Browndog
August 22nd, 2005, 09:47 AM
Wow, both these shots are very impressive, and the technique sounds like it could open up lots of creative aspects to daylight photography. thanks for sharing the technique with us.
wallpaper jennifer lopez wallpaper.
I-485 approval
08-21 04:56 PM
Hello Prashanthi
Thanks for your valuable input.
Thanks for your valuable input.
yabadaba
06-18 12:00 PM
thanks tnite!!!... u r right my opt/h1b overlaped comfortably and i was never out of status
2011 jennifer lopez wallpaper.
Pagal
09-07 11:58 AM
Hello,
Yes, I've seen similar situation with one of my friends...
Yes, I've seen similar situation with one of my friends...
more...
manderson
05-24 01:08 PM
we need to be on front page of CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc. if we want to make a difference.
By the way , i did send several emails to CNN. But looks like we are gonna have to wait till someone covers us in media.
just make sure it's not Lou Dobbs!
By the way , i did send several emails to CNN. But looks like we are gonna have to wait till someone covers us in media.
just make sure it's not Lou Dobbs!
chanduv23
07-11 03:06 PM
I am seriouly looking out for a job as currently on bench from last one month and my employer doesn't pay the bench salary. Currently I am on EAD with my GC sponsering employer. I would appreciate if any of you pls. reply this post. My question is,
If I joined a new employer using EAD-AC21 (as 11 month passed of my I-485) which is very small employer (currently have about 35 employees only), would it cause a problem in my GC process approval? I mean, do you think USCIS may create any RFC as I have join the very small employer, may ask any financial document to declare? Can you pls. tell me what are the potential problems my come in this situation?
Pls. help, your reply will be highly appreciable?
As long as you are employed, and company is paying you decent salary (atleast salary mentioned on the L/C) you are fine, you must be employed at time of RFE/NOID etc..
If I joined a new employer using EAD-AC21 (as 11 month passed of my I-485) which is very small employer (currently have about 35 employees only), would it cause a problem in my GC process approval? I mean, do you think USCIS may create any RFC as I have join the very small employer, may ask any financial document to declare? Can you pls. tell me what are the potential problems my come in this situation?
Pls. help, your reply will be highly appreciable?
As long as you are employed, and company is paying you decent salary (atleast salary mentioned on the L/C) you are fine, you must be employed at time of RFE/NOID etc..
more...
ivar
02-17 09:15 PM
Do I need recent salary slips for transfer ?
Yes you need paystubs. What your employer says when you ask the same question you are asking here on the forum. That your H1 expires 2009, your project gets over in Mar 09, how he will u give paystubs? what does he say?
Yes you need paystubs. What your employer says when you ask the same question you are asking here on the forum. That your H1 expires 2009, your project gets over in Mar 09, how he will u give paystubs? what does he say?
2010 jennifer lopez wallpaper 2011.
Leo07
07-24 04:49 PM
It's a good time. Sooner than Later...
more...
crystal
07-04 10:09 PM
Are sure about whether you can go for stammping to canada when you are going for first time stamping? I think you need to go to india where they can check your education credentials. If you have done masters/bachelors in u.s then only you can go to canada i guess . I am not very sure about it though. I read it somewhere.
When i changed from F-1 to H-1B, my employer filed my I-129 as if i had a Masters, then i changed employers , my second employer filed my I-129 under my Bachelors only. There was also a gap of my H-1 Activation and F-1.
For the semester starting august i did not pay the fee, since my H-1 was approved an H-1 was Active from October.
i think my approval will depend on my Visa officer nad i will try my luck in dec and i am planning to go to canada for my stamping and in any case i get it or not get it i will fly to india from canada.
i will also talk to a lawyer before leaving to stamping regarding what will happen if cant come back to US in 4 months, regaring what happens to my credit and loans if my stamping gets rejected.
When i changed from F-1 to H-1B, my employer filed my I-129 as if i had a Masters, then i changed employers , my second employer filed my I-129 under my Bachelors only. There was also a gap of my H-1 Activation and F-1.
For the semester starting august i did not pay the fee, since my H-1 was approved an H-1 was Active from October.
i think my approval will depend on my Visa officer nad i will try my luck in dec and i am planning to go to canada for my stamping and in any case i get it or not get it i will fly to india from canada.
i will also talk to a lawyer before leaving to stamping regarding what will happen if cant come back to US in 4 months, regaring what happens to my credit and loans if my stamping gets rejected.
hair Jennifer Lopez Calendar 2011:
svam77
07-18 06:57 PM
My I 140 alone was applied on July12th as we did not know anything about the revision that time.
I did not recieve the receipt notice yet and I called USCIS and they dont have a record of my entry yet.
Mine was a labor substitution with my current company itself. My current company is a multi billion dollar US firm and they go by the rules, so I am not worried about my I 140 approval.
Since my I 140 was applied based on a labor subsitution, and if my I 140 receipt comes in August ( lets say august 10th), would I still be considered in the July bulletin ?
Thanks a lot for the reply,
Sam
I did not recieve the receipt notice yet and I called USCIS and they dont have a record of my entry yet.
Mine was a labor substitution with my current company itself. My current company is a multi billion dollar US firm and they go by the rules, so I am not worried about my I 140 approval.
Since my I 140 was applied based on a labor subsitution, and if my I 140 receipt comes in August ( lets say august 10th), would I still be considered in the July bulletin ?
Thanks a lot for the reply,
Sam
more...
NKR
03-06 04:21 PM
Guys:
Everyone is talking EB2....what are the prospects for EB3 - India??
Is it going to move forward..??
Good Luck..??
2002
Well.. Everybody stopped talking about EB2. It is predicted that EB2 will be unavailable till Oct 2008 and after that nobody knows how EB2 dates are going to move.
As for EB3, there could be a small movement of 2 to 3 months, I do not think there will be any more movement than that.
Everyone is talking EB2....what are the prospects for EB3 - India??
Is it going to move forward..??
Good Luck..??
2002
Well.. Everybody stopped talking about EB2. It is predicted that EB2 will be unavailable till Oct 2008 and after that nobody knows how EB2 dates are going to move.
As for EB3, there could be a small movement of 2 to 3 months, I do not think there will be any more movement than that.
hot Jennifer Lopez Picture, Video,
psaxena
06-18 03:04 PM
Nathu lodge is good to stay for 30 rs/night. This is behind the big koorakarkat near the laddoo baba temple. Just across the street from 2 coconut trees and coconut waterwaala.
We are planning to visit India in the month of November. We are looking to stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas at Mumbai. How we can select appointment dates for the week of November 9 to November 13.
I have tried to look at VFS website (https://www.vfs-usa.co.in) but not showing any dates after month of July...
Can anyone please help me?
Also, we are looking to stamp our passport the next day when we arrive in Mumbai. Do anyone know the good hotel near by embassy to stay?
I really appriciate your help.
Thank you.
We are planning to visit India in the month of November. We are looking to stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas at Mumbai. How we can select appointment dates for the week of November 9 to November 13.
I have tried to look at VFS website (https://www.vfs-usa.co.in) but not showing any dates after month of July...
Can anyone please help me?
Also, we are looking to stamp our passport the next day when we arrive in Mumbai. Do anyone know the good hotel near by embassy to stay?
I really appriciate your help.
Thank you.
more...
house dresses Jennifer Lopez
GoneSouth
04-17 06:42 PM
This is effectively a non-compete clause. Enforcement of non-compete clauses varies by state, but most states include "broadness" as a criteria in deciding if a particular non-compete clause is enforceable or not. (e.g., read this article about ohio (http://tinyurl.com/2oysd8) or this article about colorado (http://tinyurl.com/2q6hcd) ... your state may vary) The restriction of "can't work for any IT business anywhere in the US" is indeed extremely broad.
Based on my google law degree ;) , I'd say this particular clause is not enforceable. If it were me, I'd sign the contract with a smile, get the three year extension, then find a new employer. Your old employer may sue you, but it's unlikely they'd win.
This is just a guess though. Check with a lawyer.
- GS
Based on my google law degree ;) , I'd say this particular clause is not enforceable. If it were me, I'd sign the contract with a smile, get the three year extension, then find a new employer. Your old employer may sue you, but it's unlikely they'd win.
This is just a guess though. Check with a lawyer.
- GS
tattoo jennifer lopez wallpaper.
stupendousman11
08-18 12:51 PM
Hi stu*
Did you get an answer whether we can send the medical papers to USCIS now with I-485 receipts?
Would it work?
Anyone??
As explained earlier I proactively decided to send in the medicals with a copy of the receipt notices since I didn't want to waste processing time through RFEs and was under the impression that medicals expire in 12-18 mths. However, when I spoke to the lawyer about this she said: "The medicals do not expire any more . . . let's "keep our fingers crossed" that the medicals make it to your files; we usually wait for CIS to send us an RFE, as that way there is a bar code on the cover letter to help get the medical to the examiner who has the file."
She also said that I wouldn't get any receipt notice or anything regarding the submission. So I guess I'll have to keep my fingers crossed.
Did you get an answer whether we can send the medical papers to USCIS now with I-485 receipts?
Would it work?
Anyone??
As explained earlier I proactively decided to send in the medicals with a copy of the receipt notices since I didn't want to waste processing time through RFEs and was under the impression that medicals expire in 12-18 mths. However, when I spoke to the lawyer about this she said: "The medicals do not expire any more . . . let's "keep our fingers crossed" that the medicals make it to your files; we usually wait for CIS to send us an RFE, as that way there is a bar code on the cover letter to help get the medical to the examiner who has the file."
She also said that I wouldn't get any receipt notice or anything regarding the submission. So I guess I'll have to keep my fingers crossed.
more...
pictures 2011, Jennifer Lopez
Macaca
07-11 05:17 PM
Hi Friends, I came to know about this protest and would like to pass on the information about the protest to Indian Student Assocaition [strength over 600 active members] at San Jose state University and possible Santa Clara University. I am sure my fellow students will be proud to contribute to the indian community. So, Kindly let me know more details ASAP becuase its already wednesday. My email is sampathg4@yahoo.com
Please post this info for ALL international students.
Please post this info for ALL international students.
dresses 6 Free Jennifer Lopez
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
more...
makeup hairstyles jennifer lopez
thomachan72
01-13 05:20 AM
Totally agree with the above post. I know many folks who were in your position but did not have to leave. Some found new jobs within a months time others took a bit longer. Your 140 revokation or H1b withdrawal will not be an issue since you move onto EAD or you should transfer your H1b soon. Best.
girlfriend wallpaper Jennifer Lopez 2011
DDLMODES
07-18 09:26 PM
If you did PERM (only then can you file concurrently)
Who said that concurent filing is available for PERM only ???
That is not true right ????
Somebody please clarify !
Who said that concurent filing is available for PERM only ???
That is not true right ????
Somebody please clarify !
hairstyles jennifer lopez wallpaper 2011.
sxk
11-24 07:09 PM
I forgot to mention that I also have a valid h1b visa. I don't intend to use my EAD. So in that case if I go back to f1, what will happen to my PD and 485 application?
or is it better to fall back on EAD and continue with education? Please advice!
Optimist578 - can you please let us know what you find out from your attorney?
thanks a lotsxk
I am also searching for directions to the university. But I don't think EAD would allow you to move to full-time student status. EAD is Employment Authorization Document and can be used only for employment, as far as I know. I will check with my lawyer too.
or is it better to fall back on EAD and continue with education? Please advice!
Optimist578 - can you please let us know what you find out from your attorney?
thanks a lotsxk
I am also searching for directions to the university. But I don't think EAD would allow you to move to full-time student status. EAD is Employment Authorization Document and can be used only for employment, as far as I know. I will check with my lawyer too.
gc_on_demand
05-28 11:39 AM
If they approved your I485 before you get married then only way left for your wife is H1b or another visa. ( not Student visa ) you cannot apply for her gc if she is on F1 ( F1 is not dual intent visa ) .
If they approve GC then current family category takes 5-6 years F2A category . OR u can become citizen and file which is also 6-7 year from day u get ur gc.
BUT given trend it is very riskey to withdraw I 485. People donot get even chance to apply for I 485. You will be back on line in this mess.
Choise it yours..
If they approve GC then current family category takes 5-6 years F2A category . OR u can become citizen and file which is also 6-7 year from day u get ur gc.
BUT given trend it is very riskey to withdraw I 485. People donot get even chance to apply for I 485. You will be back on line in this mess.
Choise it yours..
Kevin Sadler
August 8th, 2005, 10:58 AM
michael, that's a great technique! i would think anyplace where there is a steady motion with fixed objects would work. some things that come to mind are places with pedestrians or cars. a busy downtown sidewalk, a bridge, a scenic freeway, etc. can't wait to see more of these. kevin
No comments:
Post a Comment