GCBoy786
09-14 05:06 PM
We have received our I-485 receipts(me and spouse). On my receipt just below "Amount Received" there is a this tag called "Section". It is answered as "UNKNOWN" on both of our receipts.
My friends is answered differently. His is from TSC and mine are from NSC.
Does any of you know what does "UNKNWON" mean and what consequences it might have.
My friends is answered differently. His is from TSC and mine are from NSC.
Does any of you know what does "UNKNWON" mean and what consequences it might have.
wallpaper imagenes de amor a dios. el
vasa
07-16 11:50 PM
yes, everyone at hill knows that we pay taxes/abide by the law and still gets screwed because we dont have any representations!...
why is NumberUSA and other groups on CNN/FOX and other channels and our story is just passing comment..
we need to confront these people with fact check; like there is a thread for Lou Dobbs fact check.
why is NumberUSA and other groups on CNN/FOX and other channels and our story is just passing comment..
we need to confront these people with fact check; like there is a thread for Lou Dobbs fact check.
EB-VoiceImmigration
09-07 03:17 PM
How about even a much better solution, learn your country's national language......:)
My Initial reaction to this post and others(including the one who said he is from AP .. but I believe in reality he is not..) who think every one in india should learn hindi.
--> FCUK U. Who the hell are you to say this ?
Now.. lets dicuss...
It is not even a requirement in India to learn hindi. Why in the world it is required to access a forum based on US EB immigration?
Dont get zealous of raise of south in IT and lets not make a debate on what people are doing in our part of the world. It will never end.
My Initial reaction to this post and others(including the one who said he is from AP .. but I believe in reality he is not..) who think every one in india should learn hindi.
--> FCUK U. Who the hell are you to say this ?
Now.. lets dicuss...
It is not even a requirement in India to learn hindi. Why in the world it is required to access a forum based on US EB immigration?
Dont get zealous of raise of south in IT and lets not make a debate on what people are doing in our part of the world. It will never end.
2011 Algo más sobre el amor de Dios
chunky
07-26 03:14 PM
Lawyer told that after AOS filing one is in dual status so no worry. But I am not 100 % sure
more...
ash0210
05-15 09:09 AM
Due to PD movement, to track exact status of how many guys are "already in Que" and how many guys want to "join" the Que, we needs to have two more options e.g. -
- India PD current & I-485 already filed (guys already in Que)
- India PD current & I-485 NOT filed (guys want to Join the Que)
This will help to know how many guys are in que, how many VISA's are available (as per USCIS) and then we will have some "guess" work on how PD will move ahaead in upcoming months!!
This is a EB3 - General Poll across all countries
- India PD current & I-485 already filed (guys already in Que)
- India PD current & I-485 NOT filed (guys want to Join the Que)
This will help to know how many guys are in que, how many VISA's are available (as per USCIS) and then we will have some "guess" work on how PD will move ahaead in upcoming months!!
This is a EB3 - General Poll across all countries
raj7480
09-18 04:42 PM
I would recommend not to worry about that and make the move. Non compete in general is not easy to enforce through a court. Particularly if it stops you from earning your livelihood. If you live in CA, it not valid. Many states have different laws and most of the court decision favor employees.
Since you H1B was denied, Company A cannot prove any loss of business to them because of your move.
Since you H1B was denied, Company A cannot prove any loss of business to them because of your move.
more...
kurtz_wolfgang
08-15 04:23 PM
First of all Thanks to GCGreen and WantGC. I really am grateful to both of you. Without any know-how I had to bite dust from others.
I have the copy of my labor and 140. So I am looking for a job that is similar to those responsibilities and have the same SOC code. Just that the tools would differ. But what I understood is that if the tools change it doesn't create any problem. I just need to take care of the SOC code and responsibilities.
Of course I will take help from a lawyer, but I just wanted that initial boost to start looking.
I have the copy of my labor and 140. So I am looking for a job that is similar to those responsibilities and have the same SOC code. Just that the tools would differ. But what I understood is that if the tools change it doesn't create any problem. I just need to take care of the SOC code and responsibilities.
Of course I will take help from a lawyer, but I just wanted that initial boost to start looking.
2010 imagenes del amor de dios. del
amitkhare77
10-08 10:38 AM
If the JOB requires EB2 then you can file EB2 and not because your qualification/experience is equivalent to EB2. If your company can prove why you are the best suited for this JOB which is EB2 category, there should not be any problem. Given the circumstances - filing EB3 will be a safe bat.
Another important thing whole EB2 and EB3 classification is , it does not matter how much experience or educational credetials a benificiary has. The job should require it too...
Another important thing whole EB2 and EB3 classification is , it does not matter how much experience or educational credetials a benificiary has. The job should require it too...
more...
vegasbaby
06-10 09:50 AM
Hello All,
I was reading at some of the posts in this forum and they seem to have been quiet helpful.
My company has decided to go ahead with my GC process.
Its in the very early stage, but my immigration specialist gave me a heads up regarding something.
She said, that as I have a 3 yrs BE degree the USCIS may not recognize me under EB2 category :confused: So I explained her the education system in India, but she said that it depends upon the Credential Evaluation Agency which will process my educational qualification and prepare a report and submit it to USCIS.
Following this USCIS will make a decision whether to grant EB2 or EB3 category.
I am sure many of the members may have faced a similar Dilemma....Is there any specific solution to this?
To be precise I completed my Diploma from Mumbai & Degree from Pune University, followed by MS in US and currently working on H1B.
Please Advice.
Thanks,
Shakti
I have a 3 yrs Diploma from BTE - Mumbai & 3 years B.E. from Univ of Mumbai. In Mumbai, you can do 10 + 3yr Dip + 3yr BE OR you can do 12 + 4yr BE. Eventually 16 yrs of education is more important + there is no difference between the degree awarded to you & someone who does a 4 yrs degree.
I have EB3 pending & have currently labor done under EB2 with no issues.
I was reading at some of the posts in this forum and they seem to have been quiet helpful.
My company has decided to go ahead with my GC process.
Its in the very early stage, but my immigration specialist gave me a heads up regarding something.
She said, that as I have a 3 yrs BE degree the USCIS may not recognize me under EB2 category :confused: So I explained her the education system in India, but she said that it depends upon the Credential Evaluation Agency which will process my educational qualification and prepare a report and submit it to USCIS.
Following this USCIS will make a decision whether to grant EB2 or EB3 category.
I am sure many of the members may have faced a similar Dilemma....Is there any specific solution to this?
To be precise I completed my Diploma from Mumbai & Degree from Pune University, followed by MS in US and currently working on H1B.
Please Advice.
Thanks,
Shakti
I have a 3 yrs Diploma from BTE - Mumbai & 3 years B.E. from Univ of Mumbai. In Mumbai, you can do 10 + 3yr Dip + 3yr BE OR you can do 12 + 4yr BE. Eventually 16 yrs of education is more important + there is no difference between the degree awarded to you & someone who does a 4 yrs degree.
I have EB3 pending & have currently labor done under EB2 with no issues.
hair house house Dios es amor dios
The7zen
09-29 01:44 PM
Central Board of Excise and Customs (http://www.cbec.gov.in/)
Personally we never had problem carrying personal Jewelery.
Personally we never had problem carrying personal Jewelery.
more...
amitkhare77
11-17 01:29 PM
Yes you need the I-94 attached with I-797 in order to apply for change of status (H1 to H4). your employer can not keep I-797. Just tell your employer that you need to apply SSN and you need I-797.
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
Thanks! But if I apply for my own H4, I would require my copy of I797 and the I94 attached to that. My employer doesnt provide me with the copy of those. Would the documents from my husband good enough to apply in US?
Arpu
hot 2010 imagenes del amor de
yibornindia
12-19 03:36 PM
AC21: if my new employer is open to do either EAD or H1, what should I prefer? I want to take the least risky route.
more...
house 2010 imagenes de amor de dios.
puja101
07-11 01:24 PM
I received RFE today that says" your application contained form I-693 in which the required TB skin test was not conducted. Please note there may be conflicting information on some published form I-693 instructions regarding when the chest X ray Report should be performed. It is required only when the TB skin test indicates a reaction equal to greater than 5 mm, or when the reason for why the TB skin test is medically inappropriate to perform has been annotated on theform I-693. Please submit a newly completed form I-693 indicating the results of the required skin test.
On Form I-485 Part3 C list present and past membership in or affliation with every organization, fund.......If none, write "NONE" or include name of organization.....Provide your answer on the photocopy of FormI-485 (enclosed) with your signiture and the date next to your answer"
I did TB skin test in 2007 that came negative and it appears to me, civil surgeon did not updated results on I-693 form. Today, I got sealed envelop from doctor and she has updated TB test results conducted in 2007 on new I-693 form. Is that ok or I need to do new TB skin test? Please let me know.
On checking copy of original I-485, I had answered Part3 C with "NON" instead of "NONE".I have few questions on this:
1.Visa Office did not enclose photo copy of Form I-485 as was stated in the RFE letter.Should I send photo copy of original I-485 with correction and signiture on it?
2. Do I need to send them only this page of Form I-485 or complete I-485 form?
Please help.
On Form I-485 Part3 C list present and past membership in or affliation with every organization, fund.......If none, write "NONE" or include name of organization.....Provide your answer on the photocopy of FormI-485 (enclosed) with your signiture and the date next to your answer"
I did TB skin test in 2007 that came negative and it appears to me, civil surgeon did not updated results on I-693 form. Today, I got sealed envelop from doctor and she has updated TB test results conducted in 2007 on new I-693 form. Is that ok or I need to do new TB skin test? Please let me know.
On checking copy of original I-485, I had answered Part3 C with "NON" instead of "NONE".I have few questions on this:
1.Visa Office did not enclose photo copy of Form I-485 as was stated in the RFE letter.Should I send photo copy of original I-485 with correction and signiture on it?
2. Do I need to send them only this page of Form I-485 or complete I-485 form?
Please help.
tattoo imagenes del amor de dios.
stueym
07-07 11:57 AM
Just wanted folks to know that our family recorded a video entry on Youtube for the CNN-YouTube presidential debate competition.
CNN-YouTube Democratic debate contest (http://www.youtube.com/contest/DemocraticDebate)
They are looking for a few winners that will be used to pose questions to democratic presidential contenders. My son who is an International Affairs/Poli-Sci student wanted to do this and wanted our support.
You can see our video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt3AkZ1ID0w
The higher rating and more views/comments we get the more attention we will get from CNN.
CNN-YouTube Democratic debate contest (http://www.youtube.com/contest/DemocraticDebate)
They are looking for a few winners that will be used to pose questions to democratic presidential contenders. My son who is an International Affairs/Poli-Sci student wanted to do this and wanted our support.
You can see our video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt3AkZ1ID0w
The higher rating and more views/comments we get the more attention we will get from CNN.
more...
pictures hair hot imagenes del amor de
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
dresses amor secreto. amor a dios
Munna Bhai
12-14 09:43 AM
I just received a USCIS automated e-mail indicating an RFE has been issued with regard to my pending I-140 (pending since January 16, 2007, at NSC)...have yet to receive the actual RFE letter. My AP application has been pending since August 1, 2007, also at NSC. Can this RFE delay processing of my AP? I need to travel this month and had also sent a fax to USCIS requesting expediting the I-131. Please let me know what you think, as I am very worried! What could the RFE be in regards to? I work for a university, have a 4 year degree (obtained in the US, along with an MBA), and ability to pay should not be an issue. No experience required!
Thanks!
I-485/I-765 filed July 6, 2007 - EB3
I-765 approved Sept. 11, 2007
I-131 filed Aug. 1 2007 & pending
FP completed Dec. 04, 2007
Please update us once you receive RFE, I will update the items.
Thanks!
I-485/I-765 filed July 6, 2007 - EB3
I-765 approved Sept. 11, 2007
I-131 filed Aug. 1 2007 & pending
FP completed Dec. 04, 2007
Please update us once you receive RFE, I will update the items.
more...
makeup amor a dios
lostinbeta
10-21 12:27 AM
Sometimes I have an idea of what I am going for in my head. In a case like that I do everything I can and try and find anyway I can do achieve a near effect as the one in my head.
But most of the time I let my imagination take me where it wants at that moment.
It isn't edwins comp that does it.... it is part of edwins amazing ability :beam:
But most of the time I let my imagination take me where it wants at that moment.
It isn't edwins comp that does it.... it is part of edwins amazing ability :beam:
girlfriend hot imagenes del amor de dios.
eb3stuck
05-08 01:52 AM
I would like to know, can I get my H-1B at 6.0 year of my H-4 with my spouse�s approved I-140 (affected by EB-3 retrogression)?
No only primary applicant can extend their H-1 spouses beyond six who are on H-1B are "forced" to convert to H-4 :mad: :mad:
No only primary applicant can extend their H-1 spouses beyond six who are on H-1B are "forced" to convert to H-4 :mad: :mad:
hairstyles amor de dios. amor de dios
paskal
07-20 08:33 PM
a link that says 485 filing needs tax returns.
please see the official instructions with the 485 form and note what is actually asked for- it's not much- and no W2 or tax returns are mentioned.
please see the official instructions with the 485 form and note what is actually asked for- it's not much- and no W2 or tax returns are mentioned.
saimrathi
08-10 03:51 PM
Great find..
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
Please post all news related info here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4805&highlight=media
priderock
11-29 03:28 PM
senorita..raj here...
here comes the answers for your responses...
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
You need pay stubs of working firm to get the stamping. If you are working presently ..u will ahve some pay stubs and you can use it and get stamped.
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
If you live out side US for more than 360 days , then u r H1b is invalid. In order to return again you should apply under the H1b cap.
Hope this helps....
It is not true. H1 is valid until its validity date.
here comes the answers for your responses...
1) Since I wont be coming back to US as of now, what if I do not get my H1 visa stamped. Can I use my approval(I-797)in the present consulting firm's name, for getting H1b stamped through any other company in future.
You need pay stubs of working firm to get the stamping. If you are working presently ..u will ahve some pay stubs and you can use it and get stamped.
2) I understand that stamping is needed only for reentering US. What if i just get the stamping done and still do not come back. In that case, can I still transfer my stamped H1B to any other company without working at all for the consulting firm whose stamp I have on my passport.
If you live out side US for more than 360 days , then u r H1b is invalid. In order to return again you should apply under the H1b cap.
Hope this helps....
It is not true. H1 is valid until its validity date.
