ajay
09-17 08:31 AM
I also was in the same situation when I came back from India and used AP.
wallpaper This home is a HUD owned home
ilwaiting
06-15 03:30 PM
There actually are four separate types of A#. You can tell them apart by the number of digits and the first digit. The first kind is an eight-digit A#. These are manually assigned at local offices. If you have one of these numbers, simply treated it as if it was "0" plus the number. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 1 are used for employment authorization cards, usually related to students. Nine-digit A#'s that start with the digit 3 are used for fingerprint tracking of V visa applicants. All other nine-digit A#'s (these actually always start with a 0) are permanent A#'s and remain permanently with you for life.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
Therefore, the rule is: if you are asked for an A# and have one, always give this A#, regardless of whether it starts with a 0, 1 or 3. If you have both a 0-A# and a 1-A# or a 3-A#, then use the one that starts with a 0.
Berkeleybee
02-05 02:30 PM
All,
Just wanted to say, if you think everything is going to be fine cos PACE has 30 democrat and 30 republican supporters, think again. The right wing has already mobilized its talking heads, look for more stories that discredit the basic premises of PACE and the American Competitiveness Initiative.
This from David Brooks, Op Ed columnist at the NYT, on Feb 2, 2006.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
February 2, 2006 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
HEADLINE: The Nation of the Future
BYLINE: By DAVID BROOKS
BODY:
Everywhere I go people tell me China and India are going to blow by us in the coming decades. They've got the hunger. They've got the people. They've got the future. We're a tired old power, destined to fade back to the second tier of nations, like Britain did in the 20th century.
This sentiment is everywhere -- except in the evidence. The facts and figures tell a different story.
Has the United States lost its vitality? No. Americans remain the hardest working people on the face of the earth and the most productive. As William W. Lewis, the founding director of the McKinsey Global Institute, wrote, ''The United States is the productivity leader in virtually every industry.'' And productivity rates are surging faster now than they did even in the 1990's.
Has the United States stopped investing in the future? No. The U.S. accounts for roughly 40 percent of the world's R. & D. spending. More money was invested in research and development in this country than in the other G-7 nations combined.
Is the United States becoming a less important player in the world economy? Not yet. In 1971, the U.S. economy accounted for 30.52 percent of the world's G.D.P. Since then, we've seen the rise of Japan, China, India and the Asian tigers. The U.S. now accounts for 30.74 percent of world G.D.P., a slightly higher figure.
What about the shortage of scientists and engineers? Vastly overblown. According to Duke School of Engineering researchers, the U.S. produces more engineers per capita than China or India. According to The Wall Street Journal, firms with engineering openings find themselves flooded with resumes. Unemployment rates for scientists and engineers are no lower than for other professions, and in some specialties, such as electrical engineering, they are notably higher.
Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation told The Wall Street Journal last November, ''No one I know who has looked at the data with an open mind has been able to find any sign of a current shortage.'' The G.A.O., the RAND Corporation and many other researchers have picked apart the quickie studies that warn of a science and engineering gap. ''We did not find evidence that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon,'' the RAND report concluded.
What about America's lamentable education system? Well, it's true we do a mediocre job of educating people from age 0 to 18, even though we spend by far more per pupil than any other nation on earth. But we do an outstanding job of training people from ages 18 to 65.
At least 22 out of the top 30 universities in the world are American. More foreign students come to American universities now than before 9/11.
More important, the American workplace is so competitive, companies are compelled to promote lifelong learning. A U.N. report this year ranked the U.S. third in the world in ease of doing business, after New Zealand and Singapore. The U.S. has the second most competitive economy on earth, after Finland, according the latest Global Competitiveness Report. As Michael Porter of Harvard told The National Journal, ''The U.S. is second to none in terms of innovation and an innovative environment.''
What about partisan gridlock and our dysfunctional political system? Well, entitlement debt remains the biggest threat to the country's well-being, but in one area vital to the country's future posterity, we have reached a beneficent consensus. American liberals have given up on industrial policy, and American conservatives now embrace an aggressive federal role for basic research.
Ford and G.M. totter and almost nobody suggests using public money to prop them up. On the other hand, President Bush, reputed to be hostile to science, has increased the federal scientific research budget by 50 percent since taking office, to $137 billion annually. Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman have proposed excellent legislation that would double the R. & D. tax credit and create a Darpa-style lab in the Department of Energy, devoting $9 billion for scientific research and education. That bill has 60 co-sponsors, 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans.
Recent polling suggests that people in Afghanistan and Iraq are more optimistic about their nations' futures than people in the United States. That's just crazy, even given our problems with health care, growing inequality and such. America's problem over the next 50 years will not be wrestling with decline. It will be helping the frustrated individuals and nations left so far behind.
Just wanted to say, if you think everything is going to be fine cos PACE has 30 democrat and 30 republican supporters, think again. The right wing has already mobilized its talking heads, look for more stories that discredit the basic premises of PACE and the American Competitiveness Initiative.
This from David Brooks, Op Ed columnist at the NYT, on Feb 2, 2006.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
February 2, 2006 Thursday
Late Edition - Final
HEADLINE: The Nation of the Future
BYLINE: By DAVID BROOKS
BODY:
Everywhere I go people tell me China and India are going to blow by us in the coming decades. They've got the hunger. They've got the people. They've got the future. We're a tired old power, destined to fade back to the second tier of nations, like Britain did in the 20th century.
This sentiment is everywhere -- except in the evidence. The facts and figures tell a different story.
Has the United States lost its vitality? No. Americans remain the hardest working people on the face of the earth and the most productive. As William W. Lewis, the founding director of the McKinsey Global Institute, wrote, ''The United States is the productivity leader in virtually every industry.'' And productivity rates are surging faster now than they did even in the 1990's.
Has the United States stopped investing in the future? No. The U.S. accounts for roughly 40 percent of the world's R. & D. spending. More money was invested in research and development in this country than in the other G-7 nations combined.
Is the United States becoming a less important player in the world economy? Not yet. In 1971, the U.S. economy accounted for 30.52 percent of the world's G.D.P. Since then, we've seen the rise of Japan, China, India and the Asian tigers. The U.S. now accounts for 30.74 percent of world G.D.P., a slightly higher figure.
What about the shortage of scientists and engineers? Vastly overblown. According to Duke School of Engineering researchers, the U.S. produces more engineers per capita than China or India. According to The Wall Street Journal, firms with engineering openings find themselves flooded with resumes. Unemployment rates for scientists and engineers are no lower than for other professions, and in some specialties, such as electrical engineering, they are notably higher.
Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation told The Wall Street Journal last November, ''No one I know who has looked at the data with an open mind has been able to find any sign of a current shortage.'' The G.A.O., the RAND Corporation and many other researchers have picked apart the quickie studies that warn of a science and engineering gap. ''We did not find evidence that such shortages have existed at least since 1990, nor that they are on the horizon,'' the RAND report concluded.
What about America's lamentable education system? Well, it's true we do a mediocre job of educating people from age 0 to 18, even though we spend by far more per pupil than any other nation on earth. But we do an outstanding job of training people from ages 18 to 65.
At least 22 out of the top 30 universities in the world are American. More foreign students come to American universities now than before 9/11.
More important, the American workplace is so competitive, companies are compelled to promote lifelong learning. A U.N. report this year ranked the U.S. third in the world in ease of doing business, after New Zealand and Singapore. The U.S. has the second most competitive economy on earth, after Finland, according the latest Global Competitiveness Report. As Michael Porter of Harvard told The National Journal, ''The U.S. is second to none in terms of innovation and an innovative environment.''
What about partisan gridlock and our dysfunctional political system? Well, entitlement debt remains the biggest threat to the country's well-being, but in one area vital to the country's future posterity, we have reached a beneficent consensus. American liberals have given up on industrial policy, and American conservatives now embrace an aggressive federal role for basic research.
Ford and G.M. totter and almost nobody suggests using public money to prop them up. On the other hand, President Bush, reputed to be hostile to science, has increased the federal scientific research budget by 50 percent since taking office, to $137 billion annually. Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman have proposed excellent legislation that would double the R. & D. tax credit and create a Darpa-style lab in the Department of Energy, devoting $9 billion for scientific research and education. That bill has 60 co-sponsors, 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans.
Recent polling suggests that people in Afghanistan and Iraq are more optimistic about their nations' futures than people in the United States. That's just crazy, even given our problems with health care, growing inequality and such. America's problem over the next 50 years will not be wrestling with decline. It will be helping the frustrated individuals and nations left so far behind.
2011 avondale az hud home for sale
ddeka
09-17 10:36 AM
When AP is approved, you get 3 copies. I went twice on intl trips and each time they took a copy. I am left with 1 copy of the AP.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
Don't give original copy. Let them make a copy of the original.
Now I need to go on one last intl trip (I have applied for renewal). I just have one copy of AP with me.
How does it work? Will the officer just stamp the AP and make a copy?
Don't give original copy. Let them make a copy of the original.
more...
mirage
07-29 02:25 PM
I did not have prior information about this call, else I would,ve ask them 2 questions.
1) Why Don't USCIS give 2 years AP too..
2) USCIS should publish some statistics on how many Employement based AOS applications they have pending, what EB categories they are in along the the chargeable country and priority dates..
Thanks
1) Why Don't USCIS give 2 years AP too..
2) USCIS should publish some statistics on how many Employement based AOS applications they have pending, what EB categories they are in along the the chargeable country and priority dates..
Thanks
iwantgc
05-08 10:47 AM
Hello all and Pappu, thank you all for your response. I will take Pappu's advice as far as what to discuss with them plus my family's concern, my husband who had to be away from me for straight two years has returned to US and been hopeful to get a work permit through my GC process.
I am planning to return a call to the office of congressat 12 noon mountain time, im in Nebraska. I will keep in touch with IV core members after then.
I am planning to return a call to the office of congressat 12 noon mountain time, im in Nebraska. I will keep in touch with IV core members after then.
more...
crystal
03-28 04:20 PM
In the profile data EAD/AP dates are kind of overkill I guess, even though they are not mandatory fields. They add no/very little value to overall purpose.
2010 HUD Homes by Robyn Brown
WeShallOvercome
12-26 12:10 PM
Hello all,
not sure if this topic has been touched before; if we have a i-485 application filed; do we qualify as:
1) non-permanent resident aliens
OR
2) non-resident aliens?
thanks
Filing I-485 makes you an 'adjustee' (Under Adjustment of Status).
But you continue to be a non-resident alien under AOS if you keep working on H1. If you switch to EAD/AP, you are just an Adjustee waiting for your status to be adjusted to that of a permanent resident.
not sure if this topic has been touched before; if we have a i-485 application filed; do we qualify as:
1) non-permanent resident aliens
OR
2) non-resident aliens?
thanks
Filing I-485 makes you an 'adjustee' (Under Adjustment of Status).
But you continue to be a non-resident alien under AOS if you keep working on H1. If you switch to EAD/AP, you are just an Adjustee waiting for your status to be adjusted to that of a permanent resident.
more...
Berkeleybee
03-27 05:49 PM
Berkeleybee, I am not sure I totally agree with you - having a forum where people can come in and ask questions related to the core problems is a great way to increase readership and to promote the necessary esprit de corps. The members-only forums - now those, I agree - mainly ideas, activities etc. (Personally, I find it very difficult to stay tuned to 3 or 4 different immigration web sites/forums).
vnsriniv, to answer your question - to the best of my knowledge, you will have to wait till the dates become current - the current processing dates of the service centers don't mean much - there are several cases of 485 approvals of petitions with PDs > cut-off dates based on other posts on this board.
Jnayar,
It is not IV's intent to be a one-stop shop. We are here to discuss our agenda and actions. This is not my policy -- it is IV's policy. Don't know if you are a new member but do check out our posting guidelines http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/announcement.php?f=2
best,
Berkeleybee
vnsriniv, to answer your question - to the best of my knowledge, you will have to wait till the dates become current - the current processing dates of the service centers don't mean much - there are several cases of 485 approvals of petitions with PDs > cut-off dates based on other posts on this board.
