getgreensoon1
04-07 01:26 PM
Tech firms warn of impacts of tight visa quota - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tech-firms-warn-of-impacts-of-tight-visa-quota-2011-04-07?siteid=rss&rss=1)
The problem is most of the visas are taken by indian bodyshops such as infosys, TCS, LT to bring underskilled computer operators to the US. Intel, MS and other good companies that hire from reputed US universities have hard time getting the visas due to the cap. The cap should work the other way round. 20K for bodyshops and 65K for people from US universities.
The problem is most of the visas are taken by indian bodyshops such as infosys, TCS, LT to bring underskilled computer operators to the US. Intel, MS and other good companies that hire from reputed US universities have hard time getting the visas due to the cap. The cap should work the other way round. 20K for bodyshops and 65K for people from US universities.
wallpaper ob marley quotes tattoos. ob
puskeygadha
07-17 03:56 PM
They give very generic answer to clients
i dont think they care about individuals...
if they continue like this they will loose business..lots of people are
suffering
i dont think they care about individuals...
if they continue like this they will loose business..lots of people are
suffering
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 ob marley quotes tattoos.
logiclife
02-27 11:51 AM
This decision is too important for you, it seems, and I would consult a lawyer for best course of action because the users on forums are not lawyers and they can give you options, but it may not be the best option.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
Since you are planning next 2-3 years of your life, you should seek paid consultation from a good lawyer.
more...
eb3_nepa
06-15 10:49 PM
Dude i think you have WAYYYY overestimated the processing times!!
dilipb
04-21 04:38 PM
Wow!
more...
amitkhare77
08-10 12:06 PM
I am EB3 Dec 2006. I have changed JOB on EAD, I did file AC21 through my new employer. my new employer has already started the EB2 processing.
I would recommend you the following -
make sure you have all the information i.e. previous Job Description which was used for labor filing or the job code on your labor certification.
You have a copy of I-140 approval
your current salary offer is good to qualify EB2 prevailing wages (does not matter a lot but good to consider)
you get an experience certificate describing technologies, skills you will use for future labor filing advertisement.
Thank you my_gc_wait.
Regarding response #1 and your comment about AC21 portability, there isn't anything the employer has to do, correct? I believe, if the new job requirements is same or similar, there should be no problem with AC21.
Also, what can I request from the employer other than the job advertisement itself as evidence to make sure the position suits EB2 requirements.
I would recommend you the following -
make sure you have all the information i.e. previous Job Description which was used for labor filing or the job code on your labor certification.
You have a copy of I-140 approval
your current salary offer is good to qualify EB2 prevailing wages (does not matter a lot but good to consider)
you get an experience certificate describing technologies, skills you will use for future labor filing advertisement.
Thank you my_gc_wait.
Regarding response #1 and your comment about AC21 portability, there isn't anything the employer has to do, correct? I believe, if the new job requirements is same or similar, there should be no problem with AC21.
Also, what can I request from the employer other than the job advertisement itself as evidence to make sure the position suits EB2 requirements.
2010 ob marley quotes tattoos. ob
akhilmahajan
04-17 12:09 PM
This topic has been discussed in detail in the following thread.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21556
You can also find the list of documents you need to renew your passport. Please let me know if you have any questions or post on that thread to get feedback from folks who recently got their passport renewed.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21556
You can also find the list of documents you need to renew your passport. Please let me know if you have any questions or post on that thread to get feedback from folks who recently got their passport renewed.
more...
tabletpc
01-11 09:29 AM
Guys please help me with below questions.
Q1:I have switched from H-4 to H-1 starting from Oct 1st, 2007. However, I have not started working yet. Does this invalidate my h-1?
Nope..!!! Unless the employer revoke the H1b it won't be invalidated.
Q2: I am travelling to India very soon and planning to come back using AP obtained thru my husband's GC process. Will there be any problem. What should I tell at port of entry, if they ask about my approved H-1 but not worked on H-1?
Unless you come under the payroll of your H1b employer , POE people won't get to know. If att they ask, just be ready with a good reason.Q3. Do I need to cancel my H-1 before I ago since I am not going for H-1 stamping and also planning to work on EAD once I come back?
[B]Just plan your visit forgetting the fact that you ahve approved H1b. For all purpose you are on h4.
B]
I appreciate your advice
Have a nice trip..!!!
Q1:I have switched from H-4 to H-1 starting from Oct 1st, 2007. However, I have not started working yet. Does this invalidate my h-1?
Nope..!!! Unless the employer revoke the H1b it won't be invalidated.
Q2: I am travelling to India very soon and planning to come back using AP obtained thru my husband's GC process. Will there be any problem. What should I tell at port of entry, if they ask about my approved H-1 but not worked on H-1?
Unless you come under the payroll of your H1b employer , POE people won't get to know. If att they ask, just be ready with a good reason.Q3. Do I need to cancel my H-1 before I ago since I am not going for H-1 stamping and also planning to work on EAD once I come back?
[B]Just plan your visit forgetting the fact that you ahve approved H1b. For all purpose you are on h4.
B]
I appreciate your advice
Have a nice trip..!!!
hair ob marley quotes tattoos.
abhijitp
01-18 01:35 AM
> ***If you don't sign, that means no snacks
LOL:-) Thanks for making my day!
NORCAL, see you there on Sunday!
LOL:-) Thanks for making my day!
NORCAL, see you there on Sunday!
more...
perm2gc
07-08 10:11 PM
Check again
Rated :D
Rated :D
hot Screenshots Bob Marley Quotes:
arc
04-14 09:50 AM
You know these reporting back, reistating the status, etc takes lots of effort, money and time. I hate this kind of things. Why the hell we should pay for somebody's mistake?
On a side note:
If someone returns this kind of mistake-GC, then what will happen to the visa number? Will it get reclaimed and reused or go wasted?
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
On a side note:
If someone returns this kind of mistake-GC, then what will happen to the visa number? Will it get reclaimed and reused or go wasted?
The person I know who got GC before the PD was current, debated for sometime asked his lawyer etc... but it was whoever's mistake, they have got to honor it... he decided to keep the GC act dumb and njoy life.:D.. by the way even if you get a GC when PD is current they reserve the right to revoke... check with lawyer and decide for yourself !!!
more...
house love quotes bob marley. ob
ita
01-16 11:13 AM
Thank you so much vin13.
So in the case of company C's H1 it will be part of yearly quota and so will have to go through lottery system right?
So there will be a chance of H1 not going through the lottery(no matter even if the applicant was on H1 before)?
Thank you again.
Lets say , you move out of H1-b (company A)and start using your EAD (at Company B). Now after a few weeks you find another employer (company C) who is willing to do your H1-B. Then this is subject to the yearly Quota because you lost your H1-B status immediately after you started using your EAD (at Company B).
You can now move to Company C using your EAD and then apply under the new quota for H1-B in April for a start date of October (new fiscal year). Company C may not be reluctant or hesitant in your case because you can keep working for them from Day 1 and you continue on your EAD even if you do not get H1-B.
Company C will be hesitant only if you do not have EAD and you need to wait for the approval before you can work.
So in the case of company C's H1 it will be part of yearly quota and so will have to go through lottery system right?
So there will be a chance of H1 not going through the lottery(no matter even if the applicant was on H1 before)?
Thank you again.
Lets say , you move out of H1-b (company A)and start using your EAD (at Company B). Now after a few weeks you find another employer (company C) who is willing to do your H1-B. Then this is subject to the yearly Quota because you lost your H1-B status immediately after you started using your EAD (at Company B).
You can now move to Company C using your EAD and then apply under the new quota for H1-B in April for a start date of October (new fiscal year). Company C may not be reluctant or hesitant in your case because you can keep working for them from Day 1 and you continue on your EAD even if you do not get H1-B.
Company C will be hesitant only if you do not have EAD and you need to wait for the approval before you can work.
tattoo hair tattoo Bob Marley
kkmajid
10-16 01:43 PM
Hi
I am currently a masters student in an american university. My
graduation is in May 2007. I am planning to apply for H1B visa soon
after.
1. Assuming that my H1B status is approved and I recieve my H1B papers
by October, how long should I wait until my employer can file for my
greencard application?
2. It is been announced that the premium processing for the labor
certification is available. This means that there is 2 week decesion
instead of months like before. Therefore how much would be the time
from after the application will I be able to change my status from H1B
to permanent resident and recieve my greencard? Does the premium
processing shorten the time?
Kambi
I am currently a masters student in an american university. My
graduation is in May 2007. I am planning to apply for H1B visa soon
after.
1. Assuming that my H1B status is approved and I recieve my H1B papers
by October, how long should I wait until my employer can file for my
greencard application?
2. It is been announced that the premium processing for the labor
certification is available. This means that there is 2 week decesion
instead of months like before. Therefore how much would be the time
from after the application will I be able to change my status from H1B
to permanent resident and recieve my greencard? Does the premium
processing shorten the time?
Kambi
more...
pictures ob marley quotes tattoos. ob
sixburgh
08-13 10:46 AM
History:
- My h1 stamp on passport was expired, but my H1 renewal has always been done and was valid at all times.
- Wife had entered USA on H4 (2005)
- In July 2007, we both got a chance to apply for 485, EAD and AP
- Since then I switched to EAD, wife too started working on EAD
- But my company also kept renewing my H1
- During the last H1 renewal, in-house immigration lawyer suggested that I should renew my wife's H4 too and we sent both renewal requests in the same package.
- We both received our h1 and h4 notices.
- Now it was time for me, to go to India for visiting my parents. I recently had applied and received my AP. When I asked my lawyer what should I use to re-enter USA, he suggested that even though I am on EAD, since I already have an H1 approval document, I should go to US consulate in India, get a H1 stamp and re-enter on H1.
- This is what I did, I got a stamp and entered USA now on H1.
- Note that my wife continued to remain in USA and worked on EAD.
- Please also note that our EAD's are expiring soon and I am still waiting for them to arrive from NSC.
- Since I entered on H1 and now using H1 on i9, I wont use my EAD, I will just keep it handy for any possible future use
- But once wife gets EAD, she will continue to use it to work.
Question for fellow IV members :
By merely renewing my wife's H4, while she was still working on EAD, did she automatically get switched to H4?
(My understanding is that, unless one re-enters BACK into the USA on h1 or h4, no automatic switch is possible)
(I am also under this impression that unless I really file for a CHANGE OF STATUS form, specifically stating that my wife wants to change status to H4, she will continue to be under AOS/EAD)
Someone in my office is scaring me that by merely renewing her H4, I have switched her to H4 and that since the renewal arrived, her working has created something called "illegally working on H4".
Can someone shed some light on this: Am I right or wrong?
Does this affect her or mine, pending 485/AOS ?
- My h1 stamp on passport was expired, but my H1 renewal has always been done and was valid at all times.
- Wife had entered USA on H4 (2005)
- In July 2007, we both got a chance to apply for 485, EAD and AP
- Since then I switched to EAD, wife too started working on EAD
- But my company also kept renewing my H1
- During the last H1 renewal, in-house immigration lawyer suggested that I should renew my wife's H4 too and we sent both renewal requests in the same package.
- We both received our h1 and h4 notices.
- Now it was time for me, to go to India for visiting my parents. I recently had applied and received my AP. When I asked my lawyer what should I use to re-enter USA, he suggested that even though I am on EAD, since I already have an H1 approval document, I should go to US consulate in India, get a H1 stamp and re-enter on H1.
- This is what I did, I got a stamp and entered USA now on H1.
- Note that my wife continued to remain in USA and worked on EAD.
- Please also note that our EAD's are expiring soon and I am still waiting for them to arrive from NSC.
- Since I entered on H1 and now using H1 on i9, I wont use my EAD, I will just keep it handy for any possible future use
- But once wife gets EAD, she will continue to use it to work.
Question for fellow IV members :
By merely renewing my wife's H4, while she was still working on EAD, did she automatically get switched to H4?
(My understanding is that, unless one re-enters BACK into the USA on h1 or h4, no automatic switch is possible)
(I am also under this impression that unless I really file for a CHANGE OF STATUS form, specifically stating that my wife wants to change status to H4, she will continue to be under AOS/EAD)
Someone in my office is scaring me that by merely renewing her H4, I have switched her to H4 and that since the renewal arrived, her working has created something called "illegally working on H4".
Can someone shed some light on this: Am I right or wrong?
Does this affect her or mine, pending 485/AOS ?
dresses ob marley quote tattoos
wandmaker
11-21 04:10 PM
You ask your Ex-coworker to draft a letter with detailed duties and responsibilities and print it on his current companies letterhead. You dont have to get it notarized. I did issue a similar letter for one of my friend, it was long long ago, don't have the format yet. btw, i did not notarized, I just printed, signed and mailed.
more...
makeup ob marley quotes about women.
aranya
07-03 05:30 PM
Who told you that you can not return when H1 transfer is pending? As long as H1B with company B was filed prior to canceling H1 from company A and H1B from company B is a bonafide job that assures H1b status, you can enter with the receipt notice itself, no need to wait for approval.
If you have to know, my company lawyer when my then H1B was currrent but expiring in a few days and extension of H1B was pending. My proposed travel was for a week-long conference in Canada.
You might have had a different experience and these forums are for sharing our experiences to help each other :)
If you have to know, my company lawyer when my then H1B was currrent but expiring in a few days and extension of H1B was pending. My proposed travel was for a week-long conference in Canada.
You might have had a different experience and these forums are for sharing our experiences to help each other :)
girlfriend Screenshots Bob Marley Quotes:
digmetalq
08-21 04:27 AM
Democracy gives votes for the citizens. You aren't even close to being one to even speak up. You are still an Alien. If you don't like it, feel free to be a citizen of the country that you are from.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
You are right about we are Aliens, you are right that we are not citizens of US and thus have no right to vote. You know why politicians ignore us, they know by the time we get our GC and then our Citizenship we all will be long dead.
Just because you pay tax, no one is answerable from the government to you, forget an apology. Taxation has got nothing to do with your right to vote. Right to vote is what is important in a democracy so that if the majority of the people don't like what is happening, they can make the change happen by their vote when the time comes.
Apology from USCIS???? For what? USCIS is just an agency. They do not even make the laws. They just process the applications as per the law.
You are right about we are Aliens, you are right that we are not citizens of US and thus have no right to vote. You know why politicians ignore us, they know by the time we get our GC and then our Citizenship we all will be long dead.
hairstyles ob marley quotes tattoos. ob
gcformeornot
08-16 02:35 PM
Thank you guys.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
Most of the companies have clear cut HR policy on who is covered who is not.
No matter what HR member said they will follow HR policy.
What is bothering me is that they told us the Wrong Information PLUS lawyer was just asking for filling fees(which is 745) during the time of signature but now Company is charging even for legal fees.
I believe they want to earn extra money from us. What should we do now about this wrong info?
You think we have no choice here but to pay?
I'm sorry and thanks for your help.
Most of the companies have clear cut HR policy on who is covered who is not.
No matter what HR member said they will follow HR policy.
suresh.emails
09-14 10:49 AM
The following are answers to your questions. Even I got stamping in Singapore. I use to work in Singapore. I came to USA couple years ago.
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
There is NO order; who should go first.
Even I was married when I appeared for the interview. I did not take my wife along with me to the interview. Usually, Interview officer does not ask you about where is your spouse?. It is up to you to take spouse for dependent status visa. Visa officer always thinks that spouse will get H4 visa processed once after actual H1-B visa is stamped.
Usually, most of us will go for H1-B visa stamping first and later we send our respective spouses for stamping on dependent status.
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
The only evidence they can ask you is about your marriage certificate and your marriage photos. Even this is for when dependent goes to get H4 visa stamping . But definitely not for actual H1-B visa stamping.
As per as I know (remember), they are not suppose to ask you beyond that. I mean, there is a limit to ask on the questions. Otherwise, No deep personal questions.
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
In your cases; you will be by default be dependent to each other (as you will be mention your spouse information in DS-156 form).
If one of your H1-B is approved; then other will be automatically dependent (in case H1-B is not approved for other).
US embassy in Singapore interview is kind of cool on just like an interview in Mexico. Cool .. Answer to the question asked; All it takes to decide is 2 minutes in the interview process.
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same Singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
You have to mention that in your DS-156 form (for any previous visa refusals). It is up to the visa officer to ask you questions on that.
I believe it is US Consulate in Singapore (but not Singapore Embassy)
Try to be genuine on providing information.
It took about 15 minutes; from the time I entered into US Consulate , to finish the whole interview process and go come out.
You donot have to provide information about your spouse that she/he is appearing for interview on the same day unless otherwise is asked by the visa officer.
Answer to the questions asked; don't be over smart and start answering questions.
I wish you best of luck for your H1-B stamping.
1 We both are planning to go for visa interview on the same day. So, who should go first so that it would not interfere others interview? Or does it really make any difference?
There is NO order; who should go first.
Even I was married when I appeared for the interview. I did not take my wife along with me to the interview. Usually, Interview officer does not ask you about where is your spouse?. It is up to you to take spouse for dependent status visa. Visa officer always thinks that spouse will get H4 visa processed once after actual H1-B visa is stamped.
Usually, most of us will go for H1-B visa stamping first and later we send our respective spouses for stamping on dependent status.
2 Will visa officer ask any of us that since you are married why you haven't bring your spouse together? Can we say that the other also has h1b interview on the same day?
The only evidence they can ask you is about your marriage certificate and your marriage photos. Even this is for when dependent goes to get H4 visa stamping . But definitely not for actual H1-B visa stamping.
As per as I know (remember), they are not suppose to ask you beyond that. I mean, there is a limit to ask on the questions. Otherwise, No deep personal questions.
3 I am not sure whether my wife would face any questions regarding that she is married and does she have any spouse issues or what if mine H1b is not going to approved? would she still be interested to pursue her h1b or like that?
In your cases; you will be by default be dependent to each other (as you will be mention your spouse information in DS-156 form).
If one of your H1-B is approved; then other will be automatically dependent (in case H1-B is not approved for other).
US embassy in Singapore interview is kind of cool on just like an interview in Mexico. Cool .. Answer to the question asked; All it takes to decide is 2 minutes in the interview process.
4 My h1b was denied last year because of company project document issue with same Singapore embassy. So I am not sure does it going to make any impact this time or not? Any help appreciated.
You have to mention that in your DS-156 form (for any previous visa refusals). It is up to the visa officer to ask you questions on that.
I believe it is US Consulate in Singapore (but not Singapore Embassy)
Try to be genuine on providing information.
It took about 15 minutes; from the time I entered into US Consulate , to finish the whole interview process and go come out.
You donot have to provide information about your spouse that she/he is appearing for interview on the same day unless otherwise is asked by the visa officer.
Answer to the questions asked; don't be over smart and start answering questions.
I wish you best of luck for your H1-B stamping.
deardar
09-14 03:41 PM
i meant the quality was like, that perhaps my computer is messing it up
Did you know that that you can earn cash by locking selected sections of your blog / website?
ReplyDeleteAll you need to do is join Mgcash and use their content locking tool.