eagerr2i
11-06 03:28 PM
Here is the link with the clarification released on Jun 6th By Michael Aytes, Astt Director of USCIS regarding Non Cap h1B's
http://149.101.23.2/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/AC21C060606.pdf
These roles qualify for non cap H1B's
* Renewals of existing H1b's
* If are working for a not for profit institution
* If you are working for a institute of higher education ( as defined by the US education act of 1964, institutes like 2 yr and 4 year colleges and some high schools which have teacher education programs with schools of education in these colleges) or a government research institution or a company associated with the above institutions where the primary objective of the company is to supplement the mission of the institutions, example would be a company providing research assistants to a reseach medical hospital. In this case the company is not cap exempt but the job involves the institution that is cap exempt.
What kind of institution will your wife be a financial analyst in?
I am not an attorney, pls consult an attorney regarding your specific case. Hope this information helps.
http://149.101.23.2/graphics/lawsregs/handbook/AC21C060606.pdf
These roles qualify for non cap H1B's
* Renewals of existing H1b's
* If are working for a not for profit institution
* If you are working for a institute of higher education ( as defined by the US education act of 1964, institutes like 2 yr and 4 year colleges and some high schools which have teacher education programs with schools of education in these colleges) or a government research institution or a company associated with the above institutions where the primary objective of the company is to supplement the mission of the institutions, example would be a company providing research assistants to a reseach medical hospital. In this case the company is not cap exempt but the job involves the institution that is cap exempt.
What kind of institution will your wife be a financial analyst in?
I am not an attorney, pls consult an attorney regarding your specific case. Hope this information helps.
wallpaper milla jovovich fifth element.
Libra
08-03 12:30 PM
Guys, I am july 2nd filer and i got my checks cashed and waiting for reciepts....your checks will be cashed soon dont worry........until then why start new threads on same topic....instead will go to contribution thread and will start our posting there.....howzatt
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
2011 The Fifth Element Props…
loudobbs
10-09 05:40 PM
This is very useful information. So it is the Job Classification code that is important right??
I agree - the post is a little erroneous. I'll try change it.
Cant change the thread title ... Sorry
I agree - the post is a little erroneous. I'll try change it.
Cant change the thread title ... Sorry
more...
GCNaseeb
08-08 03:55 PM
Can you direct me to the link you just mentioned for pay stub requirment for at least 180 days after filing AOS?
I think the requirement is there should be a job offer at the time of filing of AOS. Here's an extract from a law firm:
" If you are able to file the adjustment of status, there does need to be a valid job offer underlying the case at the time of the filing. You do not have to be working for the employer full time, but there does have to be a valid job offer for the position described in the labor certification".
Its always safe to have paystubs for atlease 180 days after your 485 receipt date. If they call you for an interview at local office during adjudication, which may happen after anywhere from weeks, months, or years, there are chances that you may be asked to produce paystubs starting from month before interview date all the way back to your first H1 entry into US.
Please do not open new threads for these question for which there are several thread opened and are being discussed thru. Why don't you ask this question on one of those post?
I think the requirement is there should be a job offer at the time of filing of AOS. Here's an extract from a law firm:
" If you are able to file the adjustment of status, there does need to be a valid job offer underlying the case at the time of the filing. You do not have to be working for the employer full time, but there does have to be a valid job offer for the position described in the labor certification".
Its always safe to have paystubs for atlease 180 days after your 485 receipt date. If they call you for an interview at local office during adjudication, which may happen after anywhere from weeks, months, or years, there are chances that you may be asked to produce paystubs starting from month before interview date all the way back to your first H1 entry into US.
Please do not open new threads for these question for which there are several thread opened and are being discussed thru. Why don't you ask this question on one of those post?
gchopefull
10-02 03:52 PM
just pm you.
thank you
thank you
more...
h1techSlave
01-07 02:56 PM
it is stoop, not stop :)
You know you're getting old when you stop to tie your shoelaces and wonder what else you could do while you're down there.
You know you're getting old when you stop to tie your shoelaces and wonder what else you could do while you're down there.
2010 Fifth Element Fashion
REEF�
06-06 05:21 PM
Nice work vd...lol I only see one path...
more...
realizeit
03-20 02:13 PM
The best time for seeing any good result for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of 2008. Precisely, from Nov-02-2008 till the day, the new president swears in.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.
If you go through the records of the past presidencies, you can see one interesting thing: Whenever the presidency changes from one person to another, that period is the best to make any sweeping changes that can be done administratively. Bill clinton passed many executive orders during the last 1.5 months of his presidency. The reason for this is: the ruling party will not oppose this as the election is over. The new president will also not oppose this as the election is over and the bad blood of any of this action will not fall on him as well. On top of that, the new president need not address any contentious issues as an initiative from his side. If the old president started something, he could always portray that, he is making the situation better.
The best example for this kind of presidential action: There is a proposal from many parts of the political spectrum to lift the cuban embargo. No one is ready to do that as everyone is scared how it will affect them. If the passing president does this during the last 1.5 months, the blame will only fall on the president and it will not fall on the party or the opposition or on the new president. At the same time, the passing president will be portrayed in the history as someone who did some sweeping change.
Once the new president swears in, he won't be in a position to do sweeping changes as there is always a concern for second term, approval rating etc etc.
Well, the best time for lobbying in the next 8 years would be the end of this year, after Nov 2.
hair Fifth Element
yabadaba
04-07 09:50 AM
This is the question on the N400 (application for citizenship)
"Where have you worked (or, if you were a student, what schools did you attend) during the last five years? Include military service.Begin with your current or latest employer and then list every place you have worked or studied for the last five years. If you need more space, use a separate sheet of paper."
what if a person changes his job immidiately after 485 approval and does not apply for citizenship until 6 years?
"Where have you worked (or, if you were a student, what schools did you attend) during the last five years? Include military service.Begin with your current or latest employer and then list every place you have worked or studied for the last five years. If you need more space, use a separate sheet of paper."
what if a person changes his job immidiately after 485 approval and does not apply for citizenship until 6 years?
more...
greencardvow
07-18 08:02 PM
Does anyone know what happens when the original hard copy of PERM is lost. Can one file 140 with just the copy that you can get online from DOL site.
I believe that you do not have to refile just because you lost the hard copy...
This is not a lottery ticket that if you lose, you are left with nothing..
There must a procedure to get the same certificate reissued from DOL..
Please do the research and let is know...
I believe that you do not have to refile just because you lost the hard copy...
This is not a lottery ticket that if you lose, you are left with nothing..
There must a procedure to get the same certificate reissued from DOL..
Please do the research and let is know...
hot half naked Milla Jovovich
freddyCR
January 5th, 2005, 07:36 AM
Tthanks to all. Lecter those shoots are awsome ! I have never used this technique on portraits, although I see the intention is the same.
I must try it some day.
I just realised about the tilt. And about coloring some other parts...well although aesthetically might be a good idea, it would divert the attention from the main message of the picture, I think.
One other thing, there's a pun in the lettering on the wall; for those of you who don't speak spanish it says :
"FORBIDDEN TO THROW JUNK"
And finally, here's another example of selective coloring of which I'm quite fond. You may have seen it in the gallery...I call it "Enjoy Life". I'd appreciate your input on this, even though it's the same thread.
FREDDY
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/2555enjoy-clouds1_Medium_.jpg
I must try it some day.
I just realised about the tilt. And about coloring some other parts...well although aesthetically might be a good idea, it would divert the attention from the main message of the picture, I think.
One other thing, there's a pun in the lettering on the wall; for those of you who don't speak spanish it says :
"FORBIDDEN TO THROW JUNK"
And finally, here's another example of selective coloring of which I'm quite fond. You may have seen it in the gallery...I call it "Enjoy Life". I'd appreciate your input on this, even though it's the same thread.
FREDDY
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/511/2555enjoy-clouds1_Medium_.jpg
more...
house Milla Jovovich
.jpg "Milla Jovovich")
sanan
05-22 11:39 AM
huh?
EAD is Employment Authorization Document. It can filed with your I 485, it has nothing to do with 485 pending for 6 months! Where are you getting such info from?
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
EAD is Employment Authorization Document. It can filed with your I 485, it has nothing to do with 485 pending for 6 months! Where are you getting such info from?
People will be filing their I-485, not their EAD. EAD is something one gets after the 1-485 application has been pending for 6 months :)
tattoo MILLA JOVOVICH FIFTH ELEMENT
immigrant2007
07-19 09:05 PM
It doesn't matter if the I-140 was revoked by the prev employer, still the PD is yours to keep provided that I-140 was approved. One should also be cautious about the revocation, if the approved I-140 was revoked by USCIS itself as a fraudulent filing then no benefits from that I-140! Otherwise you are good.
The new company's offer is like any other job for you, if you qualify for the job and the company likes you and your skills they are going to offer the market salary and the position can even be a manager, then you might qualify for EB1!
Hi Rajenk
thanks for the information
The new company's offer is like any other job for you, if you qualify for the job and the company likes you and your skills they are going to offer the market salary and the position can even be a manager, then you might qualify for EB1!
Hi Rajenk
thanks for the information
more...
pictures JAPAN Milla Jovovich jpg red
acecupid
06-25 11:13 AM
I believe you should be ok since you are travelling and returning before expiry of old AP. You should be physically present in the US during application of new AP. Once you have the receipt for new AP, you should be good to go.
dresses Milla Jovovich nude for Purple
lazycis
02-13 05:27 PM
If you want IV (immigrant visa), help IV (Immigration Voice)
more...
makeup Leeloo : Milla Jovovich : The
gc070922
12-19 05:15 PM
Husband + Wife - 1 Application
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
I'm thinking of doing the samething. Have you received receipts of both sets of applications? How about finger prints? Did you mention the earlier one in the later one, for the question "have you applied before" on the i485?
Thanks in advance.
Wife - Seperate Appln. ( Will do follow to join incase by chance the first one gets stuck
I'm thinking of doing the samething. Have you received receipts of both sets of applications? How about finger prints? Did you mention the earlier one in the later one, for the question "have you applied before" on the i485?
Thanks in advance.
girlfriend Milla Jovovich Biography
NIW
08-31 12:15 PM
As illusions said, Lou has shot himself in the foot once again. Pehaps Lou should come out of his illusion and see the real world before he confuses his eye for his foot.
hairstyles Posts tagged Milla Jovovich
learning01
05-24 01:44 PM
Good job.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2006/060523_A1_Still55192_a1immigrant.jpg
Fantastic job Salil. The idea of the poster was simply fabulous.
Keep it up!
S.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2006/060523_A1_Still55192_a1immigrant.jpg
Fantastic job Salil. The idea of the poster was simply fabulous.
Keep it up!
S.
saurav_4096
06-16 10:00 PM
How does AC21 will come into play when a person files I-485 with the letter from employer that employment will be availabe once green card is issued.
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
Does person has to join the employer after green card is issued ? As Green card will be availabe only after 180 days of filing.
Gurus, if someone knows such please reply.
Thanks
Saurav
sodh
02-12 05:07 PM
Folks,
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
There is nothing like premium processing for H4, if your H1 is applied in premium processing, H4 is also processed in 15 calendar days.
employer's attorney claims that there is no such thing as H4 premium processing.
Can anyone point me to the correct memo where Premium filing was made available for I-539 applications?
I searched all Mathew-Oh updates dated one year ago and can't locate it.
I need to get that h4 under premium ASAP so that I can transfer to H1 in April.
Can anyone please help?
There is nothing like premium processing for H4, if your H1 is applied in premium processing, H4 is also processed in 15 calendar days.
No comments:
Post a Comment