mhathi
08-22 11:04 AM
Did you efile or paper-file? Most of the E-filed applications are taking ~90 days to get to Card Production Ordered (CPO) status. Mine took exactly ninety days.
paskal
06-03 04:26 PM
numbers are critical to lawmakers and so...
don't think of this as spam!
if it was useless orgs like AILA, ALIPAC and NumbersUSA would not be bothering with webfaxes to lawmakers.
the legislative staff bunch them together and gauge the numbers of people interested in a particular provision or specific relief. therefore the emalils and the webfaxes, even though they have standard language are critical.
As for including every single provision and relief in the webfax, this would not work. It has to be concise and specific with some core issues highlighted- remember iv works with major lobbying firms and certainly has input from people with a lot of experience. Webfaxes and e mails do buy access though for our core team and lobbyists and highlight our issue. Once that is achieved we have a much better chance of getting friendly amendments with various different kinds of relief- including things not specifically mentioned in the webfax itself.
Having said this, it does not stop members from ALSO writing individual e mails to lawmakers highlighting our problems in your own language. I have done so myself and had very encouraging success in getting specific personal responses from the staff of some lawmakers. You all know who friendly senators are, write to them specifically by all means highlighting your individual problems, end my mentioning iv and it's work for skilled immigrants. I even posted the iv message at the end of my personalized e mails.
Please send the iv web fax and e mails and do make the additional efforts as well. and don't forget to contribute...
don't think of this as spam!
if it was useless orgs like AILA, ALIPAC and NumbersUSA would not be bothering with webfaxes to lawmakers.
the legislative staff bunch them together and gauge the numbers of people interested in a particular provision or specific relief. therefore the emalils and the webfaxes, even though they have standard language are critical.
As for including every single provision and relief in the webfax, this would not work. It has to be concise and specific with some core issues highlighted- remember iv works with major lobbying firms and certainly has input from people with a lot of experience. Webfaxes and e mails do buy access though for our core team and lobbyists and highlight our issue. Once that is achieved we have a much better chance of getting friendly amendments with various different kinds of relief- including things not specifically mentioned in the webfax itself.
Having said this, it does not stop members from ALSO writing individual e mails to lawmakers highlighting our problems in your own language. I have done so myself and had very encouraging success in getting specific personal responses from the staff of some lawmakers. You all know who friendly senators are, write to them specifically by all means highlighting your individual problems, end my mentioning iv and it's work for skilled immigrants. I even posted the iv message at the end of my personalized e mails.
Please send the iv web fax and e mails and do make the additional efforts as well. and don't forget to contribute...
rajuram
12-06 10:09 AM
File online. Next steps
- Print two copies of the online receipt
- with one copy of the receipt attach -
485 copy, 2 photographs, a sheet with reason for applying AP (i.e. answer to question nbr 10 or 7, don't remember)
- mail the above to the address on the receipt
- relax for 3 or 4 weeks
- get the approval
- Print two copies of the online receipt
- with one copy of the receipt attach -
485 copy, 2 photographs, a sheet with reason for applying AP (i.e. answer to question nbr 10 or 7, don't remember)
- mail the above to the address on the receipt
- relax for 3 or 4 weeks
- get the approval
rajs
03-14 04:49 PM
hope they start working on all 2001 cases
more...
chunky
07-26 03:04 PM
My company filed my green card and have applied for 485 for me and my wife on July 19 with July visa bulletin reinstated. We have also applied for AP and EAD for my wife. We both are on H1 at this time. My wife' job is going to end by month end.
Does she need to file change of status to H4 or it is fine to stay in US with AOS pending status.
My 140 is still pending
Does she need to file change of status to H4 or it is fine to stay in US with AOS pending status.
My 140 is still pending
johnggberg
07-13 01:53 PM
hey i know how to play that, will that help :D
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
buehler
06-03 01:09 PM
May be I am not understanding the question right...I think the question was - what are the STEM disciplines? I know the website lists a bunch of occupations that require one of the STEM degrees. So to look at what are the STEM degrees, I chose Browse By STEM Degree and in that Scroll menu are all the majors - starts with Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering....
The question that was asked was - is Statistics a STEM discipline. That cannot be answered from that page even though it looks so. For e.g if I choose the Mathematics Major, it only lists the occupation that requires a Math Major and not the disciplines under Math. For e.g. one one of the occupation is Natural Sciences Managers which is an occupation and not exactly a discipline.
The question that was asked was - is Statistics a STEM discipline. That cannot be answered from that page even though it looks so. For e.g if I choose the Mathematics Major, it only lists the occupation that requires a Math Major and not the disciplines under Math. For e.g. one one of the occupation is Natural Sciences Managers which is an occupation and not exactly a discipline.
more...
vikram_singh
07-26 08:31 PM
Guys,
I just created a search engine (http://immisearch.blogspot.com/) to help all people looking for a better way to search topics around immigration related activites. The search engine came as a result of my countless hours that I spent searching to answers around the web.
Try searching for any information with h1b, h4, Green Card, I-485, I140, citizenship etc, and the engine should give you a better result.
Leave a comment at the blog and let me know what else could be improved.
http://immisearch.blogspot.com/
Also suggest any sites you may want to add to improve the seach engine.
-Vikram
I just created a search engine (http://immisearch.blogspot.com/) to help all people looking for a better way to search topics around immigration related activites. The search engine came as a result of my countless hours that I spent searching to answers around the web.
Try searching for any information with h1b, h4, Green Card, I-485, I140, citizenship etc, and the engine should give you a better result.
Leave a comment at the blog and let me know what else could be improved.
http://immisearch.blogspot.com/
Also suggest any sites you may want to add to improve the seach engine.
-Vikram
anilsal
12-25 01:32 AM
top if the administrators can make this thread sticky. :)
IV has really mobilized the EB immigrant community under one roof.
I guess there is an immediate need to spread the word about IV to all the folks affected by retrogression.
IV has really mobilized the EB immigrant community under one roof.
I guess there is an immediate need to spread the word about IV to all the folks affected by retrogression.
more...
octoberbloom
12-28 11:17 AM
TSC - 485 went back to January 2007?????
logiclife
12-31 06:52 PM
But the way its worded now, it means no benefit for people who have no master's or Ph.D from US accredited university.
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
And you have to have 3 year experience to top it. From the wording, it means probably before you filed you I-140, you need to have 3 years of experience in relevant field.
more...
vin13
03-09 05:30 PM
Stop dreaming and do something:D
pappu
03-06 11:51 AM
Dear members,
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
If you have received letters from USCIS asking for $5K for your FOIA request, Please fax a copy of that letter to Immigration Voice.
We want to collect those letters and proceed with some big effort on this issue. It is thus important that we have lots of such letters from members.
Please note the fax number
Fax : (202) 403-3853
or email the scanned copy to info at immigrationvoice.org
Time is short and we need letters in the next couple of days if possible.
more...
rolrblade
03-11 01:34 PM
I don't understand in what cases consulate holds a person's passport. What if the applicant wants to return back home country instead of waiting in Canada?
You have a right to ask for your passport back. You can always state the logic that in the case of emergency, will the consulate provide the passport back at a moments notice? probably not!
Also, a passport is the property of the issuing government and no other government entitiy / individual has a right to hold it. I wouldnt state it in these terms though :) .... the emergency travel reason should suffice!
You have a right to ask for your passport back. You can always state the logic that in the case of emergency, will the consulate provide the passport back at a moments notice? probably not!
Also, a passport is the property of the issuing government and no other government entitiy / individual has a right to hold it. I wouldnt state it in these terms though :) .... the emergency travel reason should suffice!
gclongwaytogo
10-24 09:47 AM
:o:)
more...
amslonewolf
05-22 12:03 PM
I don't think the state dept is that naive. They already know what the demand would be. All they would have to do is just look at the approved I-140s and they a very reasonable estimate.
![wallpaper marijuana. [ WEED wallpaper] marijuana](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u6RWFTFheIQd98EubsZfIspPSOAir2Ld7HRm1NH-4XuY_uaR8eLEEdrkAXuX8XEIkgsrMp3azMSnBTrwC8m5zmAGmhwNyGfM7f-alQOZg_B9ghHlrTjpXpi7OYLE4XU_Lv8_zrY3b1MqIVjbRGlL-uoSUOgIq-0ppNKQ=s0-d "[ WEED wallpaper] marijuana")
milmuk
07-23 11:24 AM
Hi,
I am planning to renew my AP while in India. What is the procedure to do this?
My details :
Applied for H1 transfer - Dec 15,2008 - normal category -still pending
Ap - valid till Nov 2009
EAD - valid till Nov 2010.Using AC21 for working with the present employer.
I came back to India in March, after completing the project.
My present employer wants me to come to the US only when I have a project in hand.
Based in India, it is very difficult to find the project. Also, most of the projects need US citizen, GC holder, so very less projects available to the H1-B holders. Due to the recession, working on the contract is again a problem, since companies want the permanent employee, instead of contract employee.
I understand that presently working on H1 is difficult, since one should have the project in hand before applying for H1. Sometimes, at the port of entry they ask for paystubs for all the period, ask about the end client details etc. Sometimes people were sent back, since they didn't have all the details at the port of entry.
In this scenario, I am still not sure, if coming back to US will be a good option or not.
But I may need to come if the AP renewal is not possible from India.
In present scenario, If AP renewal is not possible from India, I will have to unnecessarily travel to US on existing AP (till Nov 09).I won't be able to come on H1-B, since my H1 application is still pending even after 6 months. How can one do AP renewal while in India?
Since in the present scenario,I may not get a job(since I don't have GC/citizenship),will it be advisable to come to US just to renew AP?
My ead is valid till Nov 2010,which means If I enter US before ead expiry,I will be able to work on ead.I have lost all the hope for H1 now,since it is more than 7 months.Of course for ead,is it possible to renew it while in India?
I don't have much finances now,so travel to US just to renew ap/ead in the hope of getting gc one day,is bit problematic.I am on EB3 labor 2006 , so GC process will take atleast 5 years.
Even if I reach US for AP renewal, I have to stay there for 2-3 months,till AP gets renewed.
I am not very confortable with this situation.
I just want to keep my GC process going by renewing ap and ead.Is there any way out of this?
I think the rule is , If you don't come to the US while the AP is valid, you abandon the I-485.
Can you give me some guidence on this?
I am planning to renew my AP while in India. What is the procedure to do this?
My details :
Applied for H1 transfer - Dec 15,2008 - normal category -still pending
Ap - valid till Nov 2009
EAD - valid till Nov 2010.Using AC21 for working with the present employer.
I came back to India in March, after completing the project.
My present employer wants me to come to the US only when I have a project in hand.
Based in India, it is very difficult to find the project. Also, most of the projects need US citizen, GC holder, so very less projects available to the H1-B holders. Due to the recession, working on the contract is again a problem, since companies want the permanent employee, instead of contract employee.
I understand that presently working on H1 is difficult, since one should have the project in hand before applying for H1. Sometimes, at the port of entry they ask for paystubs for all the period, ask about the end client details etc. Sometimes people were sent back, since they didn't have all the details at the port of entry.
In this scenario, I am still not sure, if coming back to US will be a good option or not.
But I may need to come if the AP renewal is not possible from India.
In present scenario, If AP renewal is not possible from India, I will have to unnecessarily travel to US on existing AP (till Nov 09).I won't be able to come on H1-B, since my H1 application is still pending even after 6 months. How can one do AP renewal while in India?
Since in the present scenario,I may not get a job(since I don't have GC/citizenship),will it be advisable to come to US just to renew AP?
My ead is valid till Nov 2010,which means If I enter US before ead expiry,I will be able to work on ead.I have lost all the hope for H1 now,since it is more than 7 months.Of course for ead,is it possible to renew it while in India?
I don't have much finances now,so travel to US just to renew ap/ead in the hope of getting gc one day,is bit problematic.I am on EB3 labor 2006 , so GC process will take atleast 5 years.
Even if I reach US for AP renewal, I have to stay there for 2-3 months,till AP gets renewed.
I am not very confortable with this situation.
I just want to keep my GC process going by renewing ap and ead.Is there any way out of this?
I think the rule is , If you don't come to the US while the AP is valid, you abandon the I-485.
Can you give me some guidence on this?
GCBy3000
03-31 10:13 AM
You can take any number of salary hike but not different job duties than specified in the labor. No need to inform the labaor department. Because as per law you cannot have different job duties until you get your gc and max one year beyond that.
I am also stuck in the same boat. Infact, I got promoted with 16k hike and demoted in two months. My attorney got a apology letter signed by my VP for attorney records. It is that serious to change job duties.
I am also stuck in the same boat. Infact, I got promoted with 16k hike and demoted in two months. My attorney got a apology letter signed by my VP for attorney records. It is that serious to change job duties.
aristotle
02-08 12:46 PM
You can say to your current employer that you want to try out something new, but if it doesn't work out you want to have the option of coming back.
If they like you enough, they will consider it. How long to leave it active is another question. Lets say you were able to port the PD to your new I140. If the old employer then revokes the I140, are you still ok with the old PD?
If they like you enough, they will consider it. How long to leave it active is another question. Lets say you were able to port the PD to your new I140. If the old employer then revokes the I140, are you still ok with the old PD?
spicy_guy
08-11 12:09 PM
Pappu: Can we do anything about it? It does seem to be a good bill.
If voting on the website really has any impact, why can't we do it?
If voting on the website really has any impact, why can't we do it?
No comments:
Post a Comment