glen
05-04 02:50 PM
As per my understanding you can apply for one year H1-B extension based on LC or wait for I-140 approval till August and then apply for 3 year H1-B extension.
Hi Madhuri,
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Hi Madhuri,
Do you have any more information regarding this.
I am in the same boat .
My LC got approved through perm in my 6th year
and I140 applied and pending .
6th year expires in Sept06.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
wallpaper dubai hotel atlantis. for
jsb
11-29 04:22 PM
It may be better to get a bank-draft or money-order for required C$, and attach to the application. In any case, Canadians are far more accomodating, they will not reject your app just because fee was not right to the cents.
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
2011 dubai hotel atlantis open 25
IN2US
03-17 11:21 AM
Your flow of logic is correct but you ar ebuilding this palace on soft land...:). Your "numbers" base is way way small... There are thousands of EB2 switch over occured and there are thousands and thousands of applications are waiting in EB2. If you add up thosands and thousands then you can reach million speedly.. right? Only July 2007 filing was around 500000. You just apply crude maths: 500000/3 (Categories) = So EB2 numbers are = 1,66,667.
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
no offense but the above doesn't make any sense what so ever, so does majority of your posts.
and stop pretending to be a guru on immigration issues and leave the analysis part to the real experts.
Peace :)
Now divide 1,66,667/5 ( IN,CHina,MX, Philipines,ROW) = 33333. That is just for July 2007. Now to scare you more let me tell you that there was number around during July 2007 in all immigration boards that around 500000 applications are stuck in the process including Name Check (No claim on accuracy of that number but pretty much bignames were talking about that number so generally you would trust that number.) So now start applying your logic andyou would realize the seriousness of the problem.
no offense but the above doesn't make any sense what so ever, so does majority of your posts.
and stop pretending to be a guru on immigration issues and leave the analysis part to the real experts.
Peace :)
more...
waitnwatch
04-21 02:37 PM
It is generally a good idea to go to any CBP and get the date put in. It is a pretty easy process. When the CBP folks say that an exit in 6 months in fine I guess they are correct in the sense that you have to stay illegally for over 180 days to be barred from reentry.
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
Anyway this should be pretty easy except that you have to find the time to go to your nearest international airport. For some it could be a 4 hour + drive!
Good luck
pappu
08-22 04:19 PM
Paskal:
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
saravanaraj.sathya
You have not updated your profile with your full information. Please do so asap.
OK we have tons of members from Buffalo. Now it is upto you to contact them. We have several more from Rochester and Syracuse....
Can you take charge of contacting them and making phonecalls? get in touch with NY chapter and volunteer to make phonecalls to all these members:
Mkolken
Bhatya
DEVILLION696
Drajaybhora
Freidyeid
gcny2006
nkumar
brahmam
mach
GCgal
Mdforgc
But first update your profile. ONly then NY chpater will be able to help you.
Thanks for your kind reply. I am new to Buffalo, NY. Just moved from California. I dont know much ppl here. There is lots of indian community here but dont know why none is responding. If I can find one guy also I can book a car and drive there for rally.
saravanaraj.sathya
You have not updated your profile with your full information. Please do so asap.
OK we have tons of members from Buffalo. Now it is upto you to contact them. We have several more from Rochester and Syracuse....
Can you take charge of contacting them and making phonecalls? get in touch with NY chapter and volunteer to make phonecalls to all these members:
Mkolken
Bhatya
DEVILLION696
Drajaybhora
Freidyeid
gcny2006
nkumar
brahmam
mach
GCgal
Mdforgc
But first update your profile. ONly then NY chpater will be able to help you.
more...
GCFever007
07-19 10:04 AM
I was in the same shoes once...did some reseach and gather some info hope it will be helpful to resolve your case.
You can file spouse 485 later but not always
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is my scenario and the advice I received from a Top (at least high fee: $250 for a 20 minute phone session) lawyer.
EB3 PD Nov 2002 I-140 Approved Jan/04 1-485 filed June 04. I got married in Dec 04 and we were back in USA in Jan 05. Unfortunately we were 2 week too late to beat the retrogression.
My lawyer told me to file wife's 485 as she is dependent and PD is not an issue. Absolutely wrong. USCIS returned her application after 5 weeks.
We waited almost 2.5 years to finally file her application in June 07. I got approved on 23 June but we are OK since her application was filed before that
Key:
1. Get married before your GC approval (before/after 140/485 does not matter as long as you are not approved.
2. Bring spouse on H4 (No derivative status with EAD so maintain H1)
3. Keep all the documents ready (Birth certificate/Marriage certificate etc.)
4. Follow visa bulletin as soon as dates are current get medical test completed
5. File her 485 (Make sure USCIS receives it after the dates become current)
(If USCIS receives your application before dates being current they may still accept the package and reject it after couple of weeks. )
6. What if you are married before GC approval but get approved before her 485 is filed
1. Spouse out of USA
No other way but to file 'Follow to join' in home country. Spouse will not be able to entry on any other visa before his/her GC approval.
2. Spouse in USA on his/her own status ( i.e. wither H1/L1/F1 etc.)
File 485 as a derivative no special processing
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
Please talk to a reputed lawyer before doing any thing.
You can file spouse 485 later but not always
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following is my scenario and the advice I received from a Top (at least high fee: $250 for a 20 minute phone session) lawyer.
EB3 PD Nov 2002 I-140 Approved Jan/04 1-485 filed June 04. I got married in Dec 04 and we were back in USA in Jan 05. Unfortunately we were 2 week too late to beat the retrogression.
My lawyer told me to file wife's 485 as she is dependent and PD is not an issue. Absolutely wrong. USCIS returned her application after 5 weeks.
We waited almost 2.5 years to finally file her application in June 07. I got approved on 23 June but we are OK since her application was filed before that
Key:
1. Get married before your GC approval (before/after 140/485 does not matter as long as you are not approved.
2. Bring spouse on H4 (No derivative status with EAD so maintain H1)
3. Keep all the documents ready (Birth certificate/Marriage certificate etc.)
4. Follow visa bulletin as soon as dates are current get medical test completed
5. File her 485 (Make sure USCIS receives it after the dates become current)
(If USCIS receives your application before dates being current they may still accept the package and reject it after couple of weeks. )
6. What if you are married before GC approval but get approved before her 485 is filed
1. Spouse out of USA
No other way but to file 'Follow to join' in home country. Spouse will not be able to entry on any other visa before his/her GC approval.
2. Spouse in USA on his/her own status ( i.e. wither H1/L1/F1 etc.)
File 485 as a derivative no special processing
3. Spouse in USA as your dependent ( i.e. H4 etc.)
he/she will be 'out of status' as soon as your GC is approved. Inspected by an immigration agent at entry point. Not on parole. You can file 485 under [Section 245(K)] within 180 days. No special processing. NO fines.
Please talk to a reputed lawyer before doing any thing.
2010 five-star Atlantis hotel,
puvathoor
04-08 03:34 PM
I am intersted in contributing to the discussion in the region..
more...
LostInGCProcess
08-25 12:31 PM
Best thing to do in this case is, simply use your AP. No H1b stamping is needed. You can still remain on an H1B even if you use the AP for travelling.
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
As per my lawyer, the H1B has 2 aspects to it. One is the fact that it maintains status, the second is the actual stamped visa which allows entry/re-entry into the USA. You dont HAVE to have the stamped visa, if you have alternate means of re-entry.
I work for Company A, applied i-485 and both got EAD & AP.She is the dependent.
My Wife works for Company B which sponsored her H1.
So, I guess she cannot continue to work on H1(company B) upon returning using AP(got as my dependent thru Company A) !!!?? am I correct?
hair dubai hotel atlantis.
mrdelhiite
08-07 10:57 AM
Though its not mentioned it is good file I-134. You are not eligible for I-864.
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
Yes u are right about I-864. Any employement based green card like ours ( EB2/EB3) should not file it. Here is the text from the I864 form -->
Employment-based preference immigrants in cases onlywhen a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident relativefiled the immigrant visa petition or such relative has asignificant ownership interest (five percent or more) in theentity that filed the petition.
Thanks a ton for your help guys. :-)
-M
more...
seahawks
07-19 12:58 AM
I mean i filed without both of those. Theyare required in the 140 phase , not in 485.
But keep them handy - in case they wants mail by next day air
if you are filing for your spouse and if you are sponsoring your spouse, you have to show evidence of income.. There is a form that you fill with it,.
But keep them handy - in case they wants mail by next day air
if you are filing for your spouse and if you are sponsoring your spouse, you have to show evidence of income.. There is a form that you fill with it,.
hot dubai hotel atlantis open 33
IAF
02-01 08:12 AM
Congratulations!
more...
house dubai hotel atlantis.
va_dude
11-06 05:24 PM
This is exactly the piece-meal approach/bill that several people wanted to support.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
But i think IV core is backing CIR.
My 2 cents - CIR ain't happening this year (its almost mid-nov now and health care hasn't even been debated on the floor yer). Even enxt year is a long shot.
Need to back this bill.
tattoo Atlantis Dubai – Luxury Resort
sledge_hammer
04-08 07:26 PM
Your join date is March 2009. We know you are not a donor. We know you have not participated in any IV campaigns. But you want IV to be answerable to you.
Please tell us why!
Please feel free to delete my id.
I am done here. Wish good luck to everybody. Hope everyone gets GC soon.
Please tell us why!
Please feel free to delete my id.
I am done here. Wish good luck to everybody. Hope everyone gets GC soon.
more...
pictures Dubai City. Jungle Hotel Dubai
swarnapuri
06-26 12:48 PM
There is a news in news article thread that Senators Cantwell & Kyl have proposed a amendment which will open up a parallel employer sponsored GC path. Anyone has information regarding this amendment?
dresses Dubai Atlantis Hotel
ganam
10-03 10:02 PM
Does anybody know in what order GC will be issueed ?
Is it based on priority date or just randomly ?
Is it based on priority date or just randomly ?
more...
makeup $1.5bn hotel Atlantis on
rockstart
02-10 05:05 PM
Since your wife is the primary applicant as you mentioned I dont think you need to wait for 180 days. Your employer is no way concerened with your EAD/ GC. But in case both you and your wife are working for same H1 employer then you moving might ring alarm bells for him but in case 180 days are already over then there is not much he can do.
girlfriend Atlantis Hotel thrown
amsgc
04-22 09:59 PM
Indian companies like wipro, infosys discourage GC processes.
If that is the case, then PDs should move forward once we are past FY2004.
The question is, how many are there in FY2004?!!
If that is the case, then PDs should move forward once we are past FY2004.
The question is, how many are there in FY2004?!!
hairstyles Atlantis The Palm Hotel Dubai
yganreddy
06-16 08:40 PM
Hi Guys,
My personal experience on this. In my case I found a positive skin test and went for X-ray scan. In xray scan they found a module and USCIS doctor is reluctant to give a 693 until I got clearance from PCP. I researched a lot on this and found that positive skin test might be because of different bacteria in body which may cause to bump and not exactly the TB bacteria. There is a new test called TB gold test, where they will specifically test for TB bacteria in blood sample. This was negative in my case and got a result from pulminology department. USCIS approved doctor gave 693 after reviewing it. My GC got approved without any problem. Accuracy in tb gold test is 97% where as skin test is 70 to 80%. I agree the volume of tests are less but the new technology is more accurate than the old. Hope this helps.
Thanks
My personal experience on this. In my case I found a positive skin test and went for X-ray scan. In xray scan they found a module and USCIS doctor is reluctant to give a 693 until I got clearance from PCP. I researched a lot on this and found that positive skin test might be because of different bacteria in body which may cause to bump and not exactly the TB bacteria. There is a new test called TB gold test, where they will specifically test for TB bacteria in blood sample. This was negative in my case and got a result from pulminology department. USCIS approved doctor gave 693 after reviewing it. My GC got approved without any problem. Accuracy in tb gold test is 97% where as skin test is 70 to 80%. I agree the volume of tests are less but the new technology is more accurate than the old. Hope this helps.
Thanks
tinku01
07-15 02:33 PM
please give yr priority date and any one has idea when consulate issues the date my PD is June'2004 EB2 and file is with delhi consulate from Oct'2007. Lets see what happens now.
pitha
06-11 12:25 PM
if you saw any of the news shows over the weekend everybody says the chances of this passing the senate are about 33% and even if it passes the senate it might not pass the house. even kyl was skeptical about its chances. this is our chance, lets oppose this bill tooth and nail. no bill is better bill for us as long as kennedy, kyl and durbin are around. please oppose this bill
No comments:
Post a Comment