Jan 30th.
22) I485 approval notices sent on Jan 26th 2010 - Did not received yet.
For me it is a bumpy ride. I went through most of the steps in the immigration (RFE's, Denials, MTR's, Appeals ..)
I wish all the best for all IV memebers waiting in GC queue or waiting to apply for I485.
Thanks
2011 Actor Taye Diggs with his
ras
10-21 03:22 PM
Hi, I am in the same boat as you. Can you please provide your experience with filing the future employment I-485 and if AC21 is possible.
My question is: Can you continue to work for employer B while employer A files future employment I-485 and can we use AC-21 after 180 days without being employed with employer A?
Curious to know...
My question is: Can you continue to work for employer B while employer A files future employment I-485 and can we use AC-21 after 180 days without being employed with employer A?
Curious to know...
more...
ashkam
12-15 08:37 AM
Probably his problems are due to H 4 visa situation where as his 140 approved and got EAD.
Option 1) Get work on EAD, send your wife back to India and get her on Follow To Join.
Option 2) H1 transfer, she can stay. Apply labor/140 again and port the 140 priority date apply for 485, when date becomes current.
But option 1 is far far better, even it needs little sacrifise from your spouse point of view.
Or she can continue to stay by switching to F1 status.
Thai is the best way.
Why would he have to redo his labor and I-140? Why can't he just use AC21 even with H1 transfer?
I would say the best option (if possible) is to try and get his wife on an F1 visa as a backup plan for the fall 2009 semester.
Option 1) Get work on EAD, send your wife back to India and get her on Follow To Join.
Option 2) H1 transfer, she can stay. Apply labor/140 again and port the 140 priority date apply for 485, when date becomes current.
But option 1 is far far better, even it needs little sacrifise from your spouse point of view.
Or she can continue to stay by switching to F1 status.
Thai is the best way.
Why would he have to redo his labor and I-140? Why can't he just use AC21 even with H1 transfer?
I would say the best option (if possible) is to try and get his wife on an F1 visa as a backup plan for the fall 2009 semester.
BharatPremi
10-19 01:40 PM
LC Salary:- $85,000
LC Location:- New York
New Job Salary:- $74,000
New job Title and Job duties are same.
Is it advisable to invoke AC21 when new job salary is less than original LC salary but more than prevailing wage of new location.
As per Aytes memo there should not be substantial salary difference. Has anyone invoked AC21 when new job salary is less than LC salary.
I've consulted few immigration laywer and the opinion differs.
Experts.... Please help
My opinion not legal advise: One can join other employer after 180 days from the 485 Receipt date with same or high salary than prevailing wage,keeping job description and Job code similar to use AC21. If you feel you are following this then you will be fine otherwise doomed.
Only confusion remains is this: When you filed LC with current employer at that time prevailing wage was 85K so
your "LC Salary" is 85K. Now say after 5 years seeing the economic condition of the
overall job market if DOL has made prevailing wage say for an example "$74K" for the
same job code now then what? In this case should your AC21 be denied or accepted? If
some expert can guide us, we would highly appreciate for this scenario.
Notes:
1) Remuneration, bonus etc do not fit the definition of "wage". So I would negotiate 20K higher job with wage equal
to current wage and 20k bonus if I can.
2) Geographic location should not matter while changing the employer.
LC Location:- New York
New Job Salary:- $74,000
New job Title and Job duties are same.
Is it advisable to invoke AC21 when new job salary is less than original LC salary but more than prevailing wage of new location.
As per Aytes memo there should not be substantial salary difference. Has anyone invoked AC21 when new job salary is less than LC salary.
I've consulted few immigration laywer and the opinion differs.
Experts.... Please help
My opinion not legal advise: One can join other employer after 180 days from the 485 Receipt date with same or high salary than prevailing wage,keeping job description and Job code similar to use AC21. If you feel you are following this then you will be fine otherwise doomed.
Only confusion remains is this: When you filed LC with current employer at that time prevailing wage was 85K so
your "LC Salary" is 85K. Now say after 5 years seeing the economic condition of the
overall job market if DOL has made prevailing wage say for an example "$74K" for the
same job code now then what? In this case should your AC21 be denied or accepted? If
some expert can guide us, we would highly appreciate for this scenario.
Notes:
1) Remuneration, bonus etc do not fit the definition of "wage". So I would negotiate 20K higher job with wage equal
to current wage and 20k bonus if I can.
2) Geographic location should not matter while changing the employer.
more...
sanjay02
01-07 06:03 PM
You dont need to inform USCIS about new passport, but make sure you carry your old as well as new passport, dont discard the old passport as yet.
2010 taye-diggs-shopping-2
somegchuh
11-16 01:13 PM
Guys,
My understanding was that automatic revalidation was stopped a few years ago?
I would say that getting an appointment and a new visa stamp is the safest bet. If that's not a possibility and you have to go, I will suggest travel by road instead of air. From what I have heard they tend to be more lenient when you are driving across.
Do check thoroughly before travelling on an expired visa.
Take Care
Power of internet, thanks for all the input.
That is right my previous I-94 has expired and I should get the latest I-94 as part of new I-797. My US multiple visa expired last August.
My question is thoroughly answered that I could use the "Automatic revalidation rule" to come back into US using my I-94 and I-797.
One more question to the folks who became Canadian PRs. When I exit out
of US can they force me to give up I-94 as I am landing as Canadian PR. In others words,
can they override "Automatic revalidation rule" in this case.
Part of me says they are two different teams one working for US to track I-94
and the other looking for Canadian PR so they can never rationalize this. If they talk then that could be an issue. Isn't that right?
My understanding was that automatic revalidation was stopped a few years ago?
I would say that getting an appointment and a new visa stamp is the safest bet. If that's not a possibility and you have to go, I will suggest travel by road instead of air. From what I have heard they tend to be more lenient when you are driving across.
Do check thoroughly before travelling on an expired visa.
Take Care
Power of internet, thanks for all the input.
That is right my previous I-94 has expired and I should get the latest I-94 as part of new I-797. My US multiple visa expired last August.
My question is thoroughly answered that I could use the "Automatic revalidation rule" to come back into US using my I-94 and I-797.
One more question to the folks who became Canadian PRs. When I exit out
of US can they force me to give up I-94 as I am landing as Canadian PR. In others words,
can they override "Automatic revalidation rule" in this case.
Part of me says they are two different teams one working for US to track I-94
and the other looking for Canadian PR so they can never rationalize this. If they talk then that could be an issue. Isn't that right?
more...
vsc
01-31 06:31 PM
hi beuhler....if i understand your reply correctly, you meant that as long as there is proof that your marraige date(marraige certificate) is prior to gc approval notice...there is 6 months to file for the i485 for the wife even though she may be in india at the time of marraige?
hair Taye Diggs and Idina Menzel
gparr
March 14th, 2004, 09:36 PM
Lecter,
So we can conclude that resolution and focus are a little shakey?
Gayr
So we can conclude that resolution and focus are a little shakey?
Gayr
more...
prem_goel
02-04 04:12 PM
Attorney's please advise. My sister has an active job offer where we would like to explore this opportunity if any of you can help us in handling it. I need to know if this is possible under the law and if you can help us? Please reply and I'll contact your office.
Much thanks in advance.
Much thanks in advance.
hot diggs-aby
Cheran
04-06 10:28 AM
This is talking about I-140 and not I-485.....
My I-140 filed with TSC is still pending since August 2007. I hope I get a decision ( hopefully positive) by Sep 2009!
Could you elaborate why you say this is about I140? I couldn't derive that from the posting. Anyhow this whole this is utter nonsense from the immigration department. I don't think there will be any action, period.
The whole thing is written as if June 2007 happened by mistake, I don't buy that.
My I-140 filed with TSC is still pending since August 2007. I hope I get a decision ( hopefully positive) by Sep 2009!
Could you elaborate why you say this is about I140? I couldn't derive that from the posting. Anyhow this whole this is utter nonsense from the immigration department. I don't think there will be any action, period.
The whole thing is written as if June 2007 happened by mistake, I don't buy that.
more...
house Taye Diggs amp; wife Idina Menzel
kishdam
03-20 12:39 PM
And law firm is right, they protect their clients. Search this forum for I-140 revocation by USCIS. I-140 was approved and then revoked by USCIS itself. In that case AC21 does not help, 485 will be denied.
I didnt understand your point: Is revoking an approved I140 is mandotary for the employer when an employee leaves? Per most lawyers it is not mandotory. Yes ofcourse employers "can" revoke but the question is it necessary for their interests and how?
Revocation of an approved I140 by USCIS is may be for other reasons like incorrect info when its applied or something like that.
I didnt understand your point: Is revoking an approved I140 is mandotary for the employer when an employee leaves? Per most lawyers it is not mandotory. Yes ofcourse employers "can" revoke but the question is it necessary for their interests and how?
Revocation of an approved I140 by USCIS is may be for other reasons like incorrect info when its applied or something like that.
tattoo Actors Taye Diggs and Idinia
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...
pictures Taye diggs baby images
palnati
07-20 01:48 PM
It doesn't matter. You can file G-325 or G-325A.
dresses okay aby that#39;s cute,
chanduv23
06-29 08:08 PM
Follow directions in your interview letter with list of things to take. Have all the originals and photocopies. If your case is straight forward , I dont think you need an attorney or else if you think you need an attorney find a local person in your area who can accompany you.
I had an interview last Feb 2009, my case was pre-adjucated. My PD is 2005.
Did you get the interview letter after preadjudication or was it a part of pre adjudication process?
I had an interview last Feb 2009, my case was pre-adjucated. My PD is 2005.
Did you get the interview letter after preadjudication or was it a part of pre adjudication process?
more...
makeup Taye Diggs
vinvin24
08-27 11:34 AM
I am in Miramar, FL. Do you meet regularly in SF?
girlfriend First Look At Taye Diggs Baby
LostInGCProcess
08-26 01:20 PM
Are you sure about this? I don't think this is true. My wife entered using AP and works on H-1B. Note that she is a derivative on my I-485 and works on H-1 for a totally different employer.
Well, that was precisely my question...and I think your example fits perfectly with my scenario.
My wife is on a H1 which is different from my employer who is sponsoring my GC...and I got EAD and AP (although I am not using them right now still holding on to H1) and also my wife too, is on her companies H1.
She is going to India for H1 Visa stamping...and if it didn't go well for some wild reasons, she would use the AP to come back to US...after entering US using AP, can she continue to work on her H1?? Please note: her H1 is totally different from the AP, which was thru my company.
So, Little_willy, is it okay???:confused:
Well, that was precisely my question...and I think your example fits perfectly with my scenario.
My wife is on a H1 which is different from my employer who is sponsoring my GC...and I got EAD and AP (although I am not using them right now still holding on to H1) and also my wife too, is on her companies H1.
She is going to India for H1 Visa stamping...and if it didn't go well for some wild reasons, she would use the AP to come back to US...after entering US using AP, can she continue to work on her H1?? Please note: her H1 is totally different from the AP, which was thru my company.
So, Little_willy, is it okay???:confused:
hairstyles Baby of Tiger and Taye Diggs
nk2006
12-07 02:40 PM
Friends,
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
phillyag
07-20 02:14 PM
Any expected timelines for getting the receipt notice from USCIS? I filed on Jul17th.
dealsnet
03-31 05:46 PM
The OP (MORON) is a fake. He is promoting some Taliban type groups. India will not take any one without passport or embassy out passes. If he went to India without these, he will be in JAIL. If something wrong, USA will not send out any one.
DON'T MAKE AS A FOOL, DEAR FRIEND.
PLAY APRIL FOOL WITH YOUR TALIBAN FRIENDS. NOT WITH IV MEMBERS.
HERE EVERY ONE IS HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND NOT A FOOL LIKE YOU AND YOUR STUPID SATANIC IDEOLOGIES.
I wonder why his/her handle is "webPromo"??? hmm... promoting "something" on the web...:D.
DON'T MAKE AS A FOOL, DEAR FRIEND.
PLAY APRIL FOOL WITH YOUR TALIBAN FRIENDS. NOT WITH IV MEMBERS.
HERE EVERY ONE IS HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND NOT A FOOL LIKE YOU AND YOUR STUPID SATANIC IDEOLOGIES.
I wonder why his/her handle is "webPromo"??? hmm... promoting "something" on the web...:D.
No comments:
Post a Comment