bigboy007
12-10 02:20 PM
I dont know i can try making it "superset" of what my GC Labor is that way it adds to what they have already its a bigger company btw so hassles in these issues are expected but what is the procedure in intimating USCIS many said no it but where does this Employment verification letter come in to picture.
Check with the new company whether they can give an Employment verification letter which matches the roles mentioned in ur labor?
Designation and pay doesnt matter.
What matters is a permanenet job offer letter and duties should match the
labor.
Rajesh Alex
Check with the new company whether they can give an Employment verification letter which matches the roles mentioned in ur labor?
Designation and pay doesnt matter.
What matters is a permanenet job offer letter and duties should match the
labor.
Rajesh Alex
DSLStart
12-15 12:51 PM
jayleno: there is nothing funny about this situation so no need to make jokes on him. He just told him about sending wife to India, because that guys uername says Atul which hail from India and not srilanka or pak or bangladesh.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
Buddy,
Are you trying to create a problem or solve one? If I were from Sri Lanka, why would I send my wife to India? If we start following your advice, soon many husbands would be leading a single life for being laid off.
chapper
11-11 01:26 AM
Please add more data if you find.....
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/570/workinprogressue6.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/570/workinprogressue6.jpg
docwa
04-10 01:29 PM
HI I am a physician (hospitalist) whose labor was under the catagory 'Internist' job code. The fellowship I am considering is open only to internist. I am also planning to moonlight as an internist while in fellowship. Would it be acceptable from the I485 point of view? Incidentally my I140 was approved more the 180 days ago.
more...
eb3_nepa
04-17 04:32 PM
Not sure if this is for us legal immigrants or against us. It says "hardworking americans". We are not americans yet. It could well mean that join the fight AGAINST H1Bs..
bigboy007
12-10 02:20 PM
I dont know i can try making it "superset" of what my GC Labor is that way it adds to what they have already its a bigger company btw so hassles in these issues are expected but what is the procedure in intimating USCIS many said no it but where does this Employment verification letter come in to picture.
Check with the new company whether they can give an Employment verification letter which matches the roles mentioned in ur labor?
Designation and pay doesnt matter.
What matters is a permanenet job offer letter and duties should match the
labor.
Rajesh Alex
Check with the new company whether they can give an Employment verification letter which matches the roles mentioned in ur labor?
Designation and pay doesnt matter.
What matters is a permanenet job offer letter and duties should match the
labor.
Rajesh Alex
more...
immitul
07-13 08:48 PM
Your I-485 application could be nearing approval, as your priority date is current, and you are with in the USCIS processing time frame.
GC092003
04-18 11:57 AM
yes, I punched it right. I changed last digit... it shows it is approved... of course, this is not my case number.. someone who has one number different..
I am calling to a toll free number... I am so scare if they pull out my information and they might mess up by mistake... no?
I am calling to a toll free number... I am so scare if they pull out my information and they might mess up by mistake... no?
more...
Libra
10-12 10:22 AM
LUD 10/03/06 before getting RFE, after submitting RFE documents there were two LUD's 10/04/07 and 10/05/07.
Naresh/Libra,
What was the LUD on your I-140 before you got the RFE ?
In my case, the RD is 10/06 and LUD is 10/26/2006. But, no updates after that.
gxr
Naresh/Libra,
What was the LUD on your I-140 before you got the RFE ?
In my case, the RD is 10/06 and LUD is 10/26/2006. But, no updates after that.
gxr
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...
TeddyKoochu
05-19 01:59 PM
How and how they can prove he is not going to do any work at the location, the client will not be charged for that?
Get a letter from your USA office on their letter head that you will be in USA to do just business discussion, and stay will be very short.
Show them that you have strong tie-up's back in India (family/house/properties/relatives etc).
Tell them you have to continue your job in India after the business discussions in USA.
Also show visa officer that you will not get paid in USA (no pay roll); business expenses are covered by company.
just one cent info....
I believe that @GCFrenzy your suggestions are good. For any business visa it is definitely a basic requirement to have a letter stating all the information that you are mentioning. I had also worked for a large Indian company and my first visit to US was on B1 this was immediately after 9/11 and the client gave a very similar letter in those days however you did not go to the consulate for stamping. Also if the company can state the duration of the trip and substantiate with a return ticket the chances of approval will be much higher the duration should be less than 5-6 weeks. Issuing visa is always in good faith and at the discretion of the VO. @Nathan I think it would not be correct to generalize even though what you are saying is correct because many genuine people are affected due to the collateral a damage. Think of this many people when they applied for F1 also stated in good faith that they will return to their home countries after their studies but most of them are still here and many of them on immigration forums :).
Get a letter from your USA office on their letter head that you will be in USA to do just business discussion, and stay will be very short.
Show them that you have strong tie-up's back in India (family/house/properties/relatives etc).
Tell them you have to continue your job in India after the business discussions in USA.
Also show visa officer that you will not get paid in USA (no pay roll); business expenses are covered by company.
just one cent info....
I believe that @GCFrenzy your suggestions are good. For any business visa it is definitely a basic requirement to have a letter stating all the information that you are mentioning. I had also worked for a large Indian company and my first visit to US was on B1 this was immediately after 9/11 and the client gave a very similar letter in those days however you did not go to the consulate for stamping. Also if the company can state the duration of the trip and substantiate with a return ticket the chances of approval will be much higher the duration should be less than 5-6 weeks. Issuing visa is always in good faith and at the discretion of the VO. @Nathan I think it would not be correct to generalize even though what you are saying is correct because many genuine people are affected due to the collateral a damage. Think of this many people when they applied for F1 also stated in good faith that they will return to their home countries after their studies but most of them are still here and many of them on immigration forums :).
Danko
11-27 03:46 AM
Honestly, what does it even matter if it is MS biased? He works at MS, and has every right to focus on that content. :P
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
I knew it.. :beer2:
Someone said:
It�s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
btw I am the C# .NET developer, I use it on the server-side all the time - I love it!!
But honestly - every MS client side techology till now (classic forms&post backs... Atlas/MS Ajax) sucked when having a more complex project.
ps. I will install Expression Blend today or tomorrow and start working with it... :geek: However, I know that solutions that work cross-platform and cross-OS currently come from Adobe only (AIR). ;) So I think it's at least worth mentioning...
more...
sayantan76
12-07 06:21 PM
Maybe the definition of project managers varies by company. Most PMs I know have maybe around 6-7 years of work experience and I definitely wouldn't classify them as executives or even say that their employment is in the National Interest.
However I do know of some cases where doctors have got NIW based on practicing in an under-served (rural?) area.
Is there a way to prove that one who created a suite of applications without which a business unit will stop functioning comes under National Interest?
Just a thought.
I think - the spirit of EB-1 (manager) has to do with having full managerial control over people (performance management, hiring/ firing/ compensation rather than just supervisory control) and/or a business portfolio (say - head of a business division)
but as someone pointed out - let lawyers figure out the best strategy for each case.......
However I do know of some cases where doctors have got NIW based on practicing in an under-served (rural?) area.
Is there a way to prove that one who created a suite of applications without which a business unit will stop functioning comes under National Interest?
Just a thought.
I think - the spirit of EB-1 (manager) has to do with having full managerial control over people (performance management, hiring/ firing/ compensation rather than just supervisory control) and/or a business portfolio (say - head of a business division)
but as someone pointed out - let lawyers figure out the best strategy for each case.......
meridiani.planum
07-12 08:37 AM
I would suggest you push your application for premium processing for I-140 so that it would be approved in 30 days time now. Because you are in the 6th year of H1 you can do it. So in 30 days if you have 140 approved then you would know whether your priorty date is recaptured then go for I485 before 08-08-08 Sep bulletin date?
double-check with lawyer about the I-140 premium processing. My understanding is that you wont qualify for it since your PD is Feb 2008, and 6th year ends in March 2009. So come march 2009 you are eligible for 1 year h1 extension as your LC would be 365 days old. The current qualifying rule for I-140 premium processing indicates that its only for people who have no other way of getting an H1 extension (meaning LC is <365 days old at the point of expiry of current H1)
double-check with lawyer about the I-140 premium processing. My understanding is that you wont qualify for it since your PD is Feb 2008, and 6th year ends in March 2009. So come march 2009 you are eligible for 1 year h1 extension as your LC would be 365 days old. The current qualifying rule for I-140 premium processing indicates that its only for people who have no other way of getting an H1 extension (meaning LC is <365 days old at the point of expiry of current H1)
more...
yabadaba
06-22 09:29 AM
the civil surgeon told me that as per CDC directive all applicants need to have a TB skin test irrespective of the X ray. Good luck with 693
nixstor
12-01 02:48 PM
Guys,
Is it ok to have a title of Business Analyst and do software development? Programmer Analyst makes more sense for the position. Like wise Is it ok to have a programmer analyst title for a systems administrator? What kind of issues can one expect if the title and job duties/resume are not in sync?
Thanks
Is it ok to have a title of Business Analyst and do software development? Programmer Analyst makes more sense for the position. Like wise Is it ok to have a programmer analyst title for a systems administrator? What kind of issues can one expect if the title and job duties/resume are not in sync?
Thanks
more...
amitga
02-09 08:01 PM
One day we will also get notice to leave US, just like doctors in UK have got.
jungalee43
06-29 09:05 PM
I have used AC21 replied to all the RFEs about it. Laast year my attorney delayed renewal of my EAD and immediately 485 petition started moving and landed in National benefits Center for scheduling an interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
In 60 days after receiving the case the NBC has scheduled this initial interview, only for me.
Additionally what is worrying me is that they are vague on what documents they want.
They say if this is marriage based GC your spouse should attend. Or of parent-child based GC the petitioning parents or child should attend.
They have specifially mentioned medicals if not already submitted, birth certificate, returns, employers letter, EADs, travel documents, I-94 and then they say all supporting documents submitted with the application. What do they mean? Is this because they don't know what they are looking for? on top of this the words "initial interview" have confused me.
I guess the cases that are pre-adjucated are called for interview.
black_logs
04-12 04:44 PM
It's like a scam. I wonder how could labor substitution live for so long. My labor was filed in sep'2003 and I'm still waiting. My next door was planning to go back to his country and had never applied for Green card, but 6 months ago, when he had 2-3 months left for his 6th year, he got a labor and he filed I-140 & I-485 together. Now he and his wife works on EAD & I'm still waiting for my labor. What kind of @#@$@# is this ? And who know before my attorney receives my labor cert. it'll allready be 45 days and I will have to pack my bags. that'll be @#$@#$!!!!
amitsri_74
06-27 04:45 PM
I am on H1-B which expired on June 18th (extension filed) and my I-485 is pending since Sep 2007. I got my EAD in Feb 2008 but I am still using my H1-B with my current employer. My wife is on H4 (extension filed with mine) and her EAD is received at USCIS May 13th under processing
I need expert's help to understand the following
1) I am getting a good job offer and want to move to other employer July 31 on EAD.
2) Since my H1-Extension is no received I cannot transfer it now but I get it I will transfer it.
3) Can I join my new employer using my EAD (which was not used with my current employer) invoking AC21 and 180 period is passed since the 485 Application receipt date (Sep 14th)
4) If I join using EAD, will my wife be out of status as H4 will be void, however her EAD is under process but not yet received.
Any help will be highly appreciated
Amit
I need expert's help to understand the following
1) I am getting a good job offer and want to move to other employer July 31 on EAD.
2) Since my H1-Extension is no received I cannot transfer it now but I get it I will transfer it.
3) Can I join my new employer using my EAD (which was not used with my current employer) invoking AC21 and 180 period is passed since the 485 Application receipt date (Sep 14th)
4) If I join using EAD, will my wife be out of status as H4 will be void, however her EAD is under process but not yet received.
Any help will be highly appreciated
Amit
gc_bulgaria
02-12 02:50 PM
I've been trying to find out the same info for a while now. Has anyone been successful trying to make use of cross chargeability? I had read sometime back that when you file for ur 485 you could provide a covering letter to say "Please consider Cross Chargeability", but isnt there a better way of doing it?
These are the following I used on top of the stupid cover letter that I am sure they dont see.
1. Talk to Congressman's office
2. Letters and faxes to USCIS
3. AILA liason (through your lawyer).
In my case the lawyer's connections helped. Even though my PD is current now as per VB, till they reach my notice date, they will not touch it.
These are the following I used on top of the stupid cover letter that I am sure they dont see.
1. Talk to Congressman's office
2. Letters and faxes to USCIS
3. AILA liason (through your lawyer).
In my case the lawyer's connections helped. Even though my PD is current now as per VB, till they reach my notice date, they will not touch it.
No comments:
Post a Comment