Ram_C
11-14 01:21 PM
My wife's EAD has not yet been approved. It has been 92 days since the receive date. We had an infopass appointment today. I did not apply for EAD.
The officer we met with mentioned that the EAD is issued only after the biometrics are done. I highly doubt this is the norm. Our FP is scheduled for Nov 21st. he said that the service center will electronically send the photo/fp to nebraska. Only then can I expect to see any movement on the EAD application.
I have heard that your FP/biometrics does not have anything to with EAD. However, this officer gave us information that is totally contrary to what we have seen in recent times. He mentioned that this is the latest procedure. He suggested that we should schedule another infopass appointment only If we do not get the EAD 3-4 weeks after the biometrics.
Any inputs from people with similar experience?
Yes you are true, FP doesn't have anything to do with EAD approval.
However if you apply EAD online, then you will get FP notice as a part of the process.
good luck :)
The officer we met with mentioned that the EAD is issued only after the biometrics are done. I highly doubt this is the norm. Our FP is scheduled for Nov 21st. he said that the service center will electronically send the photo/fp to nebraska. Only then can I expect to see any movement on the EAD application.
I have heard that your FP/biometrics does not have anything to with EAD. However, this officer gave us information that is totally contrary to what we have seen in recent times. He mentioned that this is the latest procedure. He suggested that we should schedule another infopass appointment only If we do not get the EAD 3-4 weeks after the biometrics.
Any inputs from people with similar experience?
Yes you are true, FP doesn't have anything to do with EAD approval.
However if you apply EAD online, then you will get FP notice as a part of the process.
good luck :)
wallpaper The Royal Wedding looks to be
anjans
04-29 06:21 PM
Nice article here. It also compares the experience on how folks did once they went back. The needle is surely moving away from USA.
America is bleeding competitiveness | VentureBeat (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/)
America is bleeding competitiveness | VentureBeat (http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/28/brain-drain-or-brain-circulation-america-is-bleeding-competitiveness/)
desi3933
02-18 06:21 PM
Are guys nut? Don't you want to watch your child grow?! :confused:
Given your situation, you guys will be staying away from kid for a decade or more. Once your wife delivers the baby in India, file for a baby's green card. For tentative dates on family reunion, please refer family based 2nd preferences at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4428.html - lighter note these dates or tentative only not written in stone :D
If I were you, I would not allow your wife to give birth in India and miss watching the child grow.
wandmaker -
Child will be GC holder by birth, if both parents are GC holders. Child must make a trip to US before he/she turns two and trip must be with mother.
Child will, of course, need passport. But no visa.
This is one of the few exceptions when person does not need visa to travel.
Hope it helps.
_________________
Not a legal advise.
Given your situation, you guys will be staying away from kid for a decade or more. Once your wife delivers the baby in India, file for a baby's green card. For tentative dates on family reunion, please refer family based 2nd preferences at http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4428.html - lighter note these dates or tentative only not written in stone :D
If I were you, I would not allow your wife to give birth in India and miss watching the child grow.
wandmaker -
Child will be GC holder by birth, if both parents are GC holders. Child must make a trip to US before he/she turns two and trip must be with mother.
Child will, of course, need passport. But no visa.
This is one of the few exceptions when person does not need visa to travel.
Hope it helps.
_________________
Not a legal advise.
2011 Royal Wedding Cupcakes
tnite
09-30 02:58 PM
If you dont mind, can you please elaborate little bit more on this?
I worked on-campus and I did put that info on the g325 form. The AO wanted me to send any or all work authorizations, H1B etc for the period they had mentioned. I had to send my I20, OPT EAD explaining them that I worked on campus as an F1 International student.
I think putting in oncampus jobs really messes it up and they end up issuing a RFE thinking its illegal employment.
I worked on-campus and I did put that info on the g325 form. The AO wanted me to send any or all work authorizations, H1B etc for the period they had mentioned. I had to send my I20, OPT EAD explaining them that I worked on campus as an F1 International student.
I think putting in oncampus jobs really messes it up and they end up issuing a RFE thinking its illegal employment.
more...
allegator
03-18 08:45 AM
I need advice..My project ended yesterday and I have another opportunity to work on EAD. I know my current employer will not be able to find a job for me as has been the case earlier and he will remove me from payroll soon. Can I start working with new employer and do not resign from my current employer?
I need help on this as I do not want to terminate my job from my side.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks,
I need help on this as I do not want to terminate my job from my side.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks,
arihant
10-26 05:13 PM
A) Yes, you can transfer the pending h1 extension to premium.
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
Thank you for your response. ANy idea how long the conversion would take?
B) For current status https://egov.immigration.gov/cris/jsps/ptimes.jsp with your respective service center.
Thank you for your response. ANy idea how long the conversion would take?
more...
hope2007
04-18 11:32 PM
I spoke to company attorney they said as long as job description is same and it is commutable distance then you can change job location. There will not be any problem and you do not have to come back to original work location.
2010 royal wedding cupcakes
greenguru
01-31 10:34 AM
Hi,
Yes, UnitedNations please join us. I know there are lot of people waiting for your serivces.
You might not have the time to respond to all the posts, but if you could give your inputs that would be great.
Cheers
Yes, UnitedNations please join us. I know there are lot of people waiting for your serivces.
You might not have the time to respond to all the posts, but if you could give your inputs that would be great.
Cheers
more...
fromnaija
11-30 11:19 AM
I don't think you are correct. Portability applies after 6 months of I140 approval. But you can not use AC21 for job profile / labor zone change. So, I don't recommend you changing job title.
You are wrong! Portability applies after 485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
You are wrong! Portability applies after 485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hair royal wedding cupcakes designs
GCwaitforever
02-27 03:46 PM
I will offer a different perspective. There are IT packages for every application nowadays. If you have expertize in your own field (Bio Engineering or Finance for example), try to think of unmet needs in your functional expertize areas and come up with a software product. That will be the best use of your knowledge. And do not forget IV, when your product becomes a big hit and you become a millionaire.;)
more...
Blog Feeds
02-01 08:30 AM
Summary
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
(LINK TO FULL REPORT BELOW)
Congress created the H-1B program in 1990 to enable U.S. employers to hire temporary, foreign workers in specialty occupations. The law capped the number of H-1B visas issued per fiscal year at 65,000. Since then, the cap has fluctuated with legislative changes. Congress asked GAO to assess the impact of the cap on the ability of domestic companies to innovate, while ensuring that U.S. workers are not disadvantaged. In response, GAO examined what is known about (1) employer demand for H-1B workers; (2) how the cap affects employer costs and decisions to move operations overseas; (3) H-1B worker characteristics and the potential impact of raising the cap; and (4) how well requirements of the H-1B program protect U.S. workers. GAO analyzed data from 4 federal agencies; interviewed agency officials, experts, and H-1B employers; and reviewed agency documents and literature.
In most years, demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap: From 2000 to 2009, demand for new H-1B workers tended to exceed the cap, as measured by the numbers of initial petitions submitted by employers who are subject to the cap. There is no way to precisely determine the level of any unmet demand among employers, since they tend to stop submitting (and the Department of Homeland Security stops tracking) petitions once the cap is reached each year. When we consider all initial petitions, including those from universities and research institutions that are not subject to the cap, we find that demand for new H-1B workers is largely driven by a small number of employers. Over the decade, over 14 percent of all initial petitions were submitted by cap-exempt employers, and only a few employers (fewer than 1 percent) garnered over one-quarter of all H-1B approvals. Most interviewed companies said the H-1B cap and program created costs, but were not factors in their decisions to move R&D overseas: The 34 H-1B employers GAO interviewed reported that the cap has created some additional costs, though the cap's impact depended on the size and maturity of the company. For example, in years when visas were denied by the cap, most large firms reported finding other (sometimes more costly) ways to hire their preferred job candidates. On the other hand, small firms were more likely to fill their positions with different candidates, which they said resulted in delays and sometimes economic losses, particularly for firms in rapidly changing technology fields. Limitations in agency data and systems hinder tracking the cap and H-1B workers over time: The total number of H-1B workers in the U.S. at any one time--and information about the length of their stay--is unknown, because (1) data systems among the various agencies that process such individuals are not linked so individuals cannot be readily tracked, and (2) H-1B workers are not assigned a unique identifier that would allow for tracking them over time--particularly if and when their visa status changes. Restricted agency oversight and statutory changes weaken protections for U.S. workers: Elements of the H-1B program that could serve as worker protections--such as the requirement to pay prevailing wages, the visa's temporary status, and the cap itself--are weakened by several factors. First, program oversight is fragmented and restricted. Second, the H-1B program lacks a legal provision for holding employers accountable to program requirements when they obtain H-1B workers through a staffing company. Third, statutory changes made to the H-1B program have, in combination and in effect, increased the pool of H-1B workers beyond the cap and lowered the bar for eligibility. Taken together, the multifaceted challenges identified in this report show that the H-1B program, as currently structured, may not be used to its full potential and may be detrimental in some cases. This report offers several matters for congressional consideration, including that Congress re-examine key H-1B program provisions and make appropriate changes as needed. GAO also recommends that the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor take steps to improve efficiency, flexibility, and monitoring of the H-1B program. Homeland Security disagreed with two recommendations and one matter, citing logistical and other challenges; however, we believe such challenges can be overcome. Labor did not respond to our recommendations.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:Andrew SherrillTeam:Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income SecurityPhone:(202) 512-7252
Matters for Congressional Consideration
Recommendation: To ensure that the H-1B program continues to meet the needs of businesses in a global economy while maintaining a balance of protections for U.S. workers, Congress may wish to consider reviewing the merits and shortcomings of key program provisions and making appropriate changes as needed. Such a review may include, but would not necessarily be limited to (1) the qualifications required for workers eligible under the H-1B program, (2) exemptions from the cap, (3) the appropriateness of H-1B hiring by staffing companies, (4) the level of the cap, and (5) the role the program should play in the U.S. immigration system in relationship to permanent residency.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce employer compliance with H-1B program requirements, Congress may wish to consider granting the department subpoena power to obtain employer records during investigations under the H-1B program.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To help ensure the full protection of H-1B workers employed through staffing companies, Congress may wish to consider holding the employer where an H-1B visa holder performs work accountable for meeting program requirements to the same extent as the employer that submitted the LCA form.
Status: In process
Comments: When we determine what steps the Congress has taken, we will provide updated information.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Recommendation: To help ensure that the number of new H-1B workers who are subject to the cap--both entering the United States and changing to H-1B status within the United States--does not exceed the cap each year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should take steps to improve its tracking of the number of approved H-1B applications and the number of issued visas under the cap by fully leveraging the transformation effort currently under way, which involves the adoption of an electronic petition processing system that will be linked to the Department of State's tracking system. Such steps should ensure that linkages to the Department of State's tracking system will provide Homeland Security with timely access to data on visa issuances, and that mechanisms for tracking petitions and visas against the cap are incorporated into U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' business rules to be developed for the new electronic petition system.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To address business concerns without undermining program integrity, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services should, to the extent permitted by its existing statutory authority, explore options for increasing the flexibility of the application process for H-1B employers, such as (1) allowing employers to rank their applications for visa candidates so that they can hire the best qualified worker for the jobs in highest need; (2) distributing the applications granted under the annual cap in allotments throughout the year (e.g. quarterly); and (3) establishing a system whereby businesses with a strong track-record of compliance with H-1B regulations may use a streamlined application process.
Agency Affected: Department of Homeland Security
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the transparency and oversight of the posting requirement on the Labor Condition Application (LCA), as part of its current oversight role, the Employment and Training Administration should develop and maintain a centralized Web site, accessible to the public, where businesses must post notice of the intent to hire H-1B workers. Such notices should continue to specify the job category and worksite location noted on the LCA and required by statute on current noncentralized postings.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its investigations of employer compliance with H-1B requirements, the Employment and Training Administration should provide Labor's Wage and Hour Division searchable access to the LCA database.
Agency Affected: Department of Labor
Status: In process
Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
VIEW FULL REPORT (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1126.pdf)
More... (http://ashwinsharma.com/2011/01/25/h-1b-visa-program-reforms-are-needed-to-minimize-the-risks-and-costs-of-current-program.aspx?ref=rss)
hot royal wedding cupcakes
mhtanim
10-08 06:13 PM
Interesting question! Logically, as soon as a H4 holder starts using EAD the H4 becomes invalid. As long as the primary is in valid H1B status, the dependent should be able get back to H4 status even if the 485 is denied.
However, I am not sure how someone can changes status from AOS (due to using EAD) to H4. May be getting out of the U.S. and come back as H4 again? Anybody has any idea?
However, I am not sure how someone can changes status from AOS (due to using EAD) to H4. May be getting out of the U.S. and come back as H4 again? Anybody has any idea?
more...
house royal wedding cupcakes ideas.
basav
08-03 03:20 PM
I came to US in March 2007 on L1B, mean time applied for H1b during April 2008 which got approved with COS effective from Oct 1 2008,
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave !
I could not work on H1b for some reasons, continued work on L1 until end of may 09 , went back to india during last week of May 2009 and returned in a month time (last week of June 09) with same L1 visa,
Now I have a valid I94 fo L1 until Feb 2010, also H1B I94 says valid until 2011 which I assume is no more valid due to re-entry on L1 n offcourse never having worked on H1b till date.
Now I would like to take up H1B in a month time, following are my questions
1. I assume that my employer need to apply for COS from L1-H1 now (form I-539) correct me if iam wrong,also is it legal to work while COS approval is in progress?
2. Is there a premium processing for COS? to make sure I get approval first and then start working,how long does it take to process premium and what is the typical time frame for normal one?
3. My family is back in India, are they legal to travel during my COS being in progress with necessary stamping ? This is in case iam legal to work while COS is in progress, or
you recommend me getting them before COS is initiated with there L2 visa n then apply COS for them too ? Risk here is if COS is not approved for some reasons everyone have to leave !
tattoo royal wedding cupcakes designs
nk2006
12-07 02:40 PM
Friends,
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
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)
I apoligizeif I was posting this message in the wrong section.
I'm on H1B and filed my 140/485 concurrently in Aug 2007. Can I do ONLINE MBA with out affecting GC process?
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)
more...
pictures Royal Wedding has begun!
.jpg "royal wedding cupcakes ideas.")
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.
dresses Royal Wedding Designs
eb3_nepa
04-13 11:08 PM
Thanks everyone. Please keep the updates coming :)
more...
makeup Royal Wedding Dessert Ideas
greencard_fever
08-04 04:17 PM
I just checked my A#'s on both approved I-140 and pending I-485 both are different..what should i do now..do i need to call USCIS to open a ticket to reconsile the two A#'s or it's ok to have like this:confused::confused:
girlfriend royal wedding cupcakes designs. Royal Wedding Cupcake Ideas
samswas
09-28 03:43 PM
All,
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
I have filled I-485 in 2007, PD is June 2006, EB2. I went to India and came back using my AP on 07/16/2008. I was working for the same company when I came back. I have changed my employer in April, and haven't filled for AC21 yet.
Can you please help me with following question?
My Question is: Will it be Okay to travel using Advance Parole after changing employer and not filled AC21? If anyone traveled like this, Can you please let me know what documents do I need to take with me?
hairstyles royal wedding cupcakes designs
PD_Dec2002
07-22 10:10 PM
This is my GC application history
1. PD for Labor - Aug 2003
2. Labor(Regular) Application Approved - Nov 2005
3. i-140 applied in Jan 2006
4. RFE received question was for company not self, i-140 withdrawn.
5. Transferred my H1 to the companys sister concern and reapplied for i140 in June 2006.
6. Applied for i140 premium processing on June 22nd, 2007.
Current status for i-140 : Recieved and pending at Nebraska service center.
Questions
Q1. What is i-140 receipt date for premium processing. Is it the date the fed-ex package is recvd by USCIS or is it a date issued by USCIS that should reach my lawyer?
Q2. If in case the USCIS need to provide my attorney a receipt date, we have NOT received one as yet. Does that mean they have not even looked at the application as yet?
Q3. Can i apply for i485 in the worst case that i do not receive approval for i140 by Aug 17th under the concurrent filing rule.
Any assistance would be highly appreciated.
A1: Receipt date is assigned by USCIS when they re-enter or mark your case as PP. This is different from when FedEx delivered the PP request. In my friend's case, the difference in these two dates was 10 business days. This was in early June and his I-140 was approved in 3 business days.
A2: Most probably, that is what has happened.
A3: In Rajiv Khanna's conference call (you can download them from his Web site), he suggested the concurrent filing option when someone asked him a similar question.
Good luck!
Thanks,
Jayant
1. PD for Labor - Aug 2003
2. Labor(Regular) Application Approved - Nov 2005
3. i-140 applied in Jan 2006
4. RFE received question was for company not self, i-140 withdrawn.
5. Transferred my H1 to the companys sister concern and reapplied for i140 in June 2006.
6. Applied for i140 premium processing on June 22nd, 2007.
Current status for i-140 : Recieved and pending at Nebraska service center.
Questions
Q1. What is i-140 receipt date for premium processing. Is it the date the fed-ex package is recvd by USCIS or is it a date issued by USCIS that should reach my lawyer?
Q2. If in case the USCIS need to provide my attorney a receipt date, we have NOT received one as yet. Does that mean they have not even looked at the application as yet?
Q3. Can i apply for i485 in the worst case that i do not receive approval for i140 by Aug 17th under the concurrent filing rule.
Any assistance would be highly appreciated.
A1: Receipt date is assigned by USCIS when they re-enter or mark your case as PP. This is different from when FedEx delivered the PP request. In my friend's case, the difference in these two dates was 10 business days. This was in early June and his I-140 was approved in 3 business days.
A2: Most probably, that is what has happened.
A3: In Rajiv Khanna's conference call (you can download them from his Web site), he suggested the concurrent filing option when someone asked him a similar question.
Good luck!
Thanks,
Jayant
imneedy
02-04 10:33 AM
Does it make sense to change status to h4 from f1 before my spouse goes out of country and come back on h4 instead of AP?
gimmemygreen
01-07 12:14 AM
I recently quit Wipro in United States after servicing two weeks notice period. Wipro didn't want me to stay longer as client was not willing to pay longer than two weeks. I have not signed any service agreement with them when I came onsite on H1B. However, they insist that their deputation letter sent through email is legally binding on me even though I didn't sign a hard copy of the letter. They are asking me to pay $10,00 or serve 6 months notice period which is no longer possible as I have already joined another company. I am seeking legal help in India and planning to sue them as they have withold all my PF, Gratuity, Leave encashment and other dues, experience/relieving letter. Is it possible to sue them in United States as I currently do not stay in India? Also, can I complain to DOL, USCIS about these issues. If yes, how do I go about it?
Sue them buddy. It has potential to become a class action. Wipro is the worst employer with third class management. Managers at Wipro can't even spell Management correctly. Couple years back interviewed with and was sitting on a bridge waiting for these clowns to call in for 35 minutes. After talking to them for first 5 minutes, I hung up my cell phone and never picked their call again. Azim Premji should go back and sell his cooking oil. Managers responsible for this kind of fraud should do 20 years in federal penitentiary and then deported back in plane full of shit to their native country:D.
Sue them buddy. It has potential to become a class action. Wipro is the worst employer with third class management. Managers at Wipro can't even spell Management correctly. Couple years back interviewed with and was sitting on a bridge waiting for these clowns to call in for 35 minutes. After talking to them for first 5 minutes, I hung up my cell phone and never picked their call again. Azim Premji should go back and sell his cooking oil. Managers responsible for this kind of fraud should do 20 years in federal penitentiary and then deported back in plane full of shit to their native country:D.
No comments:
Post a Comment