rajpath
01-10 03:15 AM
Hi All,
Please share your experience. This is quite urgent. My H1B(8+ year) is expiring, and my company is willing to file H1B with Engg manager role. My previous H1B or extension was files for software engineer. My GC(EB2) is filed as Software engineer, with PD as Jan 2006.
Questions
1) Now is it ok to file H1B with new title? What if H1B gets rejected?
2) How does this title change affect GC? Can the GC be cancelled because the title has changed or H1B gets rejected? The engg manager role is similar to software engneer role, except people responsiblities.
3) If the H1B gets accepted, then is there still a danger to GC? Do they verify GC papers before approving H1B?
Thank you, Raja
Please share your experience. This is quite urgent. My H1B(8+ year) is expiring, and my company is willing to file H1B with Engg manager role. My previous H1B or extension was files for software engineer. My GC(EB2) is filed as Software engineer, with PD as Jan 2006.
Questions
1) Now is it ok to file H1B with new title? What if H1B gets rejected?
2) How does this title change affect GC? Can the GC be cancelled because the title has changed or H1B gets rejected? The engg manager role is similar to software engneer role, except people responsiblities.
3) If the H1B gets accepted, then is there still a danger to GC? Do they verify GC papers before approving H1B?
Thank you, Raja
wallpaper wallpaper Bruce Springsteen
ravi98
10-25 02:26 PM
Things that make it harder to push for immigration legislation - legal or illegal. New Figures Detail Depth Of Unemployment Misery, Lower Earnings For All But Super Wealthy (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/income_inequality_statistics_tax_code__n_773392.ht ml)
T-O
04-08 04:04 AM
here's some.. :P
I couldn't fit a bigger smile on there. :D Cowboy bebop :D Wiejie! :P
I couldn't fit a bigger smile on there. :D Cowboy bebop :D Wiejie! :P
2011 wallpaper Bruce Springsteen
Blog Feeds
08-03 12:50 PM
As of July 24, 2009, approximately 44,900 H-1B cap-subject petitions have been received by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and counted towards the H-1B cap. Approximately 20,000 petitions qualifying for the advanced degree cap exemption have been filed. USCIS will continue to accept both cap-subject petitions and advanced degree petitions until a sufficient number of H-1B petitions have been received to reach the statutory limits. The H-1B program allows foreign nationals to work for their U.S. sponsor employer in a specialty occupation that requires theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields. This may include scientists, engineers, and commuter programmers to name a few. The cap count for H-1B fiscal year 2010 is available at www.uscis.gov (http://www.uscis.gov).
Call us at 214-999-9999 and Kraft & Associates will answer your H-1B questions.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/q6etIgCz4yY/)
Call us at 214-999-9999 and Kraft & Associates will answer your H-1B questions.
More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Immigration-law-answers-blog/~3/q6etIgCz4yY/)
more...
ahmed
04-01 09:21 AM
:love:
haha
haha
msp1976
02-18 07:06 PM
May be we can add a primer on how to evaluate a bill when it comes out of the senate or house in next few months...
We can define places to look in the text for specific goals listed on the front page...Section wise....
We can define places to look in the text for specific goals listed on the front page...Section wise....
more...
gsc999
03-01 12:58 PM
Thanks for posting. Macaca, you are on fire!
2010 hd wallpaper widescreen 1080p.
willy007
10-23 11:02 AM
Hi,
I am asking this for my sister who is working under J1 (start in October 2007 and valid for 1 year). She already get a J1 visa stamp and re-enter US as J1 status
1. Change of employer is not permissible in J1. Can she submit a new J1 petition and thus ending her current J1 petition early?
2. How about the 2-year home residency requirement (HRR)? Does she need a waiver for the current J1 she is doing now OR can she satisfy the HRR after she finishes with the new J1? The new J1 will not end later than the current J1. So, practically she will be in J1 for 1 year only.
3. Does she need to get another J1 visa stamp and re-enter the US?
Thank you.
I am asking this for my sister who is working under J1 (start in October 2007 and valid for 1 year). She already get a J1 visa stamp and re-enter US as J1 status
1. Change of employer is not permissible in J1. Can she submit a new J1 petition and thus ending her current J1 petition early?
