dbevis
February 15th, 2005, 03:14 PM
I'm curious what it is you are trying to achieve?
Generally, you find zooms are non-linear - the farther towards the "long" end, the more compressed the scale becomes.
If you are wanting to repeated set the zoom to a specific length, I'd suggest a card that has horizontal bars. Draw them at whatever length you determine is a focal-length of interest, so that it fills the entire width of the frame. Do this at some standard distance - such as holding the card at arm's length. Zoom out/in until the desired bar is full-width.
This is hardly accurate if you want precisely "x" mm length, but at least it should allow repeatedly going back to a particular setting, or close to it.
Generally, you find zooms are non-linear - the farther towards the "long" end, the more compressed the scale becomes.
If you are wanting to repeated set the zoom to a specific length, I'd suggest a card that has horizontal bars. Draw them at whatever length you determine is a focal-length of interest, so that it fills the entire width of the frame. Do this at some standard distance - such as holding the card at arm's length. Zoom out/in until the desired bar is full-width.
This is hardly accurate if you want precisely "x" mm length, but at least it should allow repeatedly going back to a particular setting, or close to it.
philly2004
06-12 01:30 PM
Any thoughts why EB2 India hasn't gone beyond Apr 04 for over a year.
Is this because of EB3 to EB2 conversions? If so then the likelihood of EB2 - I dates moving a lot in Oct bulletin are low.
Are there any 'guesstimates' out there for the number of EB3 to EB2 conversions?
Is this because of EB3 to EB2 conversions? If so then the likelihood of EB2 - I dates moving a lot in Oct bulletin are low.
Are there any 'guesstimates' out there for the number of EB3 to EB2 conversions?
rvenkat1976
04-09 08:46 AM
Thanks Fide Champ.
Both the employer and the Attorney are tight lipped on my first I-140. Is there a way to take help of some other Attorney and ask them to get the details regarding my first I-140?
Both the employer and the Attorney are tight lipped on my first I-140. Is there a way to take help of some other Attorney and ask them to get the details regarding my first I-140?
kris04
08-18 06:17 PM
:confused:Hi all,
I have a situation,
I joined employer A and substituted labor with 2004 priority date. And it has been approved already, my understanding is labor substitution is nothing but filing I 140 but with some one else labor.
My current situation is, I got a perm job and have approached company attorney and she saying / asking, since this is labor substitution case, so, I need to have letter from employer �A� saying that labor used for me was initially filed for person X and he later left the company. Hence that has been used for me.
This is required to prove that there is no fraud happened while filing my case.
As you all know, in this current situation, I can not go back and ask employer �A� about that letter.
Any suggestions etc please provide.
Just to remember
REQUEST A SET OF COPIES WHEN EVER ATTORNEY FILING / FOLLOW UP ANY RFE etc FOR YOU. IRRESPECTIVE WHETHER YOU PAY OR COMPLANY PAYS GC FEES
Thanks,
Are you trying to port your job and join the potential new employer using EAD or transfer H1B visa?, I am surprised an immigration attorney is asking for such letter, labor substitution is/was always done in good faith in most cases, but there is no way to prove a fraud is involved unless the labor was filed using a non-existent person( if you remember the convicted guy Nick Mandelapa which ultimately lead to closing the abuse of labor substitution).Even if your previous employer is ethical and acted in good faith while doing labor substitution, giving such undertaking is far reaching and not required, for one reason labor certification legally belongs to your employer and not to the underlying employee, so getting such letter is a merely a chance. I guess in your case you've disclosed too many information about you past legal route causing concern for the new employer to hire you. Try to talk to HR and see that you're responsible for maintaining the employment authorization, but if you're taking H1B transfer just confine to H1B transfer, hire your own separate attorney to manage your I 485, as it belongs to you.
Good Luck
HTH
kris
My Profile
----------
GC approved in Aug 2008 without RFE, used AC 21 once, worked for my sponsor for 4 year, including 3 years after filing I 485, notified USCIS promptly when I ported my Job(confident that my new job profile and previous one are the same)
I have a situation,
I joined employer A and substituted labor with 2004 priority date. And it has been approved already, my understanding is labor substitution is nothing but filing I 140 but with some one else labor.
My current situation is, I got a perm job and have approached company attorney and she saying / asking, since this is labor substitution case, so, I need to have letter from employer �A� saying that labor used for me was initially filed for person X and he later left the company. Hence that has been used for me.
This is required to prove that there is no fraud happened while filing my case.
As you all know, in this current situation, I can not go back and ask employer �A� about that letter.
Any suggestions etc please provide.
Just to remember
REQUEST A SET OF COPIES WHEN EVER ATTORNEY FILING / FOLLOW UP ANY RFE etc FOR YOU. IRRESPECTIVE WHETHER YOU PAY OR COMPLANY PAYS GC FEES
Thanks,
Are you trying to port your job and join the potential new employer using EAD or transfer H1B visa?, I am surprised an immigration attorney is asking for such letter, labor substitution is/was always done in good faith in most cases, but there is no way to prove a fraud is involved unless the labor was filed using a non-existent person( if you remember the convicted guy Nick Mandelapa which ultimately lead to closing the abuse of labor substitution).Even if your previous employer is ethical and acted in good faith while doing labor substitution, giving such undertaking is far reaching and not required, for one reason labor certification legally belongs to your employer and not to the underlying employee, so getting such letter is a merely a chance. I guess in your case you've disclosed too many information about you past legal route causing concern for the new employer to hire you. Try to talk to HR and see that you're responsible for maintaining the employment authorization, but if you're taking H1B transfer just confine to H1B transfer, hire your own separate attorney to manage your I 485, as it belongs to you.
Good Luck
HTH
kris
My Profile
----------
GC approved in Aug 2008 without RFE, used AC 21 once, worked for my sponsor for 4 year, including 3 years after filing I 485, notified USCIS promptly when I ported my Job(confident that my new job profile and previous one are the same)
more...
slammer
10-09 12:49 PM
Regular processing being what ? AOS ?
veni001
02-03 10:24 AM
Just curious. Who's the author/source of that article that you provided the link for? :)
I don't know! but if you think sth is not right in that article we can discuss.
I don't know! but if you think sth is not right in that article we can discuss.
more...
MYGCBY2010
10-02 05:25 PM
Filed in Nebraska...Went to CSC... Got my Receipt Number Sept last week...
Leo
07-16 12:36 PM
This means that an officer is looking on your file and probably take a decision on it. Whats ur priority date?
more...
go_guy123
01-03 06:20 PM
......
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
See the politics in this article..written out of an MA media/mouthpiece...liberal leaning state and nature.
First they wanted comprehensive and wanted to hold the EB /skilled people hostage to their cause. They tried and failed again and again and again....and realized that mas amnesty is politically impossible and now with GOP in power in house it is even more impossible.
They tried Dream act stand alone...and failed even when Democratic party was in its high tide. and failed there as well. But short of few vote in senate. But house is a deep challenge. But they know conservative think tanks are in favor of skil bill and so they are now talking of attaching the dream act to the skill bill which has better chance of passing.
They have climbed down from their grand stand. But now they are trying to hold the SKIL Bill hostage to the Dream act....that is how Dream act s trying to make a comeback by attaching themselves to SKIL bill.
My feeling is that Dream act is still too politically toxic and even if "sugar coated" with SKIL
bill. It is way too bitter and politically radioactive for SKIL-Dream combined act to pass.
Democratic party still holds the Senate and Reid et al will be the ones trying to attach the Dream act to any SKIL bill....and that is where the problem lies.
Perhaps we will need to hope that "donkeys" get wiped out in Senate in 2012 for skilled immigrants to see the promised land.
The closest Congress came to action was the Dream Act, which would establish a path to citizenship for the most sympathetic class of undocumented immigrants: those brought to the U.S. as children, have stayed out of trouble, completed high school and committed to college or service in the U.S. military.
The Dream Act won passage in the House, and 53 votes in the Senate - but not enough to break a Republican-led filibuster.
Dream Act supporters should try again in the new Congress, but this time they should take a page from the tax compromise forged in the lame-duck session. That deal combined something Democrats wanted - an extension of unemployment benefits - with something Republicans wanted - an extension of tax cuts for high earning individuals.
Some leading conservatives have proposed loosening immigration rules for another worthy group: highly-educated foreigners capable of creating the new ideas, inventions and enterprises so important to America's economy. The brightest minds from around the world come to leading American universities, only to take their knowledge and talents back home because they can't legally stay here.
Conservative think tanks and commentators - and some elected officials - have suggested every foreign student who receives a post-graduate degree be automatically granted a green card. Some will still go home, but those who choose to stay can supply the brains and ambition that immigrants have been bringing to America's economy for hundreds of years.
Our first choice would be for Congress to enact the kind of comprehensive immigration reform proposed in recent years by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama. If that's not in the cards, we suggest pairing the Dream Act with a bill offering legal residency to the most highly educated foreign students.
What ties these proposals together is the assumption, shared by leaders of most political stripes, that legal immigration is good and necessary. America's population is aging and America's economic competitors are gaining ground in innovative technologies. We need immigrants, especially those who already consider themselves Americans - like the ones welcomed by the Dream Act - and those whose education and skills can contribute to economic growth.
The best compromises are those which incorporate the ideas and priorities of both sides. Such a compromise on immigration policy is long overdue.
Editorial: Immigration in 2011 - Framingham, MA - The MetroWest Daily News (http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x338106193/Editorial-Immigration-in-2011)
See the politics in this article..written out of an MA media/mouthpiece...liberal leaning state and nature.
First they wanted comprehensive and wanted to hold the EB /skilled people hostage to their cause. They tried and failed again and again and again....and realized that mas amnesty is politically impossible and now with GOP in power in house it is even more impossible.
They tried Dream act stand alone...and failed even when Democratic party was in its high tide. and failed there as well. But short of few vote in senate. But house is a deep challenge. But they know conservative think tanks are in favor of skil bill and so they are now talking of attaching the dream act to the skill bill which has better chance of passing.
They have climbed down from their grand stand. But now they are trying to hold the SKIL Bill hostage to the Dream act....that is how Dream act s trying to make a comeback by attaching themselves to SKIL bill.
My feeling is that Dream act is still too politically toxic and even if "sugar coated" with SKIL
bill. It is way too bitter and politically radioactive for SKIL-Dream combined act to pass.
Democratic party still holds the Senate and Reid et al will be the ones trying to attach the Dream act to any SKIL bill....and that is where the problem lies.
Perhaps we will need to hope that "donkeys" get wiped out in Senate in 2012 for skilled immigrants to see the promised land.
abhisam
07-19 03:20 PM
:D
Just me doing the translation will do? And how do I demonstrate the "competence" to do that? :rolleyes:
And yes, I am totally new to IV. The way it has been effective, I will surely contribute...
Even I had considered the idea of translating the BC myself or getting my friend to do it for me...but my lawyer suggested that BC is a very important document and USCIS is very particular about it. so it would be better if you get it done through a professional agency.
Just me doing the translation will do? And how do I demonstrate the "competence" to do that? :rolleyes:
And yes, I am totally new to IV. The way it has been effective, I will surely contribute...
Even I had considered the idea of translating the BC myself or getting my friend to do it for me...but my lawyer suggested that BC is a very important document and USCIS is very particular about it. so it would be better if you get it done through a professional agency.
more...
devikas81
06-16 08:12 PM
EB2 India..My 140 has been approved in May.07, also got EAD/AP but my employer doesnt want to give me Receipt Notice or Approval Notice of 140... So can i leave this company and join different company...
Pls. advise
Pls. advise
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
more...
gconmymind
08-29 12:33 PM
My wife's H1 was applied by her Indian company's US office in March 07 and got approved in July 07. She was in India at that time. We got married in July and she came to the US on H4 in Dec 07. Then, she went to Kolkata in Mar 08 (we are from Mumbai region) to get her H1B stamped and got the stamp and started working in Apr 08.
So, if you are returning from US to get a H1B stamp, you can go to any consulate in India.
You can go to Canada or Mexico, but chances are security clearance can delay the process. We did not want to take a chance and chose Inida for stamping.
So, if you are returning from US to get a H1B stamp, you can go to any consulate in India.
You can go to Canada or Mexico, but chances are security clearance can delay the process. We did not want to take a chance and chose Inida for stamping.
gcadream
03-12 01:21 PM
80-90% of H1B visa holders are on contract positions only and that was the sole purpose. Are you trying to say that all these H1B visa holders should take up permanent positions with the clients. One can do this also, no big deal but then who is going to cover the risk of layOff which can happen anytime with these permanent positions.
At least consulting companies do not lay you off and ur GC process doesn't gets screwed up in between and one doesn't gets out of status all of a sudden.
Also there had been some fraud cases by few of the consulting companies, but not all are fraud. Moreover tightening these rules doesn't stops the fraud company's, it stops all the valid consulting companies as well to run the business.
At least consulting companies do not lay you off and ur GC process doesn't gets screwed up in between and one doesn't gets out of status all of a sudden.
Also there had been some fraud cases by few of the consulting companies, but not all are fraud. Moreover tightening these rules doesn't stops the fraud company's, it stops all the valid consulting companies as well to run the business.
more...
arc
10-26 07:08 PM
tried my luck but they had a lot of people...will try again later...:(
VickIowa
12-28 05:40 AM
Hi all...thanks for taking the time to help me out...URGENTLY need advice based on your knowledge or experience...
I'm scheduled to travel to Mumbai via Amsterdam tomorrow morning. I just noticed that my I-94 card is missing (was stapled to my valid H1-B visa). My H1-B visa is valid until August 2011 and I have the original I-797A Notice of Action.
My questions are: (1) Will I be allowed to board the plane going from US to India? What should I say to the airline officer who asks for my I-94 card? , and
(2) Will I have any issues returning back to US? What precautions should I be taking to guard against this?
PS I did some initial research and do not have the time to I-102 since I'm supposed to catch a flight tomorrow.
Any information in the next 12-24 hours would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks all, Vick
Bookmark and Share
I'm scheduled to travel to Mumbai via Amsterdam tomorrow morning. I just noticed that my I-94 card is missing (was stapled to my valid H1-B visa). My H1-B visa is valid until August 2011 and I have the original I-797A Notice of Action.
My questions are: (1) Will I be allowed to board the plane going from US to India? What should I say to the airline officer who asks for my I-94 card? , and
(2) Will I have any issues returning back to US? What precautions should I be taking to guard against this?
PS I did some initial research and do not have the time to I-102 since I'm supposed to catch a flight tomorrow.
Any information in the next 12-24 hours would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks all, Vick
Bookmark and Share
more...
gcwanter
01-25 11:20 AM
if anything on Earth; the last place to go would be to Indian politicians.
am not inviting criticism but thats the way the indian system is built.
i agree and definitely believe more in the US system.
am not inviting criticism but thats the way the indian system is built.
i agree and definitely believe more in the US system.
sledge_hammer
03-04 09:21 PM
Your priority date is Dec 2004, in which case it is presumable that you are aware of immigration laws. I'm sure you know that working for cash is illegal when you are on H4 visa. Then why the hell would you advise someone to do it?
This is a very irresponsible advice you have given. Please refrain from doing it again.
Either you can enrich your skills by joining some short term courses or do small work (like teaching kids/ day care/ dance classes/ singing etc) where in you can earn CASH .................. I am not sure of your background so cannot comment on choices that you have.
This is a very irresponsible advice you have given. Please refrain from doing it again.
Either you can enrich your skills by joining some short term courses or do small work (like teaching kids/ day care/ dance classes/ singing etc) where in you can earn CASH .................. I am not sure of your background so cannot comment on choices that you have.
gg_ny
02-16 06:07 PM
I bet you are kidding. If you aren't, then what I meant was various rules and regulations that come with each application, application process available from USCIS. One good way is to go to state.gov or to popular immi law education sites of lawyers (google comes handy here).
Where can I get this? Local Library ?
Where can I get this? Local Library ?
hobbyaddict
November 2nd, 2009, 07:45 PM
"I am thinking next year I would like one of the broad range zoom lenses, a camera and one lense is a lot easier to carry on a trip. "
It's about a year... I think I may want a teleconverter /TC-14E (1.4)
-Ed[/quote]
It's about a year... I think I may want a teleconverter /TC-14E (1.4)
-Ed[/quote]