chanduv23
01-06 07:12 PM
We hope to start the New Year with a new vigor and focus on community building and community participations. A stronger community built on mutual trust and participation is what we need today. Let the New Year be the new beginning, where we don’t feel alone.
We all are anxious about ours and our family’s future, not only from the immigration standpoint but also from the point of view of direction of the economy of the country.
We as a community have a great potential to help each other. Our members are ambitious and work for various prominent companies in the USA at various levels and they are working harder to reach great heights. As someone had eloquently put it, it does not matter what you know but it matters whom you know.
So let us start by building a community so strong that we all feel like a part of a family. Let us get to know each other better. Let our families get to know each other better. Let us leverage each other strength and overcome personal weaknesses.
In that regard, we are organizing a informal social meet and greet lunch at
Akbar Restaurant,
21 Cortlandt St,
Edison, NJ
on
January 26th at 12:30PM.
Everyone will be responsible for their own expenses.
Just in case you were wondering, there is not going to be any particular agenda and absolutely NO money solicitations. It is an informal networking event.
In past, several of us (including myself), naively but with very good intention, had pursued some goals aggressively without giving due thoughts to the after affect on the community. That was a mistake.
We are in process of preparing plan for 2008 that will include several items like Job fairs, Immigration lawyers conferences, Seminars by community leaders (from corporate and entrepreneurs ) , lawmakers meeting etc. These are some loft goals and the Tri State Leads in few days will be sending more details on it. You all will have roles to play in that.
Please RSVP via a private message to IV member id "singhsa3" or email
Sanjeev - email id "sanjiv@immigrationvoice.org"
I am posting this message on behalf of "singhsa3" who is currently coordinating the efforts in the New Jersey Area.
This is a great opportunity for people to get a sense of what is happening and to feel a part of the community. Please bring yiour families, inform your friends, bring as many people as possible. We want members to take up a more committed role and to feel good and strong about being an Immigration Voice member and being a part of this wonderful community.
We all are anxious about ours and our family’s future, not only from the immigration standpoint but also from the point of view of direction of the economy of the country.
We as a community have a great potential to help each other. Our members are ambitious and work for various prominent companies in the USA at various levels and they are working harder to reach great heights. As someone had eloquently put it, it does not matter what you know but it matters whom you know.
So let us start by building a community so strong that we all feel like a part of a family. Let us get to know each other better. Let our families get to know each other better. Let us leverage each other strength and overcome personal weaknesses.
In that regard, we are organizing a informal social meet and greet lunch at
Akbar Restaurant,
21 Cortlandt St,
Edison, NJ
on
January 26th at 12:30PM.
Everyone will be responsible for their own expenses.
Just in case you were wondering, there is not going to be any particular agenda and absolutely NO money solicitations. It is an informal networking event.
In past, several of us (including myself), naively but with very good intention, had pursued some goals aggressively without giving due thoughts to the after affect on the community. That was a mistake.
We are in process of preparing plan for 2008 that will include several items like Job fairs, Immigration lawyers conferences, Seminars by community leaders (from corporate and entrepreneurs ) , lawmakers meeting etc. These are some loft goals and the Tri State Leads in few days will be sending more details on it. You all will have roles to play in that.
Please RSVP via a private message to IV member id "singhsa3" or email
Sanjeev - email id "sanjiv@immigrationvoice.org"
I am posting this message on behalf of "singhsa3" who is currently coordinating the efforts in the New Jersey Area.
This is a great opportunity for people to get a sense of what is happening and to feel a part of the community. Please bring yiour families, inform your friends, bring as many people as possible. We want members to take up a more committed role and to feel good and strong about being an Immigration Voice member and being a part of this wonderful community.
wallpaper Small Garden Ideas from Agit
Blog Feeds
02-10 08:50 PM
Most lawyers that are versed in the H1B visa process, are getting busier and busier these days. As we are nearing the April 1, 2010 filing deadline for the H1B visa. Many speculations out there as to when will the Cap be reached this year. The economy is still in recovery mode, and employers are careful before hiring. Yet, many Immigration experts feel the Cap will be met early this year, but when is the big question.
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
With drastic changes to the Labor Condition Application (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/07/icert_portal_for_lca_filing.html)process (now taking more than 7 days to process), as well as unreasonable denials (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/08/h1b_visa_lawyer_about_icert_wo.html), planning early is the key to a successful H1B case this year. But in this post, I want to go back to the basics, the Cap and the legislative background.
Background
On October 21, 1998 Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the much debated American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277 (hereinafter ACWIA). This legislation was first introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, in response to the inadequate numbers of H-1B visas available in any fiscal year. As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress imposed a 65,000 per year cap on these visas. In 1997, the cap was reached prior to the end of the fiscal year. The situation grew to crisis proportions in fiscal year 1998 when all 65,000 visas numbers were taken in May of 1998.
In early March 1998, Senator Abraham introduced a bill entitled, "The American Competitiveness Act." The legislation was introduced on the heels of numerous reports and hearings concerning the high tech worker shortage in the United States. The primary goal of the legislation was to address the looming exhaustion of the H-1B professional or specialty occupation worker visa numbers. (http://www.h1b.biz/lawyer-attorney-1137085.html)
The ACWIA went through many different stages before an agreement could be reached. A complete elimination of the cap had originally been proposed by Senator Abraham. The legislation was then modified to increase the number of H-1B visa numbers available during the government fiscal year; provide additional funds for scholarships in the computer science and mathematics areas; increase enforcement of the Department of Labor component of the H-1B visa process; and provide clarification on the prevailing wage requirements of the process. The legislation also addressed permanent residence by providing for an extension of the H-1B visa should a permanent residence petition be pending, and through restructuring the allocation of the employment-based immigrant visa numbers.
This legislative game between conservative isolationists/liberal protectors of the U.S. workforce and moderate Democrats and Republicans supporting business needs and demands, caused chaos among U.S.-based businesses in need of skilled professional workers. From May 11, 1998 until October 1, 1998 U.S. businesses, research institutions and other organizations were unable to recruit foreign workers as temporary professionals. With the U.S. economy still booming and unemployment rates remaining at an all-time low, businesses, especially in the high tech sector, encountered many problems as a result of the cut-off in H-1B visa availability. These problems included, but were not limited to, taking employees off the U.S. payroll, sending employees back to their home country or to sites outside the U.S. as well as the termination of some critical development projects.
Requirements in the Statute
The ACWIA purportedly balances the need for increased professional visas numbers for foreign workers and the desire to protect the U.S. workforce. The following is a summary of the significant changes made by the legislation.
A. Temporary Increase in the Number of Professional Visas Available
There will be an increase from 65,000 to 115,000 visas for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 (through September 30, 2000). In fiscal year 2001, 107,500 visas will be available. Beginning October 1, 2001 the numbers will revert back to 65,000.
B. Electronic Postings
LCA notices may be posted electronically in situations without a bargaining representative. This provision was effective upon date of enactment.
C. Attestations Required for Employers Dependent Upon Foreign Professionals
U.S. employers of 51 or more employees, whose workforce is comprised of 15% or more foreign nationals in the H-1B category are considered dependent employers and must make certain attestations. Employers will also be considered dependent if they employ 26- 50 full time employees and have more than 12 H-1B employees or if they employ 7 -25 employees and have more than 7 H-1B employees.
The dependent employer must attest that it has not and will not displace a U.S. worker within 90 days before and 90 days after filing the visa application. This attestation carries through to employers who place employees at another worksite. The H-1B dependent employer must also attest that it has taken good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers using industry wide standards and has offered the position to any U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified for the job the foreign worker is sought.
H-1B employees with a Master�s degree or a salary of $60,000 or higher are not included in the attestation requirements and for the first 6 months following the implementation will not be included in the dependent employer calculation.
D. Increased Enforcement and Penalties for Violations
The Department of Labor may fine employers between $1,000-$35,000 per violation and preclude participation in the H-1B program for up to three years.
E. Back Benching H-1B Employees
Employers must pay H-1B nonimmigrants the wage stated on the H-1B petition even if the beneficiary is in nonproductive status. This does not apply to non-productive time due to non work related factors.
F. Benefits
Employers must offer foreign workers benefits and eligibility for insurance, disability, retirement and savings plans, stock options, etc., on the same basis as offerings made to U.S. workers.
G. Additional Fee for Use of H-1B Program
Beginning December 1, 1998, employers are required to pay an additional fee of $500 for an initial H-1B petition and for the first extension. These fees are to be used to support job training programs and scholarships for U.S. workers.
H. Prevailing Wage Computations
For institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities or non profit or governmental research organizations, the prevailing wage shall take into account employees at such institutions in the area of employment.
I. Academic Honoraria
Payments of honoraria may now be made to B-1 and B-2 visitors for usual academic activity lasting 9 days at an academic institution or affiliated non-profit entity or a non-profit governmental research organization. No more than 5 honorarium may be received within a six month period.
Employers based in the U.S. now have a temporary reprieve when hiring foreign professionals. However, it is uncertain whether the 65,000 visas for this fiscal year will be adequate to meet the demand for this year and next. Some government officials estimate that visas will be unavailable as early as the beginning of May 2010. In addition, it is still unclear what is on the legislative horizon, reform or not. Pro Immigrants want to come with a proposal to reform legal immigration. U.S. employers employing foreign nationals in any capacity would be well advised to carefully monitor future legislative and regulatory proposals on the horizon. All I can say is that if you plan on hiring a foreign worker, you better call your lawyer now!!!
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/02/h1b_visa_lawyer_the_filing_sea.html)
ghost
09-21 12:04 PM
i kept telling you guys since last week
send faxes to congress /house...it is in the house where bills get structured.
make sure u add only the SKIL bill...just remove cap for ppl with advanced us degrees...that was the only thing the house had agreed to consider
but everyone on this forum ignored me
no it might be too little too late
i am not saying all i slost...atleast we got some action going amongst the members of this site
it aint rocket science guys....think about it from the lawmakers point of view....would they allow for more immigration frindly reforms now....no way...so be ready to compromise and suggest the ones which are truly benefecial to the US economy....
the bottom line was always...borders secure first..then talk about immigration reforms....
for the coming seasons....we have to push for nothing but the SKIL bill
that is the only bill that has hope
the other glimmer of hope in all this is the house has inadverently left out the fact on how they are going to fund the building of the wall
it is here that we step in...
fees for filing I485 for people under SKIL
fees for being able to file 485 before visa numbers
etc etc etc
we have to take advantage of this opportunity
in the mean while....SEND FAXES ABOUT SKIL BILL
You remind me of Katrina fiasco....Red Cross was asking for money and you are bent on sending food and clothes. Let the people in close proximity of washington decide what we need to do at this moment.
send faxes to congress /house...it is in the house where bills get structured.
make sure u add only the SKIL bill...just remove cap for ppl with advanced us degrees...that was the only thing the house had agreed to consider
but everyone on this forum ignored me
no it might be too little too late
i am not saying all i slost...atleast we got some action going amongst the members of this site
it aint rocket science guys....think about it from the lawmakers point of view....would they allow for more immigration frindly reforms now....no way...so be ready to compromise and suggest the ones which are truly benefecial to the US economy....
the bottom line was always...borders secure first..then talk about immigration reforms....
for the coming seasons....we have to push for nothing but the SKIL bill
that is the only bill that has hope
the other glimmer of hope in all this is the house has inadverently left out the fact on how they are going to fund the building of the wall
it is here that we step in...
fees for filing I485 for people under SKIL
fees for being able to file 485 before visa numbers
etc etc etc
we have to take advantage of this opportunity
in the mean while....SEND FAXES ABOUT SKIL BILL
You remind me of Katrina fiasco....Red Cross was asking for money and you are bent on sending food and clothes. Let the people in close proximity of washington decide what we need to do at this moment.
2011 The Urban Hanging Garden Ideas
zCool
05-17 07:27 PM
you are going to have to do some type of litigation.. which court and how are questions for your lawyers.. This forum is probably not right place.. start with attorny.. make sure it's not your attornies who screwed up..
have proof of documents for all the facts
and then go file in one of the federal courts..
have proof of documents for all the facts
and then go file in one of the federal courts..
more...
ivdude
10-02 02:00 PM
Literally, windsor(Canada) and Detroit (USA) are seperated by river, so keeping GC and PR is like riding in two boats ... not possible. While Canadians are liberal in allowing their immigrants to travel daily into US to conduct their jobs ( that brings easy tax $$), it would be inconvienent to track daily movements out of country for GC. Remember at US citizenship, you will be asked to provide detailed log of trvels outside the country. So trip to Windsor is technically outside the country.
I had Canadian PR and am giving it up, because I finally got GC. With GCI can trvel freely into Canada. Plus even before Canadian PR, I never lived in Canada nor do I plan to in future. So why bother.
Did you hand over PR Cards to canadian govt or nothing has to be done.
I had Canadian PR and am giving it up, because I finally got GC. With GCI can trvel freely into Canada. Plus even before Canadian PR, I never lived in Canada nor do I plan to in future. So why bother.
Did you hand over PR Cards to canadian govt or nothing has to be done.
dunkin
07-01 03:20 PM
will it help to also write to our respective senators regarding this?
more...
ksita48
09-03 11:02 PM
My H1 has expired on 31st August, 2009. My disgraced company applied for extention in the month of May 2009 in regular Processing. Still waiting for Approval and have Receipt Notice only from Vermount center.:confused::mad::(:(:eek::eek:
2010 garden ideas Design Office
sanjeev.mehra@gmail.com
08-05 04:21 PM
I know this is not a good question as there is no time frame for GC process?
But please share your experience;
How many years it could take to get GC if it is started with in Aug. 2008 for
-EB2 category
-EB3 category
I am trying to understand the time (years) difference between two process.
Thanks,
Sanjeev.
But please share your experience;
How many years it could take to get GC if it is started with in Aug. 2008 for
-EB2 category
-EB3 category
I am trying to understand the time (years) difference between two process.
Thanks,
Sanjeev.
more...
Fran
08-14 11:57 AM
Similar threads have been started before as lot of LUD's have been seen on 07/22 07/28 08/05 and 08/12. I think concensus was that this has nothing to do with 485 data entry as check cashing did not match the LUD dates. But interesting pooint raised in this thread that it might be about which july apps to batch transfer from LIN to SRC. 07/22 might be around the time when LIN started to look at first few july filers apps.
hair Garden-ideas-with-lavender.jpg
Sakthisagar
11-17 09:16 AM
The President is once again giving Political KULFI to all Legal immigrants.
See below
In an Oval Office meeting today, the President and leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) � U.S. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, U.S. Representative Nydia Velazquez of New York, and U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois � discussed the options on immigration reform immediately facing the Congress. He thanked them for their constant efforts on this issue. The President and the CHC leaders believe that, before adjourning, Congress should approve the DREAM Act. This legislation has traditionally enjoyed support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and would give young people who were brought as minors to the United States by their parents the opportunity to earn their citizenship by pursuing a college degree or through military service.The President reiterated his support for fixing the broken immigration system and urged the CHC leaders to work to restore the bipartisan coalition backing comprehensive immigration reform. The President repeated his hope that, with the election season�s pressures past, Congressional Republicans would work with their Democratic colleagues not only to strengthen security at the nation�s borders, but also to restore responsibility and accountability to what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. The President reiterated his strong support for bipartisan Congressional action on immigration reform at the earliest opportunity, noting that the American people expect both parties to work together to tackle the challenges confronting our nation.
Readout of the President's Meeting with Representatives of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Today | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/16/readout-presidents-meeting-with-representatives-congressional-hispanic-c)
See below
In an Oval Office meeting today, the President and leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) � U.S. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, U.S. Representative Nydia Velazquez of New York, and U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois � discussed the options on immigration reform immediately facing the Congress. He thanked them for their constant efforts on this issue. The President and the CHC leaders believe that, before adjourning, Congress should approve the DREAM Act. This legislation has traditionally enjoyed support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and would give young people who were brought as minors to the United States by their parents the opportunity to earn their citizenship by pursuing a college degree or through military service.The President reiterated his support for fixing the broken immigration system and urged the CHC leaders to work to restore the bipartisan coalition backing comprehensive immigration reform. The President repeated his hope that, with the election season�s pressures past, Congressional Republicans would work with their Democratic colleagues not only to strengthen security at the nation�s borders, but also to restore responsibility and accountability to what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. The President reiterated his strong support for bipartisan Congressional action on immigration reform at the earliest opportunity, noting that the American people expect both parties to work together to tackle the challenges confronting our nation.
Readout of the President's Meeting with Representatives of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Today | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/16/readout-presidents-meeting-with-representatives-congressional-hispanic-c)
more...
karn.anand
11-04 01:06 AM
there is one more button i have posted that is not listed..
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=338103
http://www.kirupa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=338103
hot Best Garden Ideas 495x495 2011
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
07-24 09:12 AM
xbcsd
more...
house Indoor Gardening Ideas
dsneyog
11-29 07:51 PM
I would still like to know if I can e-file? This is the first time I am filing for AP. I didn't do it along with my EAD application.
Thanks
Thanks
tattoo Urban Hanging Garden Ideas
godbless
12-14 04:12 PM
Thanks all.
1) While filing AP online it asks if I want to add more filings. I want to add my wife's I-131 as well. Also my wife is a derivative beneficiary of my pending 485. So, my question is should my wife and my AP supporting documents be mailed in the same packet, even though I will
create 2 separate files in the same packet. Please advise. Else, how will they know that my wife's AP renewal is linked to mine.
2) There is a section which asks for the data of Intended departure. In paper based filing i would type unknown at present time. But in e-file, i cant type that in the date field. Can I leave this field and the length of stay blank ?
3) Part 7 Info for me asks only if my trip is for single entry or multiple entry. It does not ask for any supplemental Info. What is this supplemental info people talk about ?
__________________________________________________ _
1. Make 2 sets of documents and send them separately. They would know because you would send a copy of I 485 petition of your wife as well in her packet.
2. You can put some future date in there.
3. It will be multiple entry. You have to write some thing describing the need for this AP.
I hope it helps.
1) While filing AP online it asks if I want to add more filings. I want to add my wife's I-131 as well. Also my wife is a derivative beneficiary of my pending 485. So, my question is should my wife and my AP supporting documents be mailed in the same packet, even though I will
create 2 separate files in the same packet. Please advise. Else, how will they know that my wife's AP renewal is linked to mine.
2) There is a section which asks for the data of Intended departure. In paper based filing i would type unknown at present time. But in e-file, i cant type that in the date field. Can I leave this field and the length of stay blank ?
3) Part 7 Info for me asks only if my trip is for single entry or multiple entry. It does not ask for any supplemental Info. What is this supplemental info people talk about ?
__________________________________________________ _
1. Make 2 sets of documents and send them separately. They would know because you would send a copy of I 485 petition of your wife as well in her packet.
2. You can put some future date in there.
3. It will be multiple entry. You have to write some thing describing the need for this AP.
I hope it helps.
more...
pictures 7 modern garden ideas Urban
tigerlibra
09-28 04:31 PM
Would greatly appreciate some advice regarding my fiancee.
She is currently in the US on a B1-B2 Tourist/Business visa. This is her fifth visa and has visited the US a total of 10 times over the past 5 years, spending 1-5 months each time. She has NEVER had a problem on arrival at the airport, never been called into the room for questioning, etc.
We are planning on getting married, but we need to make a trip to her home country for my work in the next few weeks for about a month. We were planning on waiting till 30 days after our return to marry and then to apply for her I-130/I-485 after that.
We just had a consultation with an immigration lawyer who recommended that she does NOT leave the country, and that we should get married ASAP and apply for the I-130/I-485 now, wait 2-3 months and make our trip then. The lawyer thought that there was a possibility that she might not be admitted the next time she comes in if the border agent has even the tiniest suspicion that she is entering to get married.
Although her previous B1-B2 visas were renewed each year without an interview, this year she was called in and they asked her some questions. She mentioned that she was doing some work for me in China, and that she would be staying with me in the US. She also put me down as her financial guarantee in the US.
I understand the basics of dual intent, and would not want to compromise her ability to enter the country.
Of course no one can know for sure, but would be grateful for some experienced advice about this. What are her chances of being refused entry when she returns? (Her visa is valid for one year, so it would be on the same visa she arrived here on this summer.) Would it be better if she arrived on a different flight than me? Or even better if she arrived on a flight to another city rather than the one where we live?
Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
She is currently in the US on a B1-B2 Tourist/Business visa. This is her fifth visa and has visited the US a total of 10 times over the past 5 years, spending 1-5 months each time. She has NEVER had a problem on arrival at the airport, never been called into the room for questioning, etc.
We are planning on getting married, but we need to make a trip to her home country for my work in the next few weeks for about a month. We were planning on waiting till 30 days after our return to marry and then to apply for her I-130/I-485 after that.
We just had a consultation with an immigration lawyer who recommended that she does NOT leave the country, and that we should get married ASAP and apply for the I-130/I-485 now, wait 2-3 months and make our trip then. The lawyer thought that there was a possibility that she might not be admitted the next time she comes in if the border agent has even the tiniest suspicion that she is entering to get married.
Although her previous B1-B2 visas were renewed each year without an interview, this year she was called in and they asked her some questions. She mentioned that she was doing some work for me in China, and that she would be staying with me in the US. She also put me down as her financial guarantee in the US.
I understand the basics of dual intent, and would not want to compromise her ability to enter the country.
Of course no one can know for sure, but would be grateful for some experienced advice about this. What are her chances of being refused entry when she returns? (Her visa is valid for one year, so it would be on the same visa she arrived here on this summer.) Would it be better if she arrived on a different flight than me? Or even better if she arrived on a flight to another city rather than the one where we live?
Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
dresses Garden Ideas fusion style
desi3933
03-02 10:37 AM
Thanks SL & Lost in GC process,
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Thanks
Senthil
If you have approved I-140 and your PD is not current, your employer can seek 3 year extension for H-1B under section 104(c) of AC21. In this case, the H-1B petition must request three years, and also include a LCA covering such period of extension sought.
____________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
Sorry for not being clear in C & D. I am in US. The question I meant to ask is about the the time that I am not physically present in US i.e. If I went for vacction in India for a month, can that one month be included in my H1B1 extension since I was not physically present in US. In other words I would file for 1.1 year extension as opposed to 1 year
One the same topic, a friend of mine got a three year extension post 6 years of H1B. When asked, his lawyer informed, if you have an approved I140 then you are elegible for 3 years extension as opposed to 1 year. Is this true. Can some refer to the right CFR's
Thanks
Senthil
If you have approved I-140 and your PD is not current, your employer can seek 3 year extension for H-1B under section 104(c) of AC21. In this case, the H-1B petition must request three years, and also include a LCA covering such period of extension sought.
____________________
Not a legal advice
US citizen of Indian origin
more...
makeup -Vertical-Garden-Ideas-4
aat0995
01-15 10:03 AM
Hi!
I was wondering if you guys know any link on Dept on labor (or uscis.gov) that says that employer is responsible for all the legal(lawyer) fees. I work for a government firm and they only pay H1b fees that they are supposed to pay to USCIS. At the same time, they force me to hire a lawyer (I cannot file it myself) and they want me to pay for the lawyer.
I was wondering if you know of any law that I can show them and ask them to pay for the same.
Thanks in advance :)
-Supported the million dollar drive
I was wondering if you guys know any link on Dept on labor (or uscis.gov) that says that employer is responsible for all the legal(lawyer) fees. I work for a government firm and they only pay H1b fees that they are supposed to pay to USCIS. At the same time, they force me to hire a lawyer (I cannot file it myself) and they want me to pay for the lawyer.
I was wondering if you know of any law that I can show them and ask them to pay for the same.
Thanks in advance :)
-Supported the million dollar drive
girlfriend Yard garden ideas collections
spulavarthi
08-27 02:55 PM
2 weeks back we rec'd 2 yr EAD renewal expiring August 2010 TSC, current EAD expired 08/20/2008.
EB2 - I
PD : Feb 2006
I-140 approved Nov 2006.
EB2 - I
PD : Feb 2006
I-140 approved Nov 2006.
hairstyles Garden Design Ideas 2011
GCwaitforever
07-12 07:29 AM
Part of the problem is the employers do not have a long term plan for their companies. They are always on look out for a fast buck. If employee satisfaction and client satisfaction are more, the company has better chance of growing. Typically when the client is satisfied, the company gets more projects and this way the set-up costs like relocation, travel expenses come down. Companies can not break the law just because they are not able to make a profit.
tigerlibra
09-29 05:52 PM
Hello,
Does anyone have any suggestions ?
Thank you...
Does anyone have any suggestions ?
Thank you...
jasonmc86
07-27 06:55 AM
I've also found that the dataset actually updates inside the program so that seems to be working alright however just the writing of any xml file after a openFileDialog is used doesnt seem to write.
No comments:
Post a Comment