2. How about the 2-year home residency requirement (HRR)? Does she need a waiver for the current J1 she is doing now OR can she satisfy the HRR after she finishes with the new J1? The new J1 will not end later than the current J1. So, practically she will be in J1 for 1 year only.
3. Does she need to get another J1 visa stamp and re-enter the US?
Thank you.
more...
%2525252525255B2%2525252525255D.jpg "hair hot hp wallpapers")
semiGator
12-24 10:28 AM
Has this got anything to do with the employee-employer relationship and the Neufeld memo?
hair wallpaper Bruce Springsteen
Blog Feeds
11-20 03:12 AM
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assistant Secretary John Morton announced today that the agency will inspect the I-9 records of approximately 1000 companies around the US, dwarfing the announcement in July that nearly 600 firms were being investigated. Only 500 firms were audited in 2008. This time the employers being targeted are firms involved with "critical infrastructure" projects. ICE also released some interesting data showing the impact of its new enforcement initiatives: Statistics since implementation of new ICE worksite enforcement strategy on April 30: 45 businesses and 47 individuals debarred; 0 businesses and 1 individual were debarred during same period in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/white-house-employer-compliance-campaign-goes-into-overdrive.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/11/white-house-employer-compliance-campaign-goes-into-overdrive.html)
more...
Blog Feeds
09-10 12:50 PM
A voice of reason in the GOP on immigration departs. He will be missed in this process. In the mean time, Florida's new Senator, George LeMieux, is certainly not sounding like a fighter for immigration reform. According to the Orlando Sentinel: LeMieux appears likely to steer clear of Martinez's controversial attempts to overhaul immigration law, which would include a path to citizenship for the undocumented. 'We need tosecure our borders,' LeMieux said. 'After we do that, we can figure what happens to people already here.'
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/09/martinez-bids-farewell-and-urges-senate-to-pass-immigration-reform.html)
hot free wallpaper widescreen.
ngopikrishnan
11-22 02:04 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102419.html
more...
house wallpaper Last to die Bruce
Macaca
12-07 10:47 AM
Tax, Spending Issues Frustrate Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120700423.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 7, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues.
The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues.
Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.
After 11 months of insisting that all major programs be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere, Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged Thursday they cannot persuade enough Republicans to join them. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reluctantly allowed a vote on a long-debated middle-class tax cut that would add billions of dollars to the deficit because it is not offset elsewhere.
The measure, which the Senate approved 88-5, would prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting about 25 million more taxpayers, at a cost of about $50 billion to the U.S. treasury next year. Reid's decision puts the Senate at odds with the House with two weeks left before the holiday recess.
House Democratic leaders still insist on a pay-as-you-go policy, or "pay-go," which they made a centerpiece of their governing principles in January.
Reid told reporters Thursday that Senate Republicans have used their filibuster powers to block Democratic efforts to change Iraq policy, move a farm bill and pay for the proposed one-year "fix" to the alternative minimum tax. He especially complained about Republican demands to offer farm bill amendments dealing with state drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
"We've tried everything we can to address these issues," Reid said, citing 57 GOP filibuster threats this year.
"We have lived by pay-go," Reid said regarding the tax bill. "But what we want everyone to know is that we have tried every alternative possible."
He acknowledged handing a political dilemma to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. The House earlier passed an AMT bill that would raise $80 billion in new taxes, largely on investors and hedge fund managers.
"I admire the speaker" for adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle, Reid said. He added, however, she "has a little more flexibility from a procedural perspective than I do."
Reid's decision will force a pivotal decision by House Democrats: Should they infuriate millions of voters by leaving the AMT unchanged (and hope Republicans get blamed), or abandon the pay-go promise and possibly rely heavily on Republican votes to pass a bill that splits Democrats.
"If we waive pay-go on this, I think it opens the door" to further actions that would raise the deficit and "border on criminal irresponsibility," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.
Meanwhile Thursday, congressional Democrats said they face an uphill battle in trying to overcome Senate GOP objections to a House-passed energy bill. Republicans particularly oppose the proposed rollback of $13.5 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies.
"You can't tax your way to energy independence," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.
If the Senate cannot overcome the GOP-led resistance, Democratic senators said they may have to jettison provisions important to many House Democrats: the tax provisions and requirements for greater use of renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said such a move would be difficult for the House to swallow. "The tax part is just as important as any other part" of the energy bill, he said.
As for the Iraq war, congressional Democrats on Thursday sent their strongest signal yet that they are resigned to providing additional funds without forcing President Bush to alter his policies. The plan is virtually certain to divide House Democrats. Like the AMT legislation, it may require significant Republican support to pass.
Democrats, who sometimes seem incredulous at their inability to budge the GOP on tax, spending and war issues, say Republicans will pay dearly at the polls. "There is a sense they are digging their own grave," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
Some Republicans agree there is a risk in repeatedly blocking Democratic-crafted bills, especially if the chief beneficiaries appear to be big oil companies or wealthy investors.
"The strategy is to lay low and then blame them for not getting anything done," Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois said in an interview. "The truth is, we all lose."
"We trash each other and end up making the institution look bad," LaHood said. "That's why Congress' approval ratings are so low."
WASHINGTON -- Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues.
The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues.
Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.
After 11 months of insisting that all major programs be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere, Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged Thursday they cannot persuade enough Republicans to join them. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reluctantly allowed a vote on a long-debated middle-class tax cut that would add billions of dollars to the deficit because it is not offset elsewhere.
The measure, which the Senate approved 88-5, would prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting about 25 million more taxpayers, at a cost of about $50 billion to the U.S. treasury next year. Reid's decision puts the Senate at odds with the House with two weeks left before the holiday recess.
House Democratic leaders still insist on a pay-as-you-go policy, or "pay-go," which they made a centerpiece of their governing principles in January.
Reid told reporters Thursday that Senate Republicans have used their filibuster powers to block Democratic efforts to change Iraq policy, move a farm bill and pay for the proposed one-year "fix" to the alternative minimum tax. He especially complained about Republican demands to offer farm bill amendments dealing with state drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
"We've tried everything we can to address these issues," Reid said, citing 57 GOP filibuster threats this year.
"We have lived by pay-go," Reid said regarding the tax bill. "But what we want everyone to know is that we have tried every alternative possible."
He acknowledged handing a political dilemma to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. The House earlier passed an AMT bill that would raise $80 billion in new taxes, largely on investors and hedge fund managers.
"I admire the speaker" for adhering to the pay-as-you-go principle, Reid said. He added, however, she "has a little more flexibility from a procedural perspective than I do."
Reid's decision will force a pivotal decision by House Democrats: Should they infuriate millions of voters by leaving the AMT unchanged (and hope Republicans get blamed), or abandon the pay-go promise and possibly rely heavily on Republican votes to pass a bill that splits Democrats.
"If we waive pay-go on this, I think it opens the door" to further actions that would raise the deficit and "border on criminal irresponsibility," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.
Meanwhile Thursday, congressional Democrats said they face an uphill battle in trying to overcome Senate GOP objections to a House-passed energy bill. Republicans particularly oppose the proposed rollback of $13.5 billion in tax breaks for major oil companies.
"You can't tax your way to energy independence," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters.
If the Senate cannot overcome the GOP-led resistance, Democratic senators said they may have to jettison provisions important to many House Democrats: the tax provisions and requirements for greater use of renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said such a move would be difficult for the House to swallow. "The tax part is just as important as any other part" of the energy bill, he said.
As for the Iraq war, congressional Democrats on Thursday sent their strongest signal yet that they are resigned to providing additional funds without forcing President Bush to alter his policies. The plan is virtually certain to divide House Democrats. Like the AMT legislation, it may require significant Republican support to pass.
Democrats, who sometimes seem incredulous at their inability to budge the GOP on tax, spending and war issues, say Republicans will pay dearly at the polls. "There is a sense they are digging their own grave," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
Some Republicans agree there is a risk in repeatedly blocking Democratic-crafted bills, especially if the chief beneficiaries appear to be big oil companies or wealthy investors.
"The strategy is to lay low and then blame them for not getting anything done," Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois said in an interview. "The truth is, we all lose."
"We trash each other and end up making the institution look bad," LaHood said. "That's why Congress' approval ratings are so low."
tattoo wallpaper Bruce Springsteen
Adam
04-24 11:10 PM
lookin' good :thumb: that first one is still my favourite!!
more...
pictures wallpaper Bruce Springsteen:
Blog Feeds
12-19 01:00 PM
Since the early days of this blog, I've chastised immigration bureaucrats who use specious reasoning to treat small businesses petitioning for employment-related immigration benefits more harshly than their large-cap counterparts. The latest assault on fairness and reason is reflected in a trend affecting several categories of employment-based visas -- the H-1B (Worker in a Specialty Occupation), the L-1 nonimmigrant (Intracompany-Transferee Manager or Executive) and the EB1-3 (Multinational Manager or Executive). An example of this trend is a recently released EB1-3 decision (decided May 1, 2009) of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) denying an immigrant visa petition for a multinational...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/angelopaparelli/2009/12/when-will-they-ever-learn-immigration-denial-thrives-perniciously-at-uscis.html)
dresses 2010 Bruce Springsteen
Macaca
09-29 07:54 AM
Dangerous Logjam on Surveillance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801332.html) By David Ignatius (davidignatius@washpost.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues.
When a nation can't solve the problems that concern its citizens, it's in trouble. And that's where America now finds itself on nearly every big issue -- from immigration to Iraq to health care to anti-terrorism policies.
Let us focus on the last of these logjams -- over the legal rules for conducting surveillance against terrorists. There isn't a more urgent priority for the country: We face an adversary that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it could. But in a polarized Washington, crafting a solid compromise that has long-term bipartisan support has so far proved impossible.
People who try to occupy a middle ground in these debates find that it doesn't exist. That reality confounded Gen. David Petraeus this month. He thought that as a professional military officer, he could serve both the administration and the Democratic Congress. Guess what? It didn't work. Democrats saw Petraeus as a representative of the Bush White House, rather than of the nation.
Now the same meat grinder is devouring Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence. He's a career military intelligence officer who ran the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton. As near as I can tell, the only ax he has to grind is catching terrorists. But in the vortex of Washington politics, he has become a partisan figure. An article last week in The Hill newspaper, headlined "Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell," itemized his misstatements and supposed flip-flops as if he were running for office.
What's weird is that the actual points of disagreement between the two sides about surveillance rules are, at this point, fairly narrow. McConnell seemed close to brokering a compromise in August, but the White House refused to allow him to sign off on the deal he had negotiated. The Bush strategy, now as ever, is to tar the Democrats as weak on terrorism. That doesn't exactly encourage bipartisanship.
A little background may help explain this murky mess. Last year, after the revelation that the Bush administration had been conducting warrantless wiretaps, there was a broad consensus that the NSA's surveillance efforts should be brought within the legal framework of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). And in January, with a new Democratic Congress sharpening its arrows, the administration did just that. It submitted its "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to the FISA court. The heart of that program was tapping communications links that pass through the United States to monitor messages between foreigners. A first FISA judge blessed the program, but a second judge had problems.
At that point, the Bush administration decided to seek new legislation formally authorizing the program, and the horse-trading began. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a team of Democrats bargaining with McConnell. The administration had two basic demands -- that Congress approve the existing practice of using U.S. communications hubs to collect intelligence about foreigners, and that Congress compel telecommunications companies to turn over records so they wouldn't face lawsuits for aiding the government.
The Democrats agreed to these requests on Aug. 2. They also accepted three other 11th-hour demands from McConnell, including authority to extend the anti-terrorist surveillance rules to wider foreign intelligence tasks. Pelosi and the Democrats thought they had a deal, but that evening McConnell told them that the "other side" -- meaning the White House -- wanted more concessions. The deal collapsed, and the White House, sensing it had the upper hand, pushed through a more accommodating Senate bill that would have to be renewed in six months.
The summer negotiations left bruised feelings on both sides -- that's the definition of political negotiations in Washington these days, isn't it? McConnell fanned the flames when he told the El Paso Times that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate about surveillance laws. The Democrats threw back spitballs of their own.
Now McConnell and the Democrats are back in the cage. A key administration demand is retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that agreed to help the government in what they thought was a legal program. That seems fair enough. So does the Democratic demand that the White House turn over documents that explain how these programs were created.
A healthy political system would reach a compromise to allow aggressive surveillance of our adversaries. In the asymmetric wars of the 21st century, the fact that America owns the digital communications space is one of the few advantages we have. The challenge is to put this necessary surveillance under solid legal rules. If the two sides can't get together on this one, the public should howl bloody murder.
Surveillance Showdown (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010670) "Privacy" zealots want America to forgo intelligence capabilities during wartime. BY DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY | Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2007
more...
makeup hair hot hp wallpapers
INSpector
09-14 05:34 PM
Guys
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
what is the right address to submit the I485 / EAD and AP using Fedex and fill it in Nebraska?
My attorney submitted my paperwork to:
850 S Street POBOX 87845 ?
I'm confused becase in the CIS site give the address in parentesis mention to write down the right POBOX.
What if she maid a mistake and send the paperwork to POBOX 87485?
PS.
I will be in DC, and we have rented a bus departing from wallace NC monday at 12:00hrs I still have sits available, we will drive to rRaleigh, the Virginia then DC
girlfriend 2010 minka kelly wallpaper
pkaurn
11-01 12:14 PM
My I 485 package was returned as it didnt have the approval notice of I 140, which was submitted a day later than I485 by my company.
It is such a frustrating situation as i have been waiting since 1999 for my GC , and when i got this golden chance my company was not serious enuf to submit the papers in time !
I am doubting the company , as they would have done all this intentionally to keep me in their co. for longer time!The returned letter they have provided me shows no reference no, file no, or either my name ! how can i believe if they have even submitted any papers for I485 or not ?
They say they can refile again .. but duno what to do ??
Can anybody be kind enough to help me out here!
I am so frustrated that I feel like going back to home country now.
It is such a frustrating situation as i have been waiting since 1999 for my GC , and when i got this golden chance my company was not serious enuf to submit the papers in time !
I am doubting the company , as they would have done all this intentionally to keep me in their co. for longer time!The returned letter they have provided me shows no reference no, file no, or either my name ! how can i believe if they have even submitted any papers for I485 or not ?
They say they can refile again .. but duno what to do ??
Can anybody be kind enough to help me out here!
I am so frustrated that I feel like going back to home country now.
hairstyles wallpaper Bruce Springsteen
supers789
06-22 06:14 PM
If PD is current when USCIS starts processing the applications, PD's doesn't matter. But if PDs retrogate (which will be the case most likely), then USCIS only going to process the applications which has PD current that time. I hope it makes sense.
emilytai
06-26 01:03 PM
Dear All:
I-140 approval 6/25/08
I-485 approval 6/26/08
EB-2 Concurrent filing
I-140 Sent 07/30/07
I-140 Notice 09/18/07
Title: Accountant
But I just submit I-765 (EAD) renew by 6/22/08. Now I found out my I-140 and I-485 are all approved. Can I revoke or withdraw I-765(EAD) from USCIS?
Do anyone have similar case?
Sincerely,
Emily
I-140 approval 6/25/08
I-485 approval 6/26/08
EB-2 Concurrent filing
I-140 Sent 07/30/07
I-140 Notice 09/18/07
Title: Accountant
But I just submit I-765 (EAD) renew by 6/22/08. Now I found out my I-140 and I-485 are all approved. Can I revoke or withdraw I-765(EAD) from USCIS?
Do anyone have similar case?
Sincerely,
Emily
jjlittlegiant
01-02 10:14 PM
H1B Transfer is not equal to H1B Renewal.
H1B transfer: when you change your job, you transfer your H1B visa to the new employer.
H1B Renewal: when you stay in the same company for 3 years, you need to file h1B renewal for the 2nd duration of 3 years.
H1B transfer: when you change your job, you transfer your H1B visa to the new employer.
H1B Renewal: when you stay in the same company for 3 years, you need to file h1B renewal for the 2nd duration of 3 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment