SSSarkar
12-11 09:29 AM
Automatic revalidation for getting new visa in USA was stopped in 2004. But I suppose automatic revalidation for I-94 while coming from Canada/Mexico is not stopped yet. I may be wrong but check it by yourself the latest rule from US department of state through the link here.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1441.html
Guys,
My understanding was that automatic revalidation was stopped a few years ago?
I would say that getting an appointment and a new visa stamp is the safest bet. If that's not a possibility and you have to go, I will suggest travel by road instead of air. From what I have heard they tend to be more lenient when you are driving across.
Do check thoroughly before travelling on an expired visa.
Take Care
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1441.html
Guys,
My understanding was that automatic revalidation was stopped a few years ago?
I would say that getting an appointment and a new visa stamp is the safest bet. If that's not a possibility and you have to go, I will suggest travel by road instead of air. From what I have heard they tend to be more lenient when you are driving across.
Do check thoroughly before travelling on an expired visa.
Take Care
gc_buddy
05-05 09:59 AM
Years before, the back log was at Labor Stage, then when PERM Labor came into existance, the back log was at 485 stage, now with non-concurrent filing I think the I 140 will get backlogged.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
05/05/2008: USCIS May Initiate Rule Making Process in June 2008 for Termination of Concurrent I-140/I-485 Filing Procedure
* As we reported earlier, the USCIS has been considering halting the concurrent filing procedure quite some time. Initially it was planning to commence the procedure to publish this proposed rule in November 2008. However, the latest information reflects that the proposed may be released next month, June 2008 with the two months of comment period through August 2008. People are cautioned that this is just a "proposed" rule stage. After the comment period is over, the agency will still have to go through the final rule making procedure with another cycle of OMB review and publication of the rule. There are nothing to panic about at this time. However, people may be conscious of the upcoming change in the filing procedures for I-140 petition and I-485 application from the current single-tier procedure when the visa number is available to the two-tier procedure. Please stay tuned to this website for this important development of immigration procedure changes.
http://www.immigration-law.com/
05/05/2008: USCIS May Initiate Rule Making Process in June 2008 for Termination of Concurrent I-140/I-485 Filing Procedure
* As we reported earlier, the USCIS has been considering halting the concurrent filing procedure quite some time. Initially it was planning to commence the procedure to publish this proposed rule in November 2008. However, the latest information reflects that the proposed may be released next month, June 2008 with the two months of comment period through August 2008. People are cautioned that this is just a "proposed" rule stage. After the comment period is over, the agency will still have to go through the final rule making procedure with another cycle of OMB review and publication of the rule. There are nothing to panic about at this time. However, people may be conscious of the upcoming change in the filing procedures for I-140 petition and I-485 application from the current single-tier procedure when the visa number is available to the two-tier procedure. Please stay tuned to this website for this important development of immigration procedure changes.
gccube
04-21 12:39 PM
I got the Card Production Ordered e-mail today. No LUD even last night at 1 Am. Only one LUD today. My case is processed at Texas service center. And my receipt date is not with in their processing times.
Good luck to everyone.
Good luck to everyone.
nishant2200
04-08 04:10 PM
I think they moved very cautiously because of porting. Porting seems to be much more serious than we all thought maybe. Also as well as since it's just may, they traditionally don't open floodgates until late.
more...
mani_r1
12-12 11:42 AM
Give them one orginal. Subsequent trips, just tell them that you have only one original and they will make copies. Some body posted a memo but i am telling you from my personal experience that they do not insist for original if you dont want to give them one.
Thanks ck_b2001
Thanks ck_b2001
aa_ke_phas_gaya
06-24 06:02 PM
Remember you are bonded labor if you are on H1B or Work Permit. They will use you & your illegal brothers every election year and this is one of those years ..... everything is chatter until something heppens.
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
Don't get your hopes high.... just get your head down and work for them.
more...
nashdel
08-07 11:09 PM
Mine approved August 2nd, Wife`s pending. May be this is one of the administrative fixes from USCIS! As primary on EAD I would have to Work in same job classification, can not stay here for long without work or open a new business. But spouse on EAD can do either one of those per my knowledge. They can allot visa number to another primary. I do not think this is the reasoning from USCIS and there has to be some other reason though such as security check. I wonder if it is smart for them to allot visa numbers to primary and secondary in 2:1 ratio. Will ease problems for lot of people.
gxr
10-01 03:29 PM
Anyone with Oct 06 or earlier RD still waiting for I-140 approval?
more...
amsgc
12-11 12:50 AM
In a testimony to the House Judiciary Committee back in Apr/May 08, the USCIS clearly stated that it had changed its policy regarding which applications would be adjudicated first.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
As I remember, USCIS stated that it was now following a policy where cases that had a possibility of getting a visa number in the near future were adjudicated first. It said that this change in policy was made in order to reduce waste of immigrant visas.
The problem with this approach is that:
- It is not FIFO
- EB2-I/C and EB3 not only continue to remain retrogressed, but retrogression worsens.
Here is how:
Since EB2-I/EB3-I categories are already retrogressed, the I-485 applications in this category will be shelved until it appears that a visa number may become available in the foreseeable future.
So, USCIS puts most of these cases in cold storage while it adjudicates and approves the EB2ROW applications as it receives them on a continuous basis.
When time comes to roll over excess EB2 ROW numbers, two things happen:
- Already substantial use of EB2ROW numbers make few numbers available for roll over
- Limited adjudication of Eb2-I/C and EB3 cases make a very small pool of pre-adjudicated applications. USCIS requests DOS to move dates so that it has access to a larger pool for cherry picking.
The result is that VB dates move forward by leaps and bounds and cases are approved haphazardly with PDs all over the map. When the excess numbers are used up, the dates for EB2-I/C and EB3 retrogress back to previous cutoff dates because there are still a lot of old cases that have not even been brought out of cold storage. The EB2ROW dates are again current because USCIS has adjudicated and approved EB2ROW cases throughout the year- so no backlog there.
If USCIS followed FIFO, then the following would happen:
- USCIS would be adjudicating old EB2I/C and EB3 cases right now, and not the recently received EB2ROW cases.
- This would reduce the number of pre-adjudicated EB2ROW cases and hence lower the demand in the EB2ROW category.
- When time would come to roll over numbers not used by EB2ROW:
- A large pool number of excess visas would be available
- A large pool of pre-adjudicated EB2-I/C and EB3 cases with old PDs would be available that could be readily assigned visa numbers.
As a result, old cases would be assigned visa numbers and backlog would be reduced.
Unfortunately, USCIS has confused its process of adjudicating cases (which is FIFO) with its effort to enforce the country quota. The country limits come into picture only when cases ready for adjudication are to be assigned visa numbers. The process of adjudication should still be FIFO, and not determined by the country quota.
I wonder how it is they justify over 70K visas to EB2ROW, keeping it current all year, when EB2 I was so retrogressed and got only 15K. FIFO my foot. This is the most mismanaged, subjective thing I have ever seen. Translated for us, luck of the draw.
WeldonSprings
05-27 12:44 PM
You probably won't get a FP notice if you have done biometrics done before for I-485.
So may just have to wait for approval.
I E-filed on Apr-13th. Sent doc's on Apr-19th. LUD Apr-21st. No Photo's sent with doc's.
Waiting for FP/Approval.
So may just have to wait for approval.
I E-filed on Apr-13th. Sent doc's on Apr-19th. LUD Apr-21st. No Photo's sent with doc's.
Waiting for FP/Approval.
more...
jo3350
05-13 10:16 AM
President Bush is going to be giving a speech on Immigration this Monday at 8 p.m EST. Is there any way IV can get the Issue of Legal Immikgration addressed in his speech.
amitjoey
07-13 05:24 PM
That means you have no reputation at all :D :D :D .. kidding.
I think all that means is that no one has given you any reputation point yet.
Man, this is so funny, Somebody give me some good or atleast some bad reputation :D :D :D :D
I think all that means is that no one has given you any reputation point yet.
Man, this is so funny, Somebody give me some good or atleast some bad reputation :D :D :D :D
more...
vagish
04-18 11:13 PM
--
Patience my lovelies. This may be the calm before the storm, who knows.
Per some news report, a debate has been scheduled on Senate floor to debate a comprehensive immigration reform bill during last two weeks of May'07
the other immigration bills are introduced by republicans, not with democratic support, so those bills are going no where. Only hope is STRIVE!!
thanks
Patience my lovelies. This may be the calm before the storm, who knows.
Per some news report, a debate has been scheduled on Senate floor to debate a comprehensive immigration reform bill during last two weeks of May'07
the other immigration bills are introduced by republicans, not with democratic support, so those bills are going no where. Only hope is STRIVE!!
thanks
DDash
04-05 08:34 AM
Bump
more...
perm2gc
12-01 06:23 PM
this info is incorrect. from a murthy chat transcript...... available at :
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
hmm..its a news for me.thks for correcting me.
http://www.murthy.com/chatlogs/ch102306_P.html
Chat User : I have used 6 years of my H1B and have got extension for 3 more years. Can I change employers based on a 7th-year approval? Is it legal to do so? Thank you very much for advice.
Attorney Murthy : After one has an I-140 petition approved in her/his name, s/he is allowed to file for a new 3-year H1B extension with a new or different employer based on the I-140 petition approval with another employer. Then, during the 3-year H1B timeframe, the person could potentially start a new PERM/LC process with the new employer and, thereafter, rely on the new filing for future H1B extensions, in case the earlier employer cancels or revokes the earlier LC or I-140 petition.
hmm..its a news for me.thks for correcting me.
pappu
09-22 07:12 PM
Title: Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/21/2010)
Cosponsors Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] -
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] -
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] -
Introduced in the Senate.
This bill will give companies a two-year holiday from their share of Social Security payroll withholding taxes for each employee they hire to replace a worker at a foreign-based facility. The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would bar companies from taking tax credits or deductions for the cost of closing a U.S.-based facility to move the operation overseas.Companies could still take deductions for severance and job placement services for employees who lose their jobs as a result of a U.S. plant closing. Under the legislation, companies that close a U.S.-based business and expand it overseas would no longer be allowed to defer U.S. income taxes on foreign subsidiaries.
Reid has the option to set up a procedural vote next week
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (introduced 9/21/2010)
Cosponsors Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] -
Sen Reid, Harry [NV] -
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] -
Introduced in the Senate.
This bill will give companies a two-year holiday from their share of Social Security payroll withholding taxes for each employee they hire to replace a worker at a foreign-based facility. The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would bar companies from taking tax credits or deductions for the cost of closing a U.S.-based facility to move the operation overseas.Companies could still take deductions for severance and job placement services for employees who lose their jobs as a result of a U.S. plant closing. Under the legislation, companies that close a U.S.-based business and expand it overseas would no longer be allowed to defer U.S. income taxes on foreign subsidiaries.
Reid has the option to set up a procedural vote next week
more...
raydon
09-17 09:50 AM
If CNN drops Lou that will not pass CIR or recapture. There are so much Lou Dobbs are there in USA. It is a waste of time.
Exactly. I was of the same opinion. CNN dumping a pathetic whiny loser like Lou Dobbs might give temporary satisfaction, but it has no positive effect on EB immigration. Plus there are a dozen other idiots who might be ready to replace him as the crazy-in-chief on that stupid talk show. Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
Exactly. I was of the same opinion. CNN dumping a pathetic whiny loser like Lou Dobbs might give temporary satisfaction, but it has no positive effect on EB immigration. Plus there are a dozen other idiots who might be ready to replace him as the crazy-in-chief on that stupid talk show. Why even bother?
Forget worrying about about CNN and Lou Dobbs. They are NOBODY and of no significance for the quest for immigration reform.
spicy_guy
04-25 01:18 PM
we live in Chicagoland. PM me if you would like to talk.
Sent a PM. Can you pls check?
Sent a PM. Can you pls check?
se_vnt3
02-24 03:41 PM
To whom it may concern, please, help us. Everything we ever learned from the U.S. about truth and justice is suddenly being deprived of any meaning by the U.S. itself. The hardest part for us is believing that everything we�ve based our lives on � the American way, has no merit.
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
I was deported from the United States of America on February 18, 2005. I lived there nearly 30 years since I was 20 months old, when my mother crossed the Rio Grande into the country with me illegally. I was given an opportunity to become legal under the NACARA law but was to afraid of being deported like Maricela Soza was under the same law and didn�t go through with the entire process. I have both a husband and a son who are U.S. citizens but I am permanently prohibited by Immigration law from immigrating to the United States, while at the same time I am allowed to visit. Due to my drug convictions amounting to possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. It�s Immigration law�s contradicting policies which I find disturbing.
U.S. Immigration is concerned with their citizens� welfare but it is denying my husband�s and my son�s requests to have me back by their side for good. Although Immigration law will value my wish to receive admission into the United States. Needless to say I prefer returning, immigrating and remaining in the country by my family�s side. That�s not taking into account the fact that I am still homesick and continue experiencing culture shock in Nicaragua. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing to my family and I is cruel, inhumane and unpatriotic. No free country�s government has any business deciding how families should be formed or whose personal choice is agreeable or not. Like that of my son�s and husband�s choice to overlook my shortcomings and begin our lives over together again.
The 212(d)(3) Waiver allows a visitor�s visa into the U.S. to be issued to an Alien like me if I show evidence of rehabilitation such as becoming a practicing professional with a U.S. job offer. Sometimes with lone proof of a bank savings account, school registration and satisfactory travel record. On the other hand there isn�t one waiver available for United States Citizens who wish to rebuild their lives with an Alien deported for any drug charge(s) of possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana. Not only are Andrew�s(my son) and Thomas�(my husband) needs being ignored but my needs are being placed before their own. An act I dare name TREASON.
How much more is the United States citizens� welfare secured if an Alien with an undesirable drug history enters the United States merely to visit and not to immigrate? Shouldn�t all United States citizens� needs and rights within and from their country � such as my husband�s and my son�s, come before any Alien�s need or right to receive admission into the U.S., including my own? Also, shouldn�t Family-Based Immigration take first place over �Alien travel� for any reason?
I regret to say it�s these types of injustices with devastating consequences to the recipient�s and his/her immediate relatives� personal lives remaining raveled, much more unacknowledged that play a large role in the cause for conflict concerning disloyalty and unpopularity among U.S. citizens and foreign nationals inside and outside of the United States. I trust that once this oversight is brought to DHS�s attention they will not knowingly continue punishing my husband and my son for loving me, an Alien who once stumbled while attempting to survive in the U.S.. I�m afraid to imagine how many individuals involved in cases like my family�s and mine go on thinking that the U.S. is a bad country for having the audacity to pass judgment on them. I�ve had to believe there�s a glitch somewhere in immigration law caused by simple human error. I can�t accept that the U.S. I grew to know as a loving, Christian country with caring values is intentionally causing my loved ones and I grief. It goes without saying that as much as the United States has a duty to protect its citizens it also has a duty to be equally diplomatic toward foreigners and not continue persecuting the one or the other long after any condemning sentence has been exacted and executed. I know the United States of America will do right by my son, my husband, me, and the rest of its citizens and foreign nationals in our predicament.
We want the 212(d)(3) Non-Immigrant Visas Waiver made into an Immigrant Visas Waiver for Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens to make sure United States citizens receive competent protection from the Department of Homeland Security and adequate protection from the United States of America. I believe a Waiver should be available to me for my deportation charge including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana so my husband and son can claim me and I can immigrate to the U.S.. But immigration law only makes such a Waiver available to Foreign Nationals who wish to travel to the U.S.(and who also have the same charge as me: deportation including possession of more than one count of 30 grams of marijuana). My husband�s and my son�s Freedom Of Belief civil liberty is being violated because their belief is being discriminated against. I am not able to immigrate to the U.S. because immigration law doesn�t allow me a Waiver enabling my husband or son to claim me successfully. If I had a Waiver available to me they wouldn�t have to be at this crossroads making their case public in the courts, therefore their Right To Privacy is also being violated as a result of their belief being discriminated against. Please, help bring justice to these afflicted, we need your input. How should we proceed?
munnashi
10-31 06:08 AM
Guru's
My I140 is approved on October 24 2007 and original document has got my lawyer and employer, but I have not received any original document. My question is: Does I can get original document or I have to ask to my lawyer or employer?
My I140 is approved on October 24 2007 and original document has got my lawyer and employer, but I have not received any original document. My question is: Does I can get original document or I have to ask to my lawyer or employer?
LostInGCProcess
08-26 02:23 PM
She can work for any company she wants... her EAD is not limited to any job/profession... So she can work for Company B or C or D
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
"She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status..."
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion...she is a dependent I-485 applicant. Does it really matter if she is on H1 or H4? I think that is not true what you are saying.
PS - My wife works for company B using AP/EAD that came as a result of my I485 done by my employer. So she should enter on AP and use EAD to work. No issues. She can always have the H1 in her back pocket for back up... I would consult a lawyer if I were you before using the H1...
She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status...
Hope this helps...
"She can not get an H4 though... thats seen as abandoning your AOS status..."
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion...she is a dependent I-485 applicant. Does it really matter if she is on H1 or H4? I think that is not true what you are saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment