rex
04-25 03:06 PM
Thank you all for a bunch of good answers.
I will do the electronic address change and send a letter to uscis to represent myself and wait a month before sending in the AC21 letter.
seems to be the best option here.
Pappu. i have updated my profile. I am not a power user of this site because of some restrictions at work, but do appreciate what all of you are doing for the community.
Thank you
Rex
I will do the electronic address change and send a letter to uscis to represent myself and wait a month before sending in the AC21 letter.
seems to be the best option here.
Pappu. i have updated my profile. I am not a power user of this site because of some restrictions at work, but do appreciate what all of you are doing for the community.
Thank you
Rex
wallpaper Dark Grey - DuPont Honda City
dollar500
04-09 07:30 PM
I am currently on H1 and have EAD through my wife (>180 d) (EB3 5/04). I am in a catch 22 situation. I am gettting a fellowship in one of the best program in the nation.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
The problem is they dont want to sponser H1. Now if I utilize the EAD then there is always a risk associated. ALso my wife have to use AC21 to move to this place as well.
Have anybody been in this situation before? Is there anything to negotiate to push them to sponser H1b for me. Can you get H1b from a moonlighting position?
I'd appreciate the help. I really want to join this place and feel that they also really want me as a fellow. They just dont have enough courage to speak up in front of hospital corporate offices.
sk2006
07-14 10:48 PM
Thanks for the quick response...
Could someone please provide me the co-affidavit letter template.
Thanks,
Sangeetha K
Get it from your lawyer. That is what I did.
They know what language would be appropriate for your case.
Could someone please provide me the co-affidavit letter template.
Thanks,
Sangeetha K
Get it from your lawyer. That is what I did.
They know what language would be appropriate for your case.
2011 HONDA CIVIC WHITE MODIFICATION
sabr
09-19 05:39 PM
meaning I can work for company B now and even though my h1b renewal approves with company A? then when I feel like I can go out and reenter before the h1b renewal period ends?
more...
krishmunn
01-05 12:55 PM
They cannot hold your PF no matter what. Send a Attorneys letter (in India) stating that it is illegal for them to hold the PF and they should pay it immediately. It has worked magic for a friend of mine who quit one of the largest IT employer.
As for OPs question on email being binding , it probably is not. To be a binding contract both party need to sign. When you say "Wipro didn't want me to stay longer" do you have any mail to prove that they indeed wanted you to leave earlier ? If you have that, they sure cannot do anything. As for Leave encashment, if it for leave earned in US, complaint to DOL using form WH4 (assuming you are on H1, not L1) .
As for OPs question on email being binding , it probably is not. To be a binding contract both party need to sign. When you say "Wipro didn't want me to stay longer" do you have any mail to prove that they indeed wanted you to leave earlier ? If you have that, they sure cannot do anything. As for Leave encashment, if it for leave earned in US, complaint to DOL using form WH4 (assuming you are on H1, not L1) .
sunny1000
07-24 10:19 PM
Hi all,
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
My I-140 was approved 2.5 years back and I-485 was also approved more than an year back.
But, today the status on my I-140 got changed to "REQUEST FOR INITIAL EVIDENCE SENT, CASE PLACED ON HOLD". I am not sure, why did they reopen the case again. I checked with my company and they assured me that they didn't revoke my I-140.
Could anyone suggest me what's happening to my case. Has anyone seen an similar kind of an issue and suggest me how to proceed ?
Thanks in advance !
HI,
Don't panic. USCIS rarely reopens an approved GC (only in cases of fraud or misrepresentation). If you are talking about the online status, I would not pay too much attention to it as it gives incorrect info sometimes.
If you or your company did actually receive a RFE in the snail mail, get in touch with a good attorney and contact USCIS to see what is going on.
Alternatively, you can contact USCIS customer service yourself, to put your mind at ease.
Good luck.
more...
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.
2010 HONDA CIVIC WHITE MODIFICATION
srsrsr
07-20 06:09 PM
My PD is Nov 2004, I got 140 approved. Im not filing 485 now as im unmarried.
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
Any ideas when can be the date current again(for my PD atleast)?
more...
snthampi
08-17 12:40 PM
I have all proofs timesheets and bankstatements and email conversations. But, i am worried because he is threatening me saying he will go to court and sue me for working at the same client. Do i have chance to win the case if i fight back.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
As your current employer is not the direct client of your former emplyer, they may not have a good case to sue you. They will threaten you to get something out of the situation. So, don't hurry and consult an attorney or get more information from some educated source on this type of matters. By the way, don't tell him what you will do. Just find out what he is trying to do and act accordingly. If you tell him that you will complain to DOL, he will be prepared to face it. Good luck.
hair 2011 images Honda City White
alterego
05-07 07:17 PM
How long can one stay unemployed on EAD? my pd is Nov2005 EB-2
I got laid-off on Monday I was on H1-b. The employer has notified USICS to withdraw the H1-B. But will not be revoking any GC related stuff. Was on H1-b Laid off 485 pending 180days+ have EAD :(
Your responses will be really appreciated.ASAP
A few question pop to mind here.
1) Has your 140 been approved?
2) How easy/difficult is it to get another job in a same/similar job in a reasonable time frame.
3) When is your EAD valid until?
4) Have you had a good relationship with your previous employer and will he leave the 140 untouched.
Here is what I see. H1b cancellation is a red flag for an astute officer. He/she might send you an RFE on your 485 if he/she wishes, you will then need to show present or future job offer pay stubs/offer letter.
If your 140 is not approved, you might need to consider aggressively getting into another job and restarting your application.
If you can find a same/similar job offer within a reasonable time frame, that being a time frame before you either get an RFE or your case is being adjudicated, then you are within the law.
EAD renewal times tend to be one of those junctures where the case profile is reviewed and RFEs come your way. Just my personal experience.
Your 140 being left untouched and your employer willing to help you giving a letter that he has a job for you in the future can quell any nightmare RFE scenario, since EB green card sponsorship is usually for future job offer. Ironically most of us are already gainfully employed................makes you realize how antiquated the EB immigration system really is in this country!
Good luck. Keep us posted.
I got laid-off on Monday I was on H1-b. The employer has notified USICS to withdraw the H1-B. But will not be revoking any GC related stuff. Was on H1-b Laid off 485 pending 180days+ have EAD :(
Your responses will be really appreciated.ASAP
A few question pop to mind here.
1) Has your 140 been approved?
2) How easy/difficult is it to get another job in a same/similar job in a reasonable time frame.
3) When is your EAD valid until?
4) Have you had a good relationship with your previous employer and will he leave the 140 untouched.
Here is what I see. H1b cancellation is a red flag for an astute officer. He/she might send you an RFE on your 485 if he/she wishes, you will then need to show present or future job offer pay stubs/offer letter.
If your 140 is not approved, you might need to consider aggressively getting into another job and restarting your application.
If you can find a same/similar job offer within a reasonable time frame, that being a time frame before you either get an RFE or your case is being adjudicated, then you are within the law.
EAD renewal times tend to be one of those junctures where the case profile is reviewed and RFEs come your way. Just my personal experience.
Your 140 being left untouched and your employer willing to help you giving a letter that he has a job for you in the future can quell any nightmare RFE scenario, since EB green card sponsorship is usually for future job offer. Ironically most of us are already gainfully employed................makes you realize how antiquated the EB immigration system really is in this country!
Good luck. Keep us posted.
more...
saileshdude
05-15 09:42 AM
Mishras,
If your case is genuinely true then you should not have a issue scanning the RFE as is and posting it . You can take out your name and personal info but leave everything else intact if you want to. Also did you contact IV members like Pappu if you really need help. If you indeed got this kind of RFE then you should not hesitate to contact them.
If your case is genuinely true then you should not have a issue scanning the RFE as is and posting it . You can take out your name and personal info but leave everything else intact if you want to. Also did you contact IV members like Pappu if you really need help. If you indeed got this kind of RFE then you should not hesitate to contact them.
hot Honda City 06-07 Modulo
raysaikat
01-29 12:22 PM
My sister got her H-1B in 2008 but didn't work for her employer due to health problems. After about 3 to 4 months she left for India and recovered. Over there she joined a multi-national who sent her on B1 this year. (She already had traveled on B1 from a very old employer and used that).
Now after coming here on B1, she has a job offer from an Indian MNC. My understanding is that the MNC will have to file two petitions:
1. A Change of Status from B1 to H1B
2. A I-129 requesting H-1B (or H-1B transfer)
Question -
a) Can she start working for the Indian MNC after filing both of these two, or will we have to wait for both approvals?
She must wait for H1-B approval (I-797) form. In addition, if the I-797 does not have an attached I-94, then she must go out of the country, get H1-B stamped (if she does not have one) and reenter on H1-B VISA before she can start working.
b) Do we require paystubs from the original H-1B employer from 2008 for H-1B transfer? My understanding is that paystubs are usually required to establish one is currently in status, but she is on B1 right now and not H1B.
Attorneys, please advise.
Much thanks in advance,
P
Now after coming here on B1, she has a job offer from an Indian MNC. My understanding is that the MNC will have to file two petitions:
1. A Change of Status from B1 to H1B
2. A I-129 requesting H-1B (or H-1B transfer)
Question -
a) Can she start working for the Indian MNC after filing both of these two, or will we have to wait for both approvals?
She must wait for H1-B approval (I-797) form. In addition, if the I-797 does not have an attached I-94, then she must go out of the country, get H1-B stamped (if she does not have one) and reenter on H1-B VISA before she can start working.
b) Do we require paystubs from the original H-1B employer from 2008 for H-1B transfer? My understanding is that paystubs are usually required to establish one is currently in status, but she is on B1 right now and not H1B.
Attorneys, please advise.
Much thanks in advance,
P
more...
house Honda City 2010 White
saileshdude
04-27 10:11 PM
a lot of people who applied during July 2007 are getting RFE on 485, I guess this because of pre processing but 99% of these people who are getting RFE are from NSC. I same only one or two people from TSC who got RFE. From this seems like NSC is pre processing but TSC is not.
No TSC is not. TSC goes by priority date and not processing date. TSC I have seen follows different processing style. For e.g. if your namecheck/security check or some kind of check is pending they dont send you FP notice. Also they process applications if your PD is current/close to recent bulletin.
No TSC is not. TSC goes by priority date and not processing date. TSC I have seen follows different processing style. For e.g. if your namecheck/security check or some kind of check is pending they dont send you FP notice. Also they process applications if your PD is current/close to recent bulletin.
tattoo bumper is in white colour and
habil52
09-25 07:50 PM
I am a Master's student and had applied for H1B through a consultant under master quota 2007. I was devastated when the consultant told me today that my H1B was not approved. When i checked online with my WAC no, as expected it said that a decision was mailed to the employer which in most cases means H1B denied.
I have OPT left until dec 07. I haven't yet found a job while on OPT but have been applying for jobs rigorously. I was really banking on the H1B visa for getting a job and then transferring it over to whoever hires me.
With my H1B not approved, I am totally clueless now. Please advice if my H1B application can be reconsidered/re-appealed/ resubmitted. Any other options/suggestions welcome.
Get a job in either an educational, research or a non profit organization and reapply for H1B under quote exempt category. do it soon as that too takes time... preferably through premium processing after securing a job. good luck.
I have OPT left until dec 07. I haven't yet found a job while on OPT but have been applying for jobs rigorously. I was really banking on the H1B visa for getting a job and then transferring it over to whoever hires me.
With my H1B not approved, I am totally clueless now. Please advice if my H1B application can be reconsidered/re-appealed/ resubmitted. Any other options/suggestions welcome.
Get a job in either an educational, research or a non profit organization and reapply for H1B under quote exempt category. do it soon as that too takes time... preferably through premium processing after securing a job. good luck.
more...
pictures 2009 Honda City
ravi
09-13 10:55 PM
I am eligible for emeregency appointment as I am coming to India to
attend visa interview as I got new i-20 for MBA program starting january
2007. Please I request you to provide me information on how to shcedule
intervie before dec10, 2006, so that accordingly I will buy the
flight tickets.
My international advisor in school will also provide me recommendation
if needed for emergency appointment, showing my need.
attend visa interview as I got new i-20 for MBA program starting january
2007. Please I request you to provide me information on how to shcedule
intervie before dec10, 2006, so that accordingly I will buy the
flight tickets.
My international advisor in school will also provide me recommendation
if needed for emergency appointment, showing my need.
dresses Foot Step modulo -.
![honda city white modulo. [Mod Edit] Car Is not for sale](http://cache.pakwheels.com/forums/2008/11/6/car_piks..!!_012_KZD_PakWheels(com).jpg "[Mod Edit] Car Is not for sale")
saileshdude
09-04 11:37 AM
You can work on h1b - you will get H1b based on existing approved 140 and pending 485.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
If 140 is revoked by employer you may get a RFE or NOID or in rare cases erroneous denial but you can continue on h1b while you respond to RFE or NOID oor through MTR to erroneous denial.
Sending AC21 docs does not necessarily mean you may not get NOID - AC21 docs seldom go into your file.
This is yet another inefficiency on their part. When it comes to AC21 your file does not even get updated even though you may have attached I-485 receipt along with AC21 filing. But when the employer revokes I-140 they don't forget to send you NOID or even I-485 denial.
more...
makeup honda city 2011 modulo
gcfriend65
12-07 02:47 PM
Its ok to take online classes as long as you are on your h-1.
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
Yes.
I think you can take classes (online or even regular in-class) as long as you maintian your primary H1B status - i.e. continue to work with the employer on the specified job/number of hours etc.
(note: I am not a lawyer)
girlfriend Honda City/Jazz
hpandey
06-02 04:17 PM
can i get a h1 done from a desi employer just to protect the h4 status and join the other company thats offering me a job with my ead.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
As Kaiserose pointed out the H1 quota is done for the year and will not open till April next year and start in Oct 2009 . Considering that you do get an H1 for your wife next year , make sure that she is working coz while applying for her I-485 they might ask for W2's and paystubs for her ( an H1 person cannot be without pay for such an extended period of time ).
Going on F1 is a good idea but I think for that you have to go back to your home country and get it stamped and come back ( can someone confirm this ?? ). This new regulation was put in place due to the security measures after 2001 . But best confirm with your lawyer.
the h1 from the desi employer will not be having pay stubs but thats only to get h1 status.
As Kaiserose pointed out the H1 quota is done for the year and will not open till April next year and start in Oct 2009 . Considering that you do get an H1 for your wife next year , make sure that she is working coz while applying for her I-485 they might ask for W2's and paystubs for her ( an H1 person cannot be without pay for such an extended period of time ).
Going on F1 is a good idea but I think for that you have to go back to your home country and get it stamped and come back ( can someone confirm this ?? ). This new regulation was put in place due to the security measures after 2001 . But best confirm with your lawyer.
hairstyles My Very Own Honda City
Scythe
11-27 05:09 PM
I guess my button was too simple after all.
life99f
05-14 07:02 PM
Thank you!
edaltsis
11-12 01:23 PM
You can submit the current (new) company paystub. They will ask for the most recent/current paystub but not the past one. But however it cannot be ruled out that they will not ask previous ones, it all depends on the officer.
No comments:
Post a Comment