EB2_Jun03_dude
11-29 09:31 PM
thanks for the info .. i think i will schedule a medical appt for dec 10th.
Also my birth certificate(English version too) was send along with I-485 app. So I hope that does now show up.
My only concern is the time they will allow me to respond to the RFE. I hope it is the standard 6 weeks as stated in this faq http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/i-485_adjustment-status.php
Also my birth certificate(English version too) was send along with I-485 app. So I hope that does now show up.
My only concern is the time they will allow me to respond to the RFE. I hope it is the standard 6 weeks as stated in this faq http://immigrationroad.com/green-card/i-485_adjustment-status.php
paskal
08-14 04:10 PM
never though i could get so much experience with neurosis (mine and everyone else's) in a such a short time...guess i should thank USCIS- and apply for EB1 as a international expert :D:p
CHHAYA
02-02 08:14 AM
Hi Everyone,
My AP is valid until JUNE 27 2011, (Here is the line from the I-512L, Presentation of the Original Document prior to June 27 2011 allows a customs and border protection inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the named bearer) I'm travelling to India during May / June and will be entering LAX back on June25. Will this be an issue as my AP is expiring in next couple of days.
Experts please let me know your thoughts on my situation whether it is safe to travel and getting in back will not be of an issue.
Thanks if you can help me out
Regards
Karthik
In 2008 we landed EWR within 5 days of expiring date of AP and no issues. My AP expiration date was 7/20/08 and we landed on 7/15/08 w/o any hassels.
My AP is valid until JUNE 27 2011, (Here is the line from the I-512L, Presentation of the Original Document prior to June 27 2011 allows a customs and border protection inspector at a port-of-entry to parole the named bearer) I'm travelling to India during May / June and will be entering LAX back on June25. Will this be an issue as my AP is expiring in next couple of days.
Experts please let me know your thoughts on my situation whether it is safe to travel and getting in back will not be of an issue.
Thanks if you can help me out
Regards
Karthik
In 2008 we landed EWR within 5 days of expiring date of AP and no issues. My AP expiration date was 7/20/08 and we landed on 7/15/08 w/o any hassels.
obelix
07-27 02:27 PM
Thanks. I will ask my employer if they can provide me one.
more...
PDOCT05
02-16 11:25 AM
Rajen,
Don't worry...I my self got RFE(For EVL),My wife got for Birth Certificate and for my son(I-693 missing section 3)...we got it for three diff reason.Just submit what ever they requested..and good luck.
Thx
Don't worry...I my self got RFE(For EVL),My wife got for Birth Certificate and for my son(I-693 missing section 3)...we got it for three diff reason.Just submit what ever they requested..and good luck.
Thx
raj2007
06-18 11:19 AM
Nope...once you have used your EAD you cannot go back to H1-B. AFAIK.
but I am not an expert so I guess others around here might have a different take. Best,
you can but it will be new h1 with 6 month validity. I think it will be new H1 and no quota is available now.
Can't you get EAD from local USCIS center after 90 days if it was not processed?
but I am not an expert so I guess others around here might have a different take. Best,
you can but it will be new h1 with 6 month validity. I think it will be new H1 and no quota is available now.
Can't you get EAD from local USCIS center after 90 days if it was not processed?
more...
belmontboy
10-02 03:30 PM
But what if the company doesnot have any more requirement when my GC gets approved. Its takes 4-5 years and conditions may change as per time...?
Any opinion?
if they don't have any requirement, they are expected to notify USCIS about this by revoking ur I-140
Any opinion?
if they don't have any requirement, they are expected to notify USCIS about this by revoking ur I-140
gc_on_demand
02-03 01:41 PM
Hi
I hold a H1b Visa but did not work after coming to US.
Can anybody guide me regarding my current status.
My H1 was approved in 2007 quota and i entered US in march 2008..but was not successful in getting a job and my employer is not running any payroll..
can anybody help me with this??
thankyou
Dont stay here .. People like you causing problem for people who work hard. If you cannot find job.. why the hell you stay here. You should pack bag.. If you are rich enough to spend money while not working in USA come on B1 visa and stay for 180 days in 5 star hotel.
Go back...
I hold a H1b Visa but did not work after coming to US.
Can anybody guide me regarding my current status.
My H1 was approved in 2007 quota and i entered US in march 2008..but was not successful in getting a job and my employer is not running any payroll..
can anybody help me with this??
thankyou
Dont stay here .. People like you causing problem for people who work hard. If you cannot find job.. why the hell you stay here. You should pack bag.. If you are rich enough to spend money while not working in USA come on B1 visa and stay for 180 days in 5 star hotel.
Go back...
more...
learning01
02-25 05:03 PM
This is the most compelling piece I read about why this country should do more for scientists and engineers who are on temporary work visas. Read it till the end and enjoy.
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
learning01
From Yale Global Online:
Amid the Bush Administration's efforts to create a guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker argues that the US must do more to welcome skilled legal immigrants too. The US currently offers only 140,000 green cards each year, preventing many valuable scientists and engineers from gaining permanent residency. Instead, they are made to stay in the US on temporary visas�which discourage them from assimilating into American society, and of which there are not nearly enough. It is far better, argues Becker, to fold the visa program into a much larger green card quota for skilled immigrants. While such a program would force more competition on American scientists and engineers, it would allow the economy as a whole to take advantage of the valuable skills of new workers who would have a lasting stake in America's success. Skilled immigrants will find work elsewhere if we do not let them work here�but they want, first and foremost, to work in the US. Becker argues that the US should let them do so. � YaleGlobal
Give Us Your Skilled Masses
Gary S. Becker
The Wall Street Journal, 1 December 2005
With border security and proposals for a guest-worker program back on the front page, it is vital that the U.S. -- in its effort to cope with undocumented workers -- does not overlook legal immigration. The number of people allowed in is far too small, posing a significant problem for the economy in the years ahead. Only 140,000 green cards are issued annually, with the result that scientists, engineers and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving the ticket allowing them to stay permanently in the U.S.
An alternate route for highly skilled professionals -- especially information technology workers -- has been temporary H-1B visas, good for specific jobs for three years with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota of H-1B visas in 2003 from almost 200,000 to well under 100,000. The small quota of 65,000 for the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 is already exhausted!
This is mistaken policy. The right approach would be to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrants such as engineers and scientists are in fields not attracting many Americans, and they work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the economy. Many of the entrepreneurs and higher-level employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.
So it seems like a win-win situation. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages. Foreign professionals would make a greater commitment to becoming part of American culture and to eventually becoming citizens, rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy and less likely to abscond with the intellectual property of American companies -- property that could help them advance in their countries of origin.
Basically, I am proposing that H-1B visas be folded into a much larger, employment-based green card program with the emphasis on skilled workers. The annual quota should be multiplied many times beyond present limits, and there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds place large countries like India and China, with many highly qualified professionals, at a considerable and unfair disadvantage -- at no gain to the U.S.
To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers such as engineers and scientists would lower the earnings of the American workers they compete against. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number of immigrant workers admitted today. That opposition is understandable, but does not make it good for the country as a whole.
Doesn't the U.S. clearly benefit if, for example, India's government spends a lot on the highly esteemed Indian Institutes of Technology to train scientists and engineers who leave to work in America? It certainly appears that way to the sending countries, many of which protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain."
Yet the migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one that usually benefits the sending and the receiving country. Even if many immigrants do not return home to the nations that trained them, they send back remittances that are often sizeable; and some do return to start businesses.
Experience shows that countries providing a good economic and political environment can attract back many of the skilled men and women who have previously left. Whether they return or not, they gain knowledge about modern technologies that becomes more easily incorporated into the production of their native countries.
Experience also shows that if America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere: Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals.
Since earnings are much higher in the U.S., many skilled immigrants would prefer to come here. But if they cannot, they may compete against us through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The U.S. would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens -- thus contributing to our productivity, culture, tax revenues and education rather than to the productivity and tax revenues of other countries.
I do, however, advocate that we be careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling," but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror. And terrorists come from a relatively small number of countries and backgrounds, unfortunately mainly of the Islamic faith. But the legitimate concern about admitting terrorists should not be allowed, as it is now doing, to deny or discourage the admission of skilled immigrants who pose little terrorist threat.
Nothing in my discussion should be interpreted as arguing against the admission of unskilled immigrants. Many of these individuals also turn out to be ambitious and hard-working and make fine contributions to American life. But if the number to be admitted is subject to political and other limits, there is a strong case for giving preference to skilled immigrants for the reasons I have indicated.
Other countries, too, should liberalize their policies toward the immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany, both countries that have rapidly aging, and soon to be declining, populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. These are decisions they have to make. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers, because this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. So why not take advantage of their preference to come here, rather than force them to look elsewhere?
URL:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6583
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel laureate in economics, is University Professor of Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago and the Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
Rights:
Copyright � 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Related Articles:
America Should Open Its Doors Wide to Foreign Talent
Some Lost Jobs Never Leave Home
Bush's Proposal for Immigration Reform Misses the Point
Workers Falling Behind in Mexico
gaz
02-04 01:11 AM
I just got the H1 Approval for 1 year and 2 months (1 year H1 Extension and 2 months recapture time). I am currently in Malaysia and need to apply for a visa at US Consulate in Malaysia. Since I am on the H1 visa, I have to show the proof that I will return back to Malaysia after the end of my work period in US. Accordingly, I would need to purchase the round trip ticket. The issue is that the plane ticket only valid for the maximum of 1 year, but my visa valid for 1 year and 2 months. Please advise if one way plane ticket would be sufficient for the visa interview or need to be a round trip plane ticket. If it is not, what should I do? Also, I wonder if the application package including I-129 submitted to USCIS need to be stamped �Certified True Copy� with the original signature of the lawyer or employer for the visa interview. Can I use the copy one that is stamped �Certified True Copy� with the non-original signatures of my lawyer or employer? Anybody pls help. Thank you very much.
I'm not an attorney - so please treat this as my opinion, and not a definitive statement of fact. Based on my personal experience in India, the one year ticket should be fine - you can always postpone the date of the ticket whenever needed (some airlines charge a fee for it). The proof of return is more like an intent to return.
As for the I129 - my lawyer added no such stamps or certification.
Please do check with your lawyer also. Also, try calling the US consulate.
Good luck.
I'm not an attorney - so please treat this as my opinion, and not a definitive statement of fact. Based on my personal experience in India, the one year ticket should be fine - you can always postpone the date of the ticket whenever needed (some airlines charge a fee for it). The proof of return is more like an intent to return.
As for the I129 - my lawyer added no such stamps or certification.
Please do check with your lawyer also. Also, try calling the US consulate.
Good luck.
more...
reddog
04-24 10:36 AM
A Memorandum of Marriage is different from the Certificate of Marriage.
A Memorandum of Marriage is required to obtain a Marriage Certificate.
Here is a sample (Schedule A) of the Memorandum of Marriage.
You will need to obtain one from your local Marriage Court.
http://ncw.nic.in/compMarriageBill.pdf
I would say, the marriage certificate, a notarized copy of the Memorandum of Marriage from India, with some additional proof, like photos, invites', etc should suffice.
A Memorandum of Marriage is required to obtain a Marriage Certificate.
Here is a sample (Schedule A) of the Memorandum of Marriage.
You will need to obtain one from your local Marriage Court.
http://ncw.nic.in/compMarriageBill.pdf
I would say, the marriage certificate, a notarized copy of the Memorandum of Marriage from India, with some additional proof, like photos, invites', etc should suffice.
imind
03-12 03:54 PM
JUST REQUEST ONLY:
People who are trying to help with info., please provide your practical experience with confident solutions. Otherwise don't scare or hurt the people unnecessarily . Please let us know your source of information before provide any solutions.
Let us make our forum helps people... not scare the people unneccessarily by mensioning incorrect source of info. leads to spoil some lifes.
Thanks for understanding.
People who are trying to help with info., please provide your practical experience with confident solutions. Otherwise don't scare or hurt the people unnecessarily . Please let us know your source of information before provide any solutions.
Let us make our forum helps people... not scare the people unneccessarily by mensioning incorrect source of info. leads to spoil some lifes.
Thanks for understanding.
more...
casinoroyale
01-15 09:09 AM
I am in the same boat. They are taking way too long to process H1-B extensions.
danila
07-27 07:45 AM
Part 6 , Processing Information On Page8 of I-765 Instructions states =>
"Interim EAD. If you have not received a decision within90 days of receipt by USCIS of a properly filed EADapplication or within 30 days of a properly filed initial EADapplication based on an asylum application filed on or afterJanuary 4, 1995, you may obtain interim work authorization byappearing in person at your local USCIS district office. Youmust bring proof of identity and any notices that you havereceived from USCIS in connection with your application foremployment authorization."
Notice that Interim EAD is for ASYLUM Applicants.
Not true. It is 30 days for the asylum based apps and 90 days for the rest.
"Interim EAD. If you have not received a decision within90 days of receipt by USCIS of a properly filed EADapplication or within 30 days of a properly filed initial EADapplication based on an asylum application filed on or afterJanuary 4, 1995, you may obtain interim work authorization byappearing in person at your local USCIS district office. Youmust bring proof of identity and any notices that you havereceived from USCIS in connection with your application foremployment authorization."
Notice that Interim EAD is for ASYLUM Applicants.
Not true. It is 30 days for the asylum based apps and 90 days for the rest.
more...
styrum
01-18 12:50 PM
INS doesn't process Labor Certification. So it was either DOL who denied Labors or INS/USCIS who denied 140's. The latter is doubtful, because 140 is filed only with an approved Labor (except for EB1s and NIW), but everything is possible with USCIS. There is a will there is a way, there is no will there are excuses (not enough visas, too many of you, too few processing capacity, we gotta protect American workers from you, damn job stealers, etc.)
p_aluri
08-03 06:51 PM
I would say second one is correct...
Hi All,
I am not sure whether this has been answered earlier. Here is my situation.
My H1b is getting over by Jan 2008. My I-140 approved and I have filed my I-485 in July 2nd 2007. I contacted my company law firm and one of the top law firm about 3 year extension. Here is the answer
Attorney from company law firm:- Since you have applied for I-485 you will not be eligible for 3 year or one year extension. The only stage when you can apply for 3 year extension is when your I-140 is approved and the PD is not current. Since there was a time the PD was current and you applied for I-485, you will not be eligible for 3 year extension. Even if you apply you will get rejected.
Then I contacted the other law firm mentioning about the above law firm comments and here is the reply.
Attorney from one of the top law firm:-The law firm is simply reading things wrong. You can file for the three year extension as long as there is not a visa number available. Therefore, if the I-485 was filed and then the visa numbers became unavailable, as is the case right now, the three year extensions are possible. I would see if you can request the law firm to reread the rule that permits the three year extensions. They are reading it too narrowly. We follow this procedure successfully all the time.
So I am confused in this case and my employer will believe in what the company law firm will say.
So I am trying to get an opinion from any one who was in this situation and got a 3 year extension and who is right?
Thanks
Hi All,
I am not sure whether this has been answered earlier. Here is my situation.
My H1b is getting over by Jan 2008. My I-140 approved and I have filed my I-485 in July 2nd 2007. I contacted my company law firm and one of the top law firm about 3 year extension. Here is the answer
Attorney from company law firm:- Since you have applied for I-485 you will not be eligible for 3 year or one year extension. The only stage when you can apply for 3 year extension is when your I-140 is approved and the PD is not current. Since there was a time the PD was current and you applied for I-485, you will not be eligible for 3 year extension. Even if you apply you will get rejected.
Then I contacted the other law firm mentioning about the above law firm comments and here is the reply.
Attorney from one of the top law firm:-The law firm is simply reading things wrong. You can file for the three year extension as long as there is not a visa number available. Therefore, if the I-485 was filed and then the visa numbers became unavailable, as is the case right now, the three year extensions are possible. I would see if you can request the law firm to reread the rule that permits the three year extensions. They are reading it too narrowly. We follow this procedure successfully all the time.
So I am confused in this case and my employer will believe in what the company law firm will say.
So I am trying to get an opinion from any one who was in this situation and got a 3 year extension and who is right?
Thanks
more...
gcseeker2002
11-12 02:54 PM
http://mexico.usembassy.gov/eng/evisas_third_country.html
It is only for those people who are changing visa types, not for renewal stampings.
It is only for those people who are changing visa types, not for renewal stampings.
Lisap
08-03 12:07 PM
So my status doesnt change until my I 485 is approved- any idea how long that will take? My H 1B expires in Nov of 2007 should I get an extension? Thank you for your replies- Lisa
chanduv23
08-03 10:31 AM
The reason they seem to be doing this is because of the kind of recomendations they get from various sources which complain about how the website is not helpful or how it is difficult to track information etc...
One has to understand that such traditional type organizations have their own pace and deal with things in their own way.
The new website may not satisfy applicants but from their POV - they have something better than what they had before and thats how any big organization runs.
One has to understand that such traditional type organizations have their own pace and deal with things in their own way.
The new website may not satisfy applicants but from their POV - they have something better than what they had before and thats how any big organization runs.
gcformeornot
10-12 02:16 PM
My wife got her H1b in 2007 and she was working for the company for 1 year and then she delivered in Oct 08 and since Oct 2008 she's on maternity leave. She was supposed to join back but because of the downturn her employer asked to extend the maternity leave and its an year almost. During this whole period her employer is ok and he has not removed her job. Is my wife is in status? I read on the web that the maternity leave is mutual as long as the employer and employee exists its ok. But my question is that is there a time limit on that. Also she's not getting paid for the full year when she was on maternity leave. The state remains the same now also. So what are right steps to do.....
Change to H4 till the employer asks to join back and then change to H1?
Please suggest
maternity leave can only be justified for maybe 3-4 months after delivery.... I think she is out of status. If there is no job, change status to H4 or something.....
Change to H4 till the employer asks to join back and then change to H1?
Please suggest
maternity leave can only be justified for maybe 3-4 months after delivery.... I think she is out of status. If there is no job, change status to H4 or something.....
krishnam70
05-04 10:12 PM
Hi All,
I used to commute across the border from Canada to work(on h1b) between 2004 and 2006. My passport was stamped just the first time and never after that.
In 2006 we moved to US by road and started living here. Haven't left States since then. Our passports were checked as usual but not stamped at the border although the U-Haul I was driving was inspected and our luggage and other stuff was inspected too.
Now I have received a RFE from USCIS on our pending I- 485's that were filed last August. They want us to prove that our last date of entry was indeed what we have entered in the I-485 form.
Any suggestions on how to respond to this RFE.
Thanks
It happened to me too, though my attorney advised to correct this before filing our 485. I was forced to take a vacation by my employer to go out of country and enter getting us a new I-94. Do u have any inspection documents etc that were given at the POE you might be able to provide that as proof.
- cheers
kris
I used to commute across the border from Canada to work(on h1b) between 2004 and 2006. My passport was stamped just the first time and never after that.
In 2006 we moved to US by road and started living here. Haven't left States since then. Our passports were checked as usual but not stamped at the border although the U-Haul I was driving was inspected and our luggage and other stuff was inspected too.
Now I have received a RFE from USCIS on our pending I- 485's that were filed last August. They want us to prove that our last date of entry was indeed what we have entered in the I-485 form.
Any suggestions on how to respond to this RFE.
Thanks
It happened to me too, though my attorney advised to correct this before filing our 485. I was forced to take a vacation by my employer to go out of country and enter getting us a new I-94. Do u have any inspection documents etc that were given at the POE you might be able to provide that as proof.
- cheers
kris
No comments:
Post a Comment