rajuram
11-04 09:19 PM
I don't think that is possible......unless you filed it and it got returned...
Situation - During the month of July, I filed my 485 when all categories were current. Got my receipt too. Missed wife's application because her papers were not ready. Now priority dates have retrogressed again.
Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.
Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?
Situation - During the month of July, I filed my 485 when all categories were current. Got my receipt too. Missed wife's application because her papers were not ready. Now priority dates have retrogressed again.
Saving grace - Our H1/H4 are in order with many long years left on them.
Question - Can I file my wife 485 now as a dependent, even though "my" PD is not current yet. The core point is that, does the concept of PD applies to the dependent 485 applications too?
wallpaper The Hangover 2
arnet
10-26 01:51 PM
our experience:
they will mail back those.
my wife went to delhi consulate in sep 06 (i didnt go), and they took all reqd docs including our I-797s original, and when they sent stamped passport through courier, they returned all documents with passport including I-797s.
I dont think they took any document except fees receipt, ds-156/157, it was suprising to us not even the xerox copies of reqd docs like w-2's,marriage ceritificate, etc. i think, might be, they just want to verify and once they did that, they are returning it.
it took 3 days after interview date to get the stamped passport and documents through courier.
If any delay or problem in getting those documents/passport after 3-4days, contact VFS at delhi. I think you can track through SMS too.
I hope they mail it back because that's something I definitely need. I didn't know they will look at my I797. I wish I had known this before my wife went for visa stamping. There's alway a new kink, isn't it :-)
they will mail back those.
my wife went to delhi consulate in sep 06 (i didnt go), and they took all reqd docs including our I-797s original, and when they sent stamped passport through courier, they returned all documents with passport including I-797s.
I dont think they took any document except fees receipt, ds-156/157, it was suprising to us not even the xerox copies of reqd docs like w-2's,marriage ceritificate, etc. i think, might be, they just want to verify and once they did that, they are returning it.
it took 3 days after interview date to get the stamped passport and documents through courier.
If any delay or problem in getting those documents/passport after 3-4days, contact VFS at delhi. I think you can track through SMS too.
I hope they mail it back because that's something I definitely need. I didn't know they will look at my I797. I wish I had known this before my wife went for visa stamping. There's alway a new kink, isn't it :-)
gcventure
04-07 04:32 PM
ggc,
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
2011 The Hangover amp; Hangover 2
desi3933
02-11 10:43 AM
Hi All,
I am in a situation that my L1B extension application is denied on 02/10/2009. My current L1B is valid till March 31st 2009. I am trying to find the options I have with me now... I have H1B approved from another employer but I have not joined them.
As per my understanding these are the options:
1) This denial is for L1B Blanket Petition, so I think I should be able to apply extension again with L1B individual petition as I believe Obama government is rejecting all L1 Blanket visa as they this people are misusing it...
2) I can join my H1 employer...
Can anyone of you please suggest if these options are correct OR is there any other better option available...
Eagerly waiting for responses...
Thanks,
Gagan Chodhry
Were you in status at the time of L1 extension? Probably not, as your H1 extension was approved with new I-94 starting Oct 1st.
You applied for L1 extension on Oct 15th.
Would you mind sharing the denial reason with us?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
I am in a situation that my L1B extension application is denied on 02/10/2009. My current L1B is valid till March 31st 2009. I am trying to find the options I have with me now... I have H1B approved from another employer but I have not joined them.
As per my understanding these are the options:
1) This denial is for L1B Blanket Petition, so I think I should be able to apply extension again with L1B individual petition as I believe Obama government is rejecting all L1 Blanket visa as they this people are misusing it...
2) I can join my H1 employer...
Can anyone of you please suggest if these options are correct OR is there any other better option available...
Eagerly waiting for responses...
Thanks,
Gagan Chodhry
Were you in status at the time of L1 extension? Probably not, as your H1 extension was approved with new I-94 starting Oct 1st.
You applied for L1 extension on Oct 15th.
Would you mind sharing the denial reason with us?
__________________
Not a legal advice.
more...
sushilup
08-22 10:37 AM
Hello Guys,
I refresh this site lot of time and I know many more do the same. Probably it brings u closer to GC:)
I know many people put money in stocks...we might start sharing our views and make some money with GC...that will wooooooooooooooooooow:D
What other people think?
I refresh this site lot of time and I know many more do the same. Probably it brings u closer to GC:)
I know many people put money in stocks...we might start sharing our views and make some money with GC...that will wooooooooooooooooooow:D
What other people think?
techbuyer77
06-20 03:18 PM
if they revoke the petition after 180 days that you filed i-485 nothing will happen you can invoke ac21, if before you can not
more...
starving_dog
06-08 03:01 PM
Capitalism is the first American value.:D
2010 Premiere : The Hangover 2 FULL
chem2
02-24 09:52 PM
what am I missing here? other than the hassle of getting paper copies filled out/ printed and the advantage of getting a refund a few weeks earlier, what is the advantage of e-filing?
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hair #39;The Hangover 2#39; trailer: The
Eberth
10-13 04:28 PM
:(
more...
LondonTown
07-30 10:35 AM
No, VO returned my passport to me. They said will be sending a mail after review all those documents given by me.
It took 5 weeks for me before I got the email.
Update the thread for others reference when you get the email. Good luck..!
It took 5 weeks for me before I got the email.
Update the thread for others reference when you get the email. Good luck..!
hot Hangover 2 Film Poster
villamonte6100
11-02 08:50 AM
cjain...
Everybody has a right to express their opinions...immuser has the freedom to share information..I have the freedom to express my opinion....Hope you learn something from posts from alterego..He shared a different view which was very informative....I admit I had'nt thought about it that way...showed me a different perspective...
I guess it's time you grow up....by making sarcastic comments you help no one....If you have nothing to say....there is no rule in the forumn that you have to.....Ever tried keeping your mouth Shut...
Its better to keep your mouth Shut and let others think you are a fool, rather than opening your mouth and confirming all doubts ...
I totally agree with your earlier comment. This is an immigration forum for people like us in the US. If we can just post anything here, then I'd like to post my problems with my neighbor as well.
Once again, Good on you mate!!!!
Everybody has a right to express their opinions...immuser has the freedom to share information..I have the freedom to express my opinion....Hope you learn something from posts from alterego..He shared a different view which was very informative....I admit I had'nt thought about it that way...showed me a different perspective...
I guess it's time you grow up....by making sarcastic comments you help no one....If you have nothing to say....there is no rule in the forumn that you have to.....Ever tried keeping your mouth Shut...
Its better to keep your mouth Shut and let others think you are a fool, rather than opening your mouth and confirming all doubts ...
I totally agree with your earlier comment. This is an immigration forum for people like us in the US. If we can just post anything here, then I'd like to post my problems with my neighbor as well.
Once again, Good on you mate!!!!
more...
house poster for the Hangover 2
ragz4u
05-31 09:50 AM
My close friend mentioned - recently aged parents of a Cisco Systemss manager came from Madras. They arrived in SFO and were asked to go back, since they had come here a year before and had asked for an extension of visa from 6 months to 1 year, they stayed and then went back. They came back this year to visit and were denied entry at Port of ENtry. His parents were in 75 years range and have vowed not to come back.
I believe their doucmented were in order otherwise. So it is tough to take things for granted.
I'm sure a good lawyer can work on this. Extension is 100% legal and I don't think any USCIS officer can hold one back for that reason!
But in any case, this sux big time. The person whose parents were sent back should stand up and take this issue up rather than meekly give in.
I believe their doucmented were in order otherwise. So it is tough to take things for granted.
I'm sure a good lawyer can work on this. Extension is 100% legal and I don't think any USCIS officer can hold one back for that reason!
But in any case, this sux big time. The person whose parents were sent back should stand up and take this issue up rather than meekly give in.
tattoo The Hangover 2 Full Movie
sweet_jungle
01-04 02:39 AM
This was in past not now.
In CA, my wife got a DL renewal notice which asked her to come to office and show legal presence documents. She is on EAD and H4 visa has expired long back.
So, she went to DMV office and took all the documents like EAD,485 receipt, etc.
However, at the counter, all she asked was the current DL. no immigration documents asked. things went smoothly. I guess she was just lucky.
In CA, my wife got a DL renewal notice which asked her to come to office and show legal presence documents. She is on EAD and H4 visa has expired long back.
So, she went to DMV office and took all the documents like EAD,485 receipt, etc.
However, at the counter, all she asked was the current DL. no immigration documents asked. things went smoothly. I guess she was just lucky.
more...
pictures And when I saw Hangover 2,
pasupuleti
02-13 05:04 PM
We met our san jose(CA) congressman Mike Honda (http://honda.house.gov/). We had good session with his staff. His office is in the process of writting a letter to Backlog centers asking them for speeding up approvals.Their office is well aware of backlog issues. Once they get a response back from DOL, they would let us know.
dresses 2010 Hangover 2 Monkey in Pink
wellwishergc
08-02 02:36 PM
I agree with logiclife. Consulting a good lawyer like Rajeev Khanna or Murthy is the best approach to go forward.
Although perm2gc has many of the questions answered correctly, every case may be unique. There may be possibilities that your brother can still come to US. The lawyer may be able to help you with a legal way of going about it.
If I were you, I would spend a couple of hundred dollars and do a paid phone consultation with a lawyer, probably a good one at that. And send questions ahead of time so that the lawyer too does his research before talking to you on the phone.
When you decisions can have a lasting effect on your career, you may not want to rely on advice on forums. Members here are not lawyers.
If you do get advice here, then be aware of the chances that it could be not applicable to your situation.
Good Luck.
Although perm2gc has many of the questions answered correctly, every case may be unique. There may be possibilities that your brother can still come to US. The lawyer may be able to help you with a legal way of going about it.
If I were you, I would spend a couple of hundred dollars and do a paid phone consultation with a lawyer, probably a good one at that. And send questions ahead of time so that the lawyer too does his research before talking to you on the phone.
When you decisions can have a lasting effect on your career, you may not want to rely on advice on forums. Members here are not lawyers.
If you do get advice here, then be aware of the chances that it could be not applicable to your situation.
Good Luck.
more...
makeup hangover 2 images. hangover 2.
haifromsk@yahoo.com
10-15 04:00 PM
if RFE for w-2 USCIC will come to know- might not be the only way for USCIC to know
girlfriend hangover 2 watch online
Milind123
07-27 03:34 PM
Kasi,
I had the same situation and asked my attorney last month. He replied "I-94 # is always the # on the white card which is stapled in your passport", meaning the latest I-94 (white card) given to you at the port of entry. It doesn't matter whether it is expired or not. Hope this answers.
I think the I-94 Numbers should be the same on all I-94's.
I had the same situation and asked my attorney last month. He replied "I-94 # is always the # on the white card which is stapled in your passport", meaning the latest I-94 (white card) given to you at the port of entry. It doesn't matter whether it is expired or not. Hope this answers.
I think the I-94 Numbers should be the same on all I-94's.
hairstyles Hangover 2 poster - Hangover 2
chanduv23
03-15 02:11 PM
You meant, getting residency on h1b is extremely 'difficult' in recent times? Anyways, if your wife has once got a residency on H1, getting a fellowship on H1 should not be that difficult. Hospitals are much easier on physicians that are already on a H1 status...its the same as its the case with IT employers...once on a H1, its easier to move around on a H1..
Just like my wife, your wife too now has sufficent H1 years to get through both residency and fellowship, I guess, so running out of time is not a problem either.
Only thing, people like you and me need to worry about is what if the residency is pursued at a non-profit (quota exempt H1) and wife decides to pursue fellowship at a for-profit (quota H1).
In that scenerio, fellowship on a H1 might be a bit of a problem...
I suggest, if your wife has already started residency on H1, avoid thinking of getting onto a J1 ever.
You will unnecessarily complicate her immigration profile...
Well Mihir, I was not talking about getting back to J1, but just correlating his experience on j1 with a possible scenerio on h1b and wanted to know if people do fellowships on h1b. I have not come across any, but have come across J1 fellowship candidates, so I was wondering that maybe it is actually difficult to get it on h1b. Anyways, I will find out as we have already started to enquire about fellowships on h1b.
Just like my wife, your wife too now has sufficent H1 years to get through both residency and fellowship, I guess, so running out of time is not a problem either.
Only thing, people like you and me need to worry about is what if the residency is pursued at a non-profit (quota exempt H1) and wife decides to pursue fellowship at a for-profit (quota H1).
In that scenerio, fellowship on a H1 might be a bit of a problem...
I suggest, if your wife has already started residency on H1, avoid thinking of getting onto a J1 ever.
You will unnecessarily complicate her immigration profile...
Well Mihir, I was not talking about getting back to J1, but just correlating his experience on j1 with a possible scenerio on h1b and wanted to know if people do fellowships on h1b. I have not come across any, but have come across J1 fellowship candidates, so I was wondering that maybe it is actually difficult to get it on h1b. Anyways, I will find out as we have already started to enquire about fellowships on h1b.
Abhinaym
04-24 11:53 AM
Anyone else get an update on their lottery?
thamizhan
07-18 10:51 AM
I think you missed the USCIS update. You can file till Aug 17th. So its the same amount of time one month from now.
I read some where that filing is allowed to Aug-17, but the new fees will effected on 01-Aug although July filers.
Correct me If I'm wrong.
I read some where that filing is allowed to Aug-17, but the new fees will effected on 01-Aug although July filers.
Correct me If I'm wrong.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق