desi3933
02-09 01:55 PM
.....
Both the company C and company A was owned by one person. So even i was working with the company C, my payroll was under Company A. Right after I received my labor certificate from Company A, my lawyer suggested my transfer my H1b from Company C to company A. Then i received my h1b approval for company A in Jan 2007 to October 2008.
.........
EB3 (ROW)..PD May 2006
If Company A and C are related business entities, why H1-B transfer was needed from C to A.
>> So even i was working with the company C, my payroll was under Company A.
When you were getting paycheck from A, did you raise this issue?
Did you put this information in Employment History for I-485? What was your last entry into USA?
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
Both the company C and company A was owned by one person. So even i was working with the company C, my payroll was under Company A. Right after I received my labor certificate from Company A, my lawyer suggested my transfer my H1b from Company C to company A. Then i received my h1b approval for company A in Jan 2007 to October 2008.
.........
EB3 (ROW)..PD May 2006
If Company A and C are related business entities, why H1-B transfer was needed from C to A.
>> So even i was working with the company C, my payroll was under Company A.
When you were getting paycheck from A, did you raise this issue?
Did you put this information in Employment History for I-485? What was your last entry into USA?
_______________________
Not a legal advice.
US Citizen of Indian Origin
wallpaper Keira Knightley In “Coco
vikaschowdhry
06-06 07:36 AM
seahawks you said:
A passport must me valid at least 6 months is my understanding when I got my H1 renewed.
Could you please provide me a link to an official website that can confirm this?
A passport must me valid at least 6 months is my understanding when I got my H1 renewed.
Could you please provide me a link to an official website that can confirm this?
StuckInTheMuck
05-04 03:39 PM
[I apologize for starting a non-immigration related thread on this personal question.] I am trying to quickly book a US-India Lufthansa flight via Frankfurt for June travel, and the one I am looking at gives me 2-hr stopover (+30mins for boarding) at FRA in between connections, in the same terminal, on the return leg of the trip. My question to those of you who recently traveled via FRA is whether 2-hr is long enough to make the connection. I haven't had such a trip in a while, and not up-to-date with any additional (passport/immigration) verification procedure at this airport. I do know FRA does not require a transit visa.
Thanks a bunch for your time.
Cheers,
stuck
Thanks a bunch for your time.
Cheers,
stuck
2011 Keira Knightley for Chanel
girishvar
08-10 04:44 PM
No Priority Date mentioned or upto 2002 - 51
2003 - 46
2004 - 117
2005 - 140
Upto May 31, 2006 - 70
2003 - 46
2004 - 117
2005 - 140
Upto May 31, 2006 - 70
more...
tinamatthew
07-16 02:10 PM
Today, I spoke to a USCI Agent and his supervisor at NSC about my case..
I quizzed them about July 2007 revised visa bulletin etc.
He looked around, checked it for like 10 minutes and said HE DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MEMO. All he said that he has this MEMO which states that July 2007 (original) bulletin ..based on that EB1-3 for all countries are current.
:-) May be NSC approves application :-) as practically NO ONE can stop them..
Again this is based on my call to actual live human being at NSC..
Hmmmm .. what number did you call? I have a few questions I would like to ask them
I quizzed them about July 2007 revised visa bulletin etc.
He looked around, checked it for like 10 minutes and said HE DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MEMO. All he said that he has this MEMO which states that July 2007 (original) bulletin ..based on that EB1-3 for all countries are current.
:-) May be NSC approves application :-) as practically NO ONE can stop them..
Again this is based on my call to actual live human being at NSC..
Hmmmm .. what number did you call? I have a few questions I would like to ask them
immig4me
11-03 10:08 AM
I don't care much for either party, but I do find "talking points" abhorring as it never considers the practical matters...........
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
What is it about the immigration debate that makes Republicans in Congress act like children?
In the latest stunt, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions - have signed a letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to "detail exactly how much funding" would be needed to "ensure that enforcement of the law occurs consistently for every illegal alien encountered and apprehended."
The answer: A lot.
John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told me that Congress appropriates $2.6 billion each year for the detention and removal of illegal immigrants.
According to Morton, ICE is able to apprehend, process and remove a maximum of about 400,000 immigrants per year. (From October 2009 to September 2010, the Obama administration deported 392,862 people.) This is a record, and yet still only a fraction of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
So to remove 10 million illegal immigrants, it would cost about $65 billion.
There you go, senators. Will that be cash or charge?
Of course, there are also the ancillary costs. First, if the federal government were to cast the net wide enough to apprehend large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants, perhaps by substituting skin color for probable cause (see: Arizona), it's likely to ensnare a good number of U.S.-born Latinos who would probably file a flurry of lawsuits for racial profiling, and thus run up the tab. Second, in the time that it takes to detect, detain and deport 10 million illegal immigrants, many of those who had already been removed would come back - and then have to be re-deported at an additional cost. And third, by spending that much more money on enforcement, federal immigration officials would surely inspire smugglers on the other side of the border to raise their prices. This would only enrich and empower the bad guys to bring in still more illegal immigrants.
Then, there is another problem. As incredible as it sounds, deporting millions of illegal immigrants would be disruptive to Americans' way of life. As Morton pointed out, there would likely be massive and debilitating labor shortages, especially in those industries that currently depend more heavily than they should on illegal immigrant labor.
"No one is talking about letting people go on their way with no punishment whatsoever," Morton said. "But we need a rational discussion of the proper sanction in light of the circumstances."
Republicans are really in no position to talk about seriousness. When serious leadership is called for, they offer only theatrics and chest-thumping. They have to realize that, as a practical matter, ICE can't deport every illegal immigrant it comes in contact with. But they don't care. They only want attention.
The GOP has a lot invested in spinning the yarn that the border can be secured and millions of illegal immigrants expelled through a strategy of enforcement only. Once you adopt this line of thinking, the way to explain the fact that there are still millions of illegal immigrants in the United States is to somehow argue that the Obama administration has been slow to deport them.
This was a harmless delusion when Republicans were in the minority in Congress. But now that they are gaining seats, it could become a real nuisance as politicians proceed to lecture law enforcement officials about the best way to enforce the law.
As the country's top immigration enforcement official, Morton is critical of an enforcement-only approach.
"You have to be much more precise than simply saying 'deport them all'," he said. "That kind of attitude doesn't make sense in the context of how you deal with 10.3 million people."
There you have it. Right on cue, seven Republican senators have stopped making sense.
Read more: Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL#ixzz14ETlnYgq)
Republicans can't talk about immigration enforcement (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/EDL11G5MD9.DTL)
more...
Dhundhun
04-09 02:49 AM
You must be filing under (c)(9). That is AOS pending.
I feel that your current status is "Entered into USA using H1B Visa". I needed to e-file for my wife and mentioned "SPOUSE/CHILD OF H-1 THRU H-3" for that.
Since no one has answered your question, I am just providing information, what I have done. It may not be accurate. I hope no one puts "RED" marks for this. RED marks have become pretty common for providing any suggestion.
I feel that your current status is "Entered into USA using H1B Visa". I needed to e-file for my wife and mentioned "SPOUSE/CHILD OF H-1 THRU H-3" for that.
Since no one has answered your question, I am just providing information, what I have done. It may not be accurate. I hope no one puts "RED" marks for this. RED marks have become pretty common for providing any suggestion.
2010 Chanel Coco Mademoiselle
Leo07
02-17 04:06 PM
Upgrade is any day a better option.
But, given your Dec 2001 PD the number of EB3 applications before you is less than 1100.
Source:http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
I'm thinking that you'd get your GC before your EB2 PERM can get cleared.
My 2 cents...
But, given your Dec 2001 PD the number of EB3 applications before you is less than 1100.
Source:http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/EmploymentDemandUsedForCutOffDates.pdf
I'm thinking that you'd get your GC before your EB2 PERM can get cleared.
My 2 cents...
more...
gmail
12-21 12:31 PM
Hi,
In another thread, IV is proposing only pushing filing 485 before priority date. I try to understand what the benefits are by filing it. For one thing, you can switch jobs after 6 months? How about setting up your own consulting company?
Regards,
In another thread, IV is proposing only pushing filing 485 before priority date. I try to understand what the benefits are by filing it. For one thing, you can switch jobs after 6 months? How about setting up your own consulting company?
Regards,
hair With Keira Knightley and
ajay
12-24 11:38 AM
I have not informed uscis about the change although I updated my address in their website. As regards AC 21, if I am ready to file it my current employer said they will be ready to support it but I haven't started that process yet.
more...
LostInGCProcess
11-07 11:51 AM
Hi,
We have applied for AP on Oct 1st and its still pending .
I have the following questions.
1) Can we enter using the AP thats gets approved when we are outside the US
2) How to expedite AP process other then business emergency as my wife is not working
3) can she enter using H4 even though she has used AP and EAD before. is there any problem to GC
4) I am going to India in Dec , assuming I get the AP by then is it ok for her to enter using h4 and myself AP.
Thanks in Advance for your suggestions
1) No.
2) Other then an Emergency you can't expedite.
3) If you are currently on H1, then she can enter on H4.
4) Same answer as above. You can enter on AP, and if you continue to maintain H1 status, then she can enter on H4.
We have applied for AP on Oct 1st and its still pending .
I have the following questions.
1) Can we enter using the AP thats gets approved when we are outside the US
2) How to expedite AP process other then business emergency as my wife is not working
3) can she enter using H4 even though she has used AP and EAD before. is there any problem to GC
4) I am going to India in Dec , assuming I get the AP by then is it ok for her to enter using h4 and myself AP.
Thanks in Advance for your suggestions
1) No.
2) Other then an Emergency you can't expedite.
3) If you are currently on H1, then she can enter on H4.
4) Same answer as above. You can enter on AP, and if you continue to maintain H1 status, then she can enter on H4.
hot Keira Knightley for Chanel
jliechty
November 1st, 2004, 10:50 AM
No.3 and 4 are my favorites.....but No. 4 is the one I wud choose as best. I like the touch of green and the sky is superb. Horizon Line is straight on. The pic is sharp all around, but what really catches me when I first viewed the picture is the "bolt" in the fence.
I agree, and also agree with FNM's comments about why #1 and #2 don't work for me.
I agree, and also agree with FNM's comments about why #1 and #2 don't work for me.