chunky
07-27 08:49 AM
Can we leave country and apply for H4 visa at US embassy.
Will I 485 be abandoned with it.
Thanks
To travel out of the US when a 485 is pending,
1. You should have AP or
2. A valid H-1, H-4 or L-1, L-2 stamp on the passport + 485 receipt
So in your case, you have to wait until you either get the AP or the H-4 change is effective. Until then, you cannot travel.
Will I 485 be abandoned with it.
Thanks
To travel out of the US when a 485 is pending,
1. You should have AP or
2. A valid H-1, H-4 or L-1, L-2 stamp on the passport + 485 receipt
So in your case, you have to wait until you either get the AP or the H-4 change is effective. Until then, you cannot travel.
wallpaper justin bieber buscemi. ieber
Rayyan
08-04 12:52 PM
Please http://www.indiacgny.org/
under Consular services----> passport----> name change.
It is pretyy easy.
Thx
under Consular services----> passport----> name change.
It is pretyy easy.
Thx
Hassan11
04-08 11:13 AM
is MTR the same thing as Appeal?? so far I haven't heard from the Appeal borad. as I mentioned before the HR Manager sent them a letter at the end of Jan 2008 requesting an update on my appeal but she hasn't heard anything from them. this is really taking forever. all we want them to do is to make a decision, either accept the appeal or deny, so i can move on.
I would definitely be interested to see how your MTR pans out. Please keep us posted. We filed a MTR back in 2005 for a PERM case that was denied because the salary was wrong on a job opening notice - we ended up winning the MTR and the case was approved but not until mid-2007. We have had some erroneous denials recently and are looking to file the motions to reconsider, so I would love to know your experience if you receive a decision.
I would definitely be interested to see how your MTR pans out. Please keep us posted. We filed a MTR back in 2005 for a PERM case that was denied because the salary was wrong on a job opening notice - we ended up winning the MTR and the case was approved but not until mid-2007. We have had some erroneous denials recently and are looking to file the motions to reconsider, so I would love to know your experience if you receive a decision.
2011 with Steve Buscemi#39;s Eyes
gc2
09-23 01:34 PM
pd is june 06. labor is perm. if i become a consultant would i join a new employer on EAD or H transfer or would it not make a difference ?
more...
delax
11-06 08:53 AM
Can we know which airline direct flight from Mumbai to Newark you mentioned something new or is it AirIndia??
Presently Continental is the only non-stop EWR-BOM service operated on a daily basis. AI flies EWR-CDG-BOM
Presently Continental is the only non-stop EWR-BOM service operated on a daily basis. AI flies EWR-CDG-BOM
yabadaba
05-21 07:29 AM
was this when you were entering canada?
more...
funny
01-29 06:30 PM
Sam thing happened with my wife, USCIS denied her I131 saying they have already approved the 485 so no need for I131. My lawyer thinks that this was a mistake from USCIS and we applied for her I131 again.
Hope this helps.
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
Hope this helps.
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
2010 From Chicks with Steve Buscemi
pappu
03-12 11:21 AM
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Congrats.
Could you update your profile please to help others
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Congrats.
Could you update your profile please to help others
more...
kannan
07-28 10:25 PM
I too got the same two mails. First mail on 20 th and last mail on 22 nd.Mine is approved from Texas on JAN 2006.My PD is Nov 2005,but I used only PD to apply I-485.My current AOS is from another company.Did you or your lawyer get any postal mail?
hair Selena Gomez with Buscemi eyes
telekinesis
10-20 10:53 PM
Hellz yea, I hate those **** start things, beeps work well!
more...
valuablehurdle
01-18 10:37 AM
Ria,
This not correct. if you are on H visa in USA, you can definitely apply for Canadian Landed Immigration. In order to maintain your immigration in Canada, you have to stay atleast 2 years in Canada in a 5 year period.
Moreover, in order to fulfill your citizenship requirement, you have to be physically present in Canada for atleast 3 years.
I hope this helps.
A Canadian Citizen.
---------------------------------------------
This not correct. if you are on H visa in USA, you can definitely apply for Canadian Landed Immigration. In order to maintain your immigration in Canada, you have to stay atleast 2 years in Canada in a 5 year period.
Moreover, in order to fulfill your citizenship requirement, you have to be physically present in Canada for atleast 3 years.
I hope this helps.
A Canadian Citizen.
---------------------------------------------
hot Hot girls w steve uscemi eyes
Vsach
07-17 05:20 PM
Thanks To You All It Would Not Have Been Possible Without Your Support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
more...
house Justin Bieber
chunky
07-26 03:14 PM
Lawyer told that after AOS filing one is in dual status so no worry. But I am not 100 % sure
tattoo Justin Bieber,
s416504
11-16 01:30 PM
After entering US on AP you need to inform you employer. Your status after entering on AP makes you a Parolee ??????????
Inform verbally/New I9 Form? I haven't done this in past. I did used AP 2-3 times in past & haven't informed employer. What employer is going to do if we inform that we are on parolee status? Any USCIS law tells this to do?
Can any lawyer comment on this situation?
If you enter US using your AP even for the same employer you will no longer have your H1B status valid, you an return back to H1B status only after a renewal. After entering US on AP you need to inform you employer. Your status after entering on AP makes you a Parolee.
Inform verbally/New I9 Form? I haven't done this in past. I did used AP 2-3 times in past & haven't informed employer. What employer is going to do if we inform that we are on parolee status? Any USCIS law tells this to do?
Can any lawyer comment on this situation?
If you enter US using your AP even for the same employer you will no longer have your H1B status valid, you an return back to H1B status only after a renewal. After entering US on AP you need to inform you employer. Your status after entering on AP makes you a Parolee.
more...
pictures Girls With Steve Buscemi Eyes
waitnwatch
05-17 10:44 PM
That is true. This thing called "special handling" in common parlance is, thank god, not a hot topic of discussion. I hope this clause doesn't get weeded out given the current scenario where they have killed F4. I really wonder if "highly skilled" legal immigrants would ultimately get any benefit out of this bill. Limboland is where many people are - and at the end of the day you still get to live in Limboland and become its citizens by default.
My two cents! :( :(
My two cents! :( :(
dresses Steve Buscemi#39;s Eyes
trueguy
12-12 06:11 PM
DOS/USCIS had a co-ordination meeting to discuss how to prepare for the upcoming holiday's. The outcome of the meeting was to push EB2 cases as back as possible , so that people really can have a good time enjoying holiday. (When I say people read it as USCIS/FBI/DOS and lawyers ).
:)
I work for Federal agency as contractor I know very well how things work during the holiday season.
Happy long long holiday's you all.
All this fuss is for Jan'08 visa bulletin. What Holidays you are talking about in Jan'08?
:)
I work for Federal agency as contractor I know very well how things work during the holiday season.
Happy long long holiday's you all.
All this fuss is for Jan'08 visa bulletin. What Holidays you are talking about in Jan'08?
more...
makeup Steve Buscemi Ouch
malibuguy007
12-21 12:37 PM
Munna Bhai and Walking Dude, if you don't have anything constructive to add, and you cannot encourage others, then please do not litter the forums.
girlfriend Steve Buscemi Eyes
langagadu
03-29 03:53 PM
nope
hairstyles it was Buscemi eyes.
Canadianindian
07-24 06:34 AM
You folks can apply for a Canadian immigration for yourself. It would take atleast 6 months. While she can live on Canadian bording city such as Windsor, and you can work in Detroit, MI. Detroit and Windsor are about 2 miles from each other, and I know many ppl who live in Windsro and work in Detroit.
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
desi3933
03-04 11:50 AM
Well - we all know this but if the question is "Do you have a Green Card? Yes or No ?" if you give the above answer, you have not provided a specific answer.
.....
>> Do you have a Green Card?
This is not a legal question. If question is posted on web-site, that can be reported.
Like in said my earlier post, employer can not ask for kind of employment authorization.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
.....
>> Do you have a Green Card?
This is not a legal question. If question is posted on web-site, that can be reported.
Like in said my earlier post, employer can not ask for kind of employment authorization.
________________________
Not a legal advice.
US citizen of Indian origin
No comments:
Post a Comment