Jnayar,
It is not IV's intent to be a one-stop shop. We are here to discuss our agenda and actions. This is not my policy -- it is IV's policy. Don't know if you are a new member but do check out our posting guidelines http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/announcement.php?f=2
best,
Berkeleybee
hair Phoenix HUD Homes | Scottsdale
trueguy
08-11 12:19 AM
Bump
more...
purgan
07-28 05:44 PM
I would like to participate. Let's see if there are any solutions to the historic backlogs in EB3 IND...
EB3 IND folks, this is your time to join and ask your questions.
EB3 IND folks, this is your time to join and ask your questions.
hot Homes For Sale From 30% To 60%
sobers
02-09 08:58 AM
Discussion about challenges in America�s immigration policies tends to focus on the millions of illegal immigrants. But the more pressing immigration problem facing the US today, writes Intel chairman Craig Barrett, is the dearth of high-skilled immigrants required to keep the US economy competitive. Due to tighter visa policies and a growth in opportunities elsewhere in the world, foreign students majoring in science and engineering at US universities are no longer staying to work after graduation in the large numbers that they once did. With the poor quality of science and math education at the primary and secondary levels in the US, the country cannot afford to lose any highly-skilled immigrants, particularly in key, technology-related disciplines. Along with across-the-board improvements in education, the US needs to find a way to attract enough new workers so that companies like Intel do not have to set up shop elsewhere.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
----------------------------------
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Craig Barrett
The Financial Times, 1 February 2006
America is experiencing a profound immigration crisis but it is not about the 11m illegal immigrants currently exciting the press and politicians in Washington. The real crisis is that the US is closing its doors to immigrants with degrees in science, maths and engineering � the �best and brightest� from around the world who flock to the country for its educational and employment opportunities. These foreign-born knowledge workers are critically important to maintaining America�s technological competitiveness.
This is not a new issue; the US has been partially dependent on foreign scientists and engineers to establish and maintain its technological leadership for several decades. After the second world war, an influx of German engineers bolstered our efforts in aviation and space research. During the 1960s and 1970s, a brain drain from western Europe supplemented our own production of talent. In the 1980s and 1990s, our ranks of scientists and engineers were swelled by Asian immigrants who came to study in our universities, then stayed to pursue professional careers.
The US simply does not produce enough home-grown graduates in engineering and the hard sciences to meet our needs. Even during the high-tech revolution of the past two decades, when demand for employees with technical degrees was exploding, the number of students majoring in engineering in the US declined. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the US are foreign born � until now, many of them have stayed on to seek employment. But this trend is changing rapidly.
Because of security concerns and improved education in their own counties, it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities. Those who do complete their studies in the US are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or enhanced professional opportunities there. So while Congress debates how to stem the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border, it is actually our policies on highly skilled immigration that may most negatively affect the American economy.
The US does have a specified process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists. The H1-B visa programme sets a cap � currently at 65,000 � on the number of foreigners allowed to enter and work each year. But the programme is oversubscribed because the cap is insufficient to meet the demands of the knowledge-based US economy.
The system does not grant automatic entry to all foreign students who study engineering and science at US universities. I have often said, only half in jest, that we should staple a green card to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced technical degree programme here.
At a time when we need more science and technology professionals, it makes no sense to invite foreign students to study at our universities, educate them partially at taxpayer expense and then tell them to go home and take the jobs those talents will create home with them.
The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.
Meanwhile, when it comes to training a skilled, home-grown workforce, the US is rapidly being left in the dust.
A full half of China�s college graduates earn degrees in engineering, compared with only 5 per cent in the US. Even South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the US, graduates about the same number of engineers as American universities do. Part of this is due to the poor quality of our primary and secondary education, where US students typically fare poorly compared with their international counterparts in maths and science.
In a global, knowledge-based economy, businesses will naturally gravitate to locations with a ready supply of knowledge-based workers. Intel is a US-based company and we are proud of the fact that we have hired almost 10,000 new US employees in the past four years. But the hard economic fact is that if we cannot find or attract the workers we need here, the company � like every other business � will go where the talent is located.
We in the US have only two real choices: we can stand on the sidelines while countries such as India, China, and others dominate the game � and accept the consequent decline in our standard of living. Or we can decide to compete.
Deciding to compete means reforming the appalling state of primary and secondary education, where low expectations have become institutionalised, and urgently expanding science education in colleges and universities � much as we did in the 1950s after the Soviet launch of Sputnik gave our nation a needed wake-up call.
As a member of the National Academies Committee assigned by Congress to investigate this issue and propose solutions, I and the other members recommended that the government create 25,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate scholarships, each of $20,000 (�11,300), in technical fields, especially those determined to be in areas of urgent �national need�. Other recommendations included a tax credit for employers who make continuing education available for scientists and engineers, so that our workforce can keep pace with the rapid advance of scientific discovery, and a sustained national commitment to basic research.
But we all realised that even an effective national effort in this area would not produce results quickly enough. That is why deciding to compete also means opening doors wider to foreigners with the kind of technical knowledge our businesses need. At a minimum the US should vastly increase the number of permanent visas for highly educated foreigners, streamline the process for those already working here and allow foreign students in the hard sciences and engineering to move directly to permanent resident status. Any country that wants to remain competitive has to start competing for the best minds in the world. Without that we may be unable to maintain economic leadership in the 21st century.
more...
house pictures of houses for sale
krishnam70
02-20 07:55 PM
Members,
I need some help to act in right direction.
In Oct -2008 my wife got H1B. She was on H4 before that. The employer is still searching client for her to start work. She has got no pay, as practically she never started work. She still have valid-H4 VISa till sept-2009.
1) What is her current status H1B or H4?
2) how long can she wait to search job, assuming if she does not get job in next 2-3 months, how long will be H1B status Valid.
3) If she travels to india, will she has to get H1B stamped or she can re-enter on H4.
4) What are the options to get her back on H4. I have to file my extension in sept-2009.
Feedbacks, as highly appreciated.
~cheers
You need to apply H4 for her and immediately ask her to move to that status. She is already out of status 'technically' as she is supposed to be working/or get paid even if she is not working.. Unless she has pay stubs from her employer from the time her H1 was done she is not in 'status'. Once you move to H-1 the only way is to file for change of status using the appropriate petition. She will not move in to H-4 automatically. I think you need to file H-4 petition for your wife immediately.
Consult your attorney immediately and do the needful
good luck
kris
I need some help to act in right direction.
In Oct -2008 my wife got H1B. She was on H4 before that. The employer is still searching client for her to start work. She has got no pay, as practically she never started work. She still have valid-H4 VISa till sept-2009.
1) What is her current status H1B or H4?
2) how long can she wait to search job, assuming if she does not get job in next 2-3 months, how long will be H1B status Valid.
3) If she travels to india, will she has to get H1B stamped or she can re-enter on H4.
4) What are the options to get her back on H4. I have to file my extension in sept-2009.
Feedbacks, as highly appreciated.
~cheers
You need to apply H4 for her and immediately ask her to move to that status. She is already out of status 'technically' as she is supposed to be working/or get paid even if she is not working.. Unless she has pay stubs from her employer from the time her H1 was done she is not in 'status'. Once you move to H-1 the only way is to file for change of status using the appropriate petition. She will not move in to H-4 automatically. I think you need to file H-4 petition for your wife immediately.
Consult your attorney immediately and do the needful
good luck
kris
tattoo Cobb HUD Homes For Sale Smyrna
priti8888
01-08 03:55 PM
Is there any relation between biometrics and the final green card approval time?
I have got annecdotal info from several friends. With one exception (because of a name check process that has taken over two years!) most people receive the green card around three months after the biometrics.
Is that the case?
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
I have got annecdotal info from several friends. With one exception (because of a name check process that has taken over two years!) most people receive the green card around three months after the biometrics.
Is that the case?
not true. You can be approved only if your PD is current.
more...
pictures HUD HOMES
cheg
08-29 10:24 PM
If I were you I would just do paper-based application for I-765. I just checked the pdf file and it doesn't have any questions that one would have a hard time answering. Just fill it out and fed-ex it. :) That's what I will do once I keep on renewing my EAD.
dresses Sacramento HUD Home for sale-
SonnyD
10-18 03:26 PM
Congratulations brother. One of the questions they ask is- are you a member of any association or any organization.If and when they ask, this would be a good time for you to inform the officer of any volunteer work you do. Or tell them how you contribute to the community. Also tell them if you donate to charities. Just a thought.
Please only answer the questions that are asked. Answer to the point and be precise. Brother Sanju has given good advise too. Let your wife answer the question, if the Officer was asking her. Please do not try to answer for her.
Good luck and God bless
SonnyD
Please only answer the questions that are asked. Answer to the point and be precise. Brother Sanju has given good advise too. Let your wife answer the question, if the Officer was asking her. Please do not try to answer for her.
Good luck and God bless
SonnyD
more...
makeup HUD homes for sale in
Ramba
01-08 04:18 PM
No offense to anyone but I think this is how the market is flooded sometimes with short term trained and oppurtunisticly timing decisions made by people.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Good point. I am just studying the trade off between "career" and "likability" of job or the job you love. I agree with you about money. I am not just for money or I do not want to be in rat race. (If money is the only goal we all can do real estate bussiness in India) After spending 10 years in engineering, I want to change the field. Even I am ready to go with little less than what I make now. . The main reason is I want to have just relaxing job, not much stress. At the same time it should be a longterm. I thought QA may be one of the field. I do not know yet it is a right thought.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Good point. I am just studying the trade off between "career" and "likability" of job or the job you love. I agree with you about money. I am not just for money or I do not want to be in rat race. (If money is the only goal we all can do real estate bussiness in India) After spending 10 years in engineering, I want to change the field. Even I am ready to go with little less than what I make now. . The main reason is I want to have just relaxing job, not much stress. At the same time it should be a longterm. I thought QA may be one of the field. I do not know yet it is a right thought.
girlfriend HUD Homes in Los Angeles CA:
silk2fire
10-15 01:51 PM
I had only one lud after fingerprints code 3 (same Day - Thu day).
:( Does that mean my case is stuck in Name check.??????????????? :(
:( Does that mean my case is stuck in Name check.??????????????? :(
hairstyles This 3 Bedroom HUD Home in
prince_waiting
12-12 12:02 PM
Hi fellow IVians from the 'Heart of Dixie',
Birmingham is at an equal distant from Montgomery as well as from Huntsville if I am correct. Willing to travel from Auburn to Birmingham for a state chapter meeting if it is convened.
Birmingham is at an equal distant from Montgomery as well as from Huntsville if I am correct. Willing to travel from Auburn to Birmingham for a state chapter meeting if it is convened.
krishmunn
03-04 12:31 PM
do you know what is the cost of filing a LCA amendment, and is it necessary to take a copy of that LCA and hang it on the client notice board ????????
There is no cost to file a LCA unless you engage a lawyer. The LCA process seems to be pretty easy but again, it is something your employer should (and allowed to ) do, not you. One reason why employer might be avoiding filing a new LCA is if the new location has a higher wage requirement (eg. moving from mid-west to New York city) , the LCA should reflect that and they need to pay you accordingly.
There is no cost to file a LCA unless you engage a lawyer. The LCA process seems to be pretty easy but again, it is something your employer should (and allowed to ) do, not you. One reason why employer might be avoiding filing a new LCA is if the new location has a higher wage requirement (eg. moving from mid-west to New York city) , the LCA should reflect that and they need to pay you accordingly.
gimme Green!!
07-04 10:05 PM
Please, stop rubbing salt on our wounds:mad:
I am surprised by your comment.
Congrats to ll those who got I-485 approved.
I am surprised by your comment.
Congrats to ll those who got I-485 approